Ohh for sure. That is also my position. I was just pointing out that people do not pick a car for the entertainment, but it can sway a purchase. An auto maker that keeps an open platform might have a stronger third party market that helps sway people into their cars, so even in their "we are trying to maximize our profits" still have a reasoning for it. Of course good luck telling senior management.

It makes sense for everybody, except for those with a financial interest in selling and/or haggling over software licenses. That's not only the companies producing the actual software, but also legal firms and similar "specialists" who siphon off money from this system of complex IP law.

IMO the only way to transition to more software being open sourced, is to deconstruct these vested intrests with regulation. We need to fundamentally restructure the way software development is funded, and transition away from a model where ownership is the only thing that's profitable.

Doing that is delicate though, because as backlash from those vested interests, a lot of workers will likely lose their jobs. You need to make sure those people easily find new jobs working on open source, and communicate that effectively, so workers' job insecurity is as low as possible during the transition.