The comment was about development, not just "early development"; and it was about development and marketing, not just development. The value of an operating sy

The comment was about development, not just "early development"; and it was about development and marketing, not just development. The value of an operating system derives primarily from the applications that run on it, and this is very much affected by the business case, which includes ongoing development and marketing. Unix had that. Even for the early development, I wonder if Thompson and Richie (and the rest of the team) would have been employed to create software in general in the first place, if their employer would not have some form of ownership in it... Doesn't sound like how a monopolist thinks to me. This is not to deride linux (which is great; I'm using it now), but to note the role that copyright plays in securing investment in a platform. Attracting users to a platform requires a lot of investment; it's much, much more than just building the platform technology. I think a much better example to support your case is Python (also Perl/Ruby/PHP/emacs). Very successful; a platform; and not a replication of a commercial platform. In contrast, many successful open source projects follow commercial projects. Why is this? There's pre-existing demand for it; and having a technical guide and an existing user-base makes it comparatively straightforward and reduces the risk (i.e. compared with starting something entirely new). I speak as someone who has replicated an existing product; and is now creating something entirely new. I find the latter tremendously more demanding. There's no pre-existng technical guide, and there's pre-existing demand for this particular approach.