There are two types of innovation. Corporate innovation and voluntary innovation. Both types of innovation are important but corporate innovation can only exist if there is some sort of intellectual property system. The IP system doesn't create innovation on its own, the potential for innovation has to already exist and the IP system is merely enabling it. Therefore when you are introducing an IP system you are making a trade off between the two types.

If you have no IP system then you are too dependent on people innovating for the sake of innovation because they enjoy it. If you have an extreme IP system then you are too dependent on corporations innovating for the sake of profit maximization. Both extremes limit overall innovation. There is a sweet spot in the middle where you both maximize corporate and voluntary innovation. The current copyright system is the closest to that sweet spot but it's leaning closer to corporate than voluntary because of its long duration. The current IP protection is good for both corporations and the open source/FOSS community. There is an opportunity to commercialize opensource software and make it easier to sponsor the developers but if the current system was kept until the end of humanity we wouldn't miss out on too much innovation.

But this article isn't about keeping what we have. Software is about to receive an additional IP system. One that is completely inaccessible to voluntary innovation. We are bound to leave the sweet spot at this rate and prioritize corporate innovation above everything else, even if it means there will be less innovation overall.