IMHO, Open Source is often misunderstood by companies as free code as in cheap, when in fact it should be seen as collaborative code that aims to avoid redundan

IMHO, Open Source is often misunderstood by companies as free code as in cheap, when in fact it should be seen as collaborative code that aims to avoid redundancy, saving companies countless hours of development, research, fixing compatibility issues and so on, due to such collaborative union between all the developers, mainly the maintainer(s), albeit at the cost of sometimes excessively generic non-performing code, and, here we go, albeit at the cost of potential security vulnerabilities that keep requiring an investment that has been largely ignored. Perhaps companies should take the necessary reversal for the security of their business and create roles within the organization as guys who exclusively and actively revise the code being used, at the same time as internally classifying the integrity of genuine maintainers to ensure that bad guys don't get paychecks from either the company and the community, by showing facts. It doesn't solve the problem, but I think it should be a generalized procedure, not just something that very few big companies seem to be doing, and one can see it's not enough. Ironically, most companies ignoring the issue appear to be targets. Although it did cross my mind that maybe such companies are not just misunderstanding open source as free code as in cheap, but maybe they also consider the security issues and repercussions as cheap; and if this is what is happening, maybe governments across the glove should impose large fines for data leaks and vulnerabilities in their systems, proportional to the company's revenues, proportional as in making them invest in security. in addition to what the article suggest. I don't know. I'm just thinking loudly, certainly the problem is not easy to solve.