Seems a little disingenuous to assume that GP meant that everyone should fully maintain their own OSS stack, when their comment could be read far more reasonably as a solution for when those processes aren't serving your needs entirely.
Yeah, that is why I rephrased it, to with OSS you can own and maintain your full stack.
Op said "must".
If each individual licensee is itching their own scratches, then there's a really good chance the entire codebase gets love.
Absolutist approaches are the death of all good things. "Some" is better than "none."
Agreed. Hence "can" and not "must".
People (sysadmins) have been doing this for years--it's nothing new. Software doesn't break that often. You generally start with wherever you're hitting the bug. Maintaining, running, and operating software is significantly different than writing from scratch (and generally less labor intensive)
What do you do when you hit a bug in production caused by some OSS? Throw your hands up and tell management you opened an issue on the issue tracker?
Sure I didn't have to but isn't that the point of open source?
No, we do not have to do this. We wouldn't get anything done, if we tried to maintain our full oss stack. Where would you start? In the linux kernel and move your way up to chromium/firefox? Have fun out there.
"There seems to be a hesitance to fork abandoned or slow moving software to update/fix issues "
And it is often easier to reimplement something from scratch, than taking up some underdocumented mess and trying to make sense of it.
So I would rephrase that to
" using OSS means we can own and maintain the software whether the original community/author does or not."