[mdavis6890]

Actually I think open source supports the author's point. Lots of open source projects are cool. Not very many make money. In fact sitting here I can't even think of one. Okay, Red Hat made money for a while.

[rektide]

This superficial judgementality ignores the whole point that most of the computing on the planet is powered by open source. Look at github stars or npm popularity: devs sell all the time. To other devs. In an arena of ideas, competing against each other, vying for usefulness. That money is somewhat orthogonal is part of why so many of these ideas spread so widely, are able to power so so so many commercial enterprises.

The exchange is also somewhat more intellectually honest- maybe not totally egalitarian peership, but more on the level of even & honest exchange, rather than dumbing down a complex situation idea & gussying it up as product, as salvation. Which this article pitches as the nee-plus-ultra.

The truth is inbetween. But the article totally stomps over truthfulness & intellect & engagement in favor of it's own preferred idea of selling.

[CaptArmchair]

That's conflating a licensing choice with a business goal. Slapping an open source license on code isn't a business model. Licensing choices do inform what kind of business model the author of the code is going to follow.

The main difference between open / closed source is that the IP is or isn't sold for a licensing fee itself. If the latter is true, you need an alternate business model. One alternative is selling something tangential to your project: typically expertise in installing, operating, maintaining the code. Consultancy. Another alternative is leveraging open source software to sell a service: hosting, CRM, managed services, social media, etc. etc.

All of a sudden, open source becomes very profitable.