No, the claim is: for programmers, it's better to work for a company who supports open source than one that doesn't.

As the article mentioned, work is important for life. It gives your mind varied experiences, which keeps it sharp. Open source means the value of your work doesn't evaporate once you leave the company.

Of course, you could try to fill 8 hours a day with something besides programming once your retire. But it's still strictly better to have the OPTION to continue programming, and even better to do it with some of the same code (assuming nontrivial codebases).

If you spend 30 years doing something 40 hours a week, you're going to be a lot better at it than something you only did on weekends. And at least for me, the reward is tied to the accomplishment.

For example, I've been learning how make videos with a DSLR recently. But this is at most a weekend thing. It's not that rewarding in the initial stages since I'm not good at it, and nobody cares about the end result because it's not good enough. With programming that's not the case.

If I were retired, I wouldn't be able to build meaningful work out of shooting video (or at least it would take another 5-10 years to do so). But I would be able to with programming, outside of a job. I could teach programming too, whereas I can't teach video.

But of course it's good to cultivate other hobbies... you could get crippling RSI and not be able to program. But my point is that work is privileged over hobbies. It's a different thing. Dawdling around with no goal is what makes people lose their mental toughness.

I think the idea is that there's a potentially meaningful part of someone's life outside of their company if what they work on isn't just contained in their company. I don't read it as the OP suggesting it's a precondition for a meaningful life; it seems to be one potential path.