It does not generate obscene wealth disparities though—and some see that as a bug.
Open source is not an economic system in the sense in which this term is generally used.
> Open source has proved itself to be vastly superior to closed source development models.
"Superior" by which metric?
We should move to a society where we look at software engineers as we look at road builders. City workers build roads, the people use those roads. Likewise, engineers build software, the people use said software. Our current system of (c)opywrong is bizarre and unnatural.
> "Superior" by which metric?
Well, I'm responding to your comment using an open source operating system running an open source web browser on an open source platform and you will likely read it on the same. I still use a handful of closed source products (Sublime Text comes to mind) but that's the exception, rather than the rule. This is vastly different from 25 years ago.
In the long run, licenses are for losers.
How do you propose that the authors of Sublime Text make a living?
Road projects are funded by the government at some level - taxes and municipal bonds. I'm not sure how that would work for software which has a potentially worldwide audience.
There's also the "what gets built" is determined by the government. So, office products get funded - but not games (unless you're fortunate enough to get a government grant https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/2162800/view/3729584... ).
And do you want to run a government funded operating system and web browser?
I don't see a model where this works... unless you're thinking of toll roads as micro transactions and advertiser supported billboards while playing games.
Or you just mean that you don’t want programmers to make money?
