Her conclusions go beyond "it's a money issue". They touch on the nature of open source as a public good and the skewed relationship between those who use open source and those who maintain it.
To my mind, there's a third component, and that's the notion that open source developers themselves are willing to risk poverty to achieve their own particular vision. In a way, that makes them not all to different from other artists who have struggled historically with the same type of tension.
What makes all the difference is how code - or art - is valued by those who use it. That is: real or perceived value. While Babel has become a bedrock of frontend development, I can't help but wonder if it would have held a similar spot if it was sold under a closed source license. And if a closed source solution would have sparked someone to build an open source alternative in their free time.
[1] https://www.fordfoundation.org/work/learning/research-report...