The real issue is that people just aren't thinking through the effects a license brings. They'll release things under open source licenses like the GPL because

The real issue is that people just aren't thinking through the effects a license brings. They'll release things under open source licenses like the GPL because it's the 'expected' thing to do, or because they want others to be able to contribute to it, or what not, without thinking through what it allows others to do in turn (use it without paying, rerelease it themselves, fork the project, etc). So a lot of companies start up thinking they can open source their code, and treat their project like it was under a proprietary license with source available, then realise the hard way that's not the case. And a lot of authors release stuff for free when they don't see the value of it, then realise years later that they could be getting paid for their efforts. And the article is right that it's probably not going to be possible to outcompete open source with any new license or incentive structure. Once people are used to something being free to use without any limits, any less free alternative is going to severely struggle to gain traction.