wild eyed FOSS zealot

Open Source Bloggers Don't Let the Facts Confuse Them When Attacking Microsoft

The problem here is obvious - Apparently the Stanford researchers, the author of the unfortunately titled abstract, and finally you actually have no idea what "Open-Source Technology" is. You managed to almost point out their gaffe in your article, but then you went on to provide a... unique interpretation of what you think "Open Source" means.

Let me help: "Open Source" means that you can *see the source*, because it's "open". It has *nothing* to do with whether it's "free" or not, either figuratively or literally. In fact, there is plenty of literally "free" software that is not "Open Source".

So, even the title of the paper is based on ignorance. The abstract certainly is, and your article as well.

Maybe you ought to familiarize yourself with what it is you're ranting about. Then you can explain to the brain trust at Stanford Business school that "Open Source" doesn't necessarily mean "free" in any sense of the word and that Businesses are just as likely to have to compete with "Closed Source" technology that is also "free" (literally).