If you take away licensing restrictions, then those business models that depend on licensing revenue are naturally going to suffer. But that's almost a mathematical truth and fairly obvious.
But there are lots of other businesses out there that make heavy use of open source software to make a lot of money selling something other than licenses. And those businesses often recognize an interest in contributing to the software upon which they depend.
... 90% of its revenue, yes, we all know this. The uppost was basically saying that its revenue is derived at least partially from the use of open source (not in the selling of services around the use of open source by its customers, as say Red Hat does). IT's a digression from the point of the original article, but in short: many very successful commercial enterprises depend heavily on open source to get their work done. It wouldn't make sense any other way- the licensing costs to assemble the equivalent of GNU/Linux and the code that runs on top of it, using only proprietary software, would be ruinous, and in many cases, there just aren't superior commercial equivalents anyway.
If you take away licensing restrictions, then those business models that depend on licensing revenue are naturally going to suffer. But that's almost a mathematical truth and fairly obvious.
But there are lots of other businesses out there that make heavy use of open source software to make a lot of money selling something other than licenses. And those businesses often recognize an interest in contributing to the software upon which they depend.