A good analysis of what open source enables - Facebook et al. were able to build their companies more easily using it.
But you forget to compare it to the alternative, where there is no significant open source or libre software available.
You can't run Linux, you have to trust Windows not to backdoor you. There is no Signal or Matrix or other encrypted messaging - or if there is, you have no way of verifying it. If you want to write a .txt file, you must pay for a close-source text editor. Or a very expensive compiler, if you're a programmer. Is the compiler backdooring your code? Maybe. You must find paid alternatives for all the free software you rely on, for work, or for your hobbies.
And who builds that paid software? Not a garage shop - they could never afford all the compilers and libraries and tools necessary. Only billion-dollar+ companies, engaging in incestuous cross-licensing, letting each-other use their tools, and crushing any upstarts.
If open source (or even copyleft) benefits those in power, closed source benefits them infinitely more.
Indeed Open Source also benefits Libre Software today. But do we really know what the ecosystem would be like today in a world where only Copyleft existed ?
Linux itself is GPL, so are some of the distributions. Hurd hasn't seen adoption, probably because the alternative is good enough.
Signal is still there, client and server. But maybe it wasn't needed because ejabberd, one of the biggest XMPP servers, was already there and powering all messenger platforms.
You're assuming that if developers didn't license under non-copyleft, they'd license under proprietary instead; there's no real reason to believe this. And as many examples have shown, many of the tools we use aren't actually made by billion-dollar companies but by single developers on their free time. The examples in the article show it, Werner Koch (the guy behind OpenPGP) has been asking for funding for years (decades ?). ssh, curl, ...
Anyway, that world is so different that we'll probably never know how it'll work, so here is the area where the optimism of people are visible and I myself believe Copyleft could have been a success.
Ah, sorry. I misunderstood you as talking about the problems of open source in general, but you were referring only to non-copyleft open source. In that case I think we agree.
But you forget to compare it to the alternative, where there is no significant open source or libre software available.
You can't run Linux, you have to trust Windows not to backdoor you. There is no Signal or Matrix or other encrypted messaging - or if there is, you have no way of verifying it. If you want to write a .txt file, you must pay for a close-source text editor. Or a very expensive compiler, if you're a programmer. Is the compiler backdooring your code? Maybe. You must find paid alternatives for all the free software you rely on, for work, or for your hobbies.
And who builds that paid software? Not a garage shop - they could never afford all the compilers and libraries and tools necessary. Only billion-dollar+ companies, engaging in incestuous cross-licensing, letting each-other use their tools, and crushing any upstarts.
If open source (or even copyleft) benefits those in power, closed source benefits them infinitely more.