Thanks for sharing this, Erik. For those who haven't read it yet, the article sketches the consequences of a [perhaps natural] human drive to take stuff because it's free. Corporate users extend too little financial support to open source developers. [In a way, large corporate Terraform users who didn't contract for support did that to Hashicorp.] AI makes an open-source project's spec, not its code, valuable. Rather than incur what are [wrongly] perceived as extra legal and security risks by adopting an entire open-source package, large corporate users can afford to use expensive AI models to re-implement the parts they need. I find it interesting that the authors cite "recognition" as the human motivation for contributing to open source. To that I'd add professional learning (we learn by doing, in this case, by enhancing or creating, not merely using, software), demonstration of competence (proof of work, which ought to be worth more than words on a résumé), and plain innovation (individuals and small groups try new ideas whereas corporations avoid risk). I'd love to hear other people's thoughts about the article…

I find it interesting that the authors cite "recognition" as the human motivation for contributing to open source.

This wouldn't be the first thing; for example, we get a lot of first time contributors and I don't think most of the one-off PRs are for recognition.