I don’t know who is arguing this because it’s incredibly stupid.

It’s not a hard question to solve: who profits from the argument?

Well, a voice bandwidth (say: 36kBaud) communication line was provided at a price of roughly $45 per hour (in todays US$) for decades before the AT&T breakup. Movies like 2001 and Blade Runner envisioned a future of video phone-booths where “the phone company” would charge more for a 3 minute video call than most people spend on lunch. Those kinds of economic strangleholds - charging thousands of times what the actual cost of service delivery is - definitely stifle innovation, much like utility tariff rates on solar power connection to the grid mostly decide where rooftop solar power is rolled out at scale, and where it isn’t.

Almost all modern architecture would collapse without the open source ecosystem.

If you yanked it away all at once, sure. Just like society would collapse if we quit delivering gasoline and diesel to the filling stations, or electricity to the grid.

If the opensource ecosystem “went closed” today, meaning: no new developments or changes allowed to be used by commercial entities, there would be an initial surge-panic to bring maintenance of the open source tools they use in-house, probably under shared development agreements - it would be interesting to see how the corporations handle that hypothetical scenario, but I don’t think they’d collapse at any greater rate than they already collapse as part of the course of regular business.

The ironic thing I think would come out of the open source community “cutting off” business use of their newly developed things is: I would predict business to adopt the open model to keep their customers off their backs, not have to handle support the way they did in the 1980s/ early 90s - that was super expensive as compared to: here’s a link to our website, you can find what you’re asking for in there.