well, that's wrong because Microsoft and other companies were worried about free (and therefore, open source) software.
IMO, open source (without any mention of the ideological aspect of liberty and freedom) is/was their remedy for this
> If you follow the above, you’ll see the supposed “free rider” problem is simply a natural consequence of open source being free as in beer: it’s not a problem to be solved, it’s a consequence to be embraced and exploited.
"to be embraced and exploiting" is referring to the consequence, not to the open source developers.
What the author is trying to say is that a large segment of the users of open source software are using it because it is free as in beer. That sounds like a problem, and it is if you are narrow-mindedly thinking about how to monetize the open source software directly. But there are other ways for open source developers to take advantage of the opportunity.
> That sounds like a problem, and it is if you are narrow-mindedly thinking about how to monetize the open source software directly.
That may be true, but there is another thing to consider: earning a living by running a business is challenging. Many people do not earn enough money for it to be worth while. Most will have to put up with other businesses trying to freeload, or at the very least cut an unreasonable deal. It is easy to claim the difficulties with open source exist because the software is free (as in beer). Indeed, it is probably more difficult to make money because of that. On the other hand, it is also a difficulty faced by all businesses.
taken from the article: "it’s not a problem to be solved, it’s a consequence to be embraced and exploited (if you’re clever enough)"
another interesting quote: "Microsoft and other companies railed about Open Source being a cancer on intellectual property: because it is"
none of the points made by the author are fundamental truth and most of his actual points are in direct opposition to what I do in my own OSS bubble everyday