I don’t find myself disagreeing with anything they said.
But I think the key reason open source persists, is its availability. Even if it’s not the best software, it’s available in 5 years, in 10 years, and 15 years. So many companies outcompete open source projects, and then die on the vine, and disappear. They never get to actually compete in the evolution of the software.
For all of open source’s faults, it’s available, so it can evolve over time, it is persistent.
Someone described open source as the commons of capital and I guess that’s not entirely incorrect. The availability of boring things like server operating systems, encryption libraries, etc, cheapens many commodities to the point where they are viable because people can afford them. Imagine the price of whatever IoT trinket is in vogue if the maker had to roll every software it touches from scratch.
I don’t think source-available licenses have any chance of outcompeting open source, or at least I hope developers won’t let them.
Open source thrives on contributions. The moment you restrict what I can do with the software I’m supposed to contribute to is the moment I ask myself: “am I being asked to work for free, solely for the benefit of someone else?”.
The incentive to contribute completely disappears (at least to me) when I’m asked to do it for a project which “belongs to someone in particular”.
