That's not the point I took from it
He seemed to say pretty clearly up front that Open Source was an assumed good. What I saw as his main point was that a particular reason Open Source is good has been largely overlooked. Namely, that new programmers are growning up and being taught with no foundation in "the classics."
I have believed for a while that you can give someone a dictionary, thesaurus and grammar text, and they won't be a great writer. You can even have them read whatever cannon of classics you choose, and the average person might come to appreciate good writing. But very few will go on to become good writers themselves. That is still a special talent.
But, take away all this background, and the odds of anyone's becoming a great writer are almost nil. How is it, then, that we expect programmers to advance on the achievements of their predecessors if they aren't allowed to see their work?
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.