TL:DR - No one has to fix your problem unless you represent a significant portion of their income.
What I take from the whole article is the author severely underestimates the true cost of software.
FTA: "And while it's not pleasant, this approach has led me to realize, that in some cases, I simply couldn't afford certain software, even so it was offered to me at no charge."
This is all software, open source or not, unless you are paying for the direct development of it. There is plenty of closed source programs that I've seen companies tied up in that the manufacture quit supporting or wouldn't fix that cost tens of thousands of dollars in migration fees. The one benefit of open vs closed is that with open you have the option of posting
"I will pay the first person $1000 to fix X and release the code"
What I take from the whole article is the author severely underestimates the true cost of software.
FTA: "And while it's not pleasant, this approach has led me to realize, that in some cases, I simply couldn't afford certain software, even so it was offered to me at no charge."
This is all software, open source or not, unless you are paying for the direct development of it. There is plenty of closed source programs that I've seen companies tied up in that the manufacture quit supporting or wouldn't fix that cost tens of thousands of dollars in migration fees. The one benefit of open vs closed is that with open you have the option of posting
"I will pay the first person $1000 to fix X and release the code"