I'm more predisposed to believe the economic factor too. Much of OSS contribution is fair-weather stuff. And the weather just ain't fair.
Further, I have a pet theory that OSS is largely a cultural/generational thing. That is: OSS might have picked up steam simply as the only logical approach to creating software under the long shadow of Redmond. (If you kept the source and make a product, MS buys or buries you. So why not open it up?)
For many OSS projects, their purpose was to compete with stagnant lackluster industry standards and force them to move ahead.
But today's young geeks have no context for that. They haven't seen software monopoly stifle innovation. They take the current competitive atmosphere for granted.
It's much deeper than that. Think AT&T and the Unix source.
Remember for most of this time there was little overlap between the Unix and Windows worlds. A Unix user would no more care about Word and Excel than a Windows user would care about Emacs and FORTRAN.
Back in those days Microsoft developed software on a VAX and cross-compiled it, and had their own Unix, Xenix.
Further, I have a pet theory that OSS is largely a cultural/generational thing. That is: OSS might have picked up steam simply as the only logical approach to creating software under the long shadow of Redmond. (If you kept the source and make a product, MS buys or buries you. So why not open it up?)
For many OSS projects, their purpose was to compete with stagnant lackluster industry standards and force them to move ahead.
But today's young geeks have no context for that. They haven't seen software monopoly stifle innovation. They take the current competitive atmosphere for granted.