Yeah, the flaw in his assumption is that an enterprise will use anything other than completely open licenses. Most companies ban AGPL, and really anything other than FreeBSD or MIT licenses. Primarily because they don't want to built anything with a non-free licenses as otherwise amounts to a permanent tax for the software infrastructure going forward.
The second flaw is assuming open source developers should get paid. If they want to do that they can start a company and sell commercial software, or they can join a big company(Faang, RH, IBM, etc) that outputs open source as a matter of business. But anything else is wishful thinking.
The second flaw is assuming open source developers should get paid. If they want to do that they can start a company and sell commercial software, or they can join a big company(Faang, RH, IBM, etc) that outputs open source as a matter of business. But anything else is wishful thinking.