I agree with parts about entitlement. The expectation of support and treatment of open source software as if it was proprietary is a real problem.

But, the authour makes a similar mistake - they conflate open source software with source-available (proprietary) software. As an example, I strongly disagree with this part:

When software is open-source, it is open-source, not necessarily free and open-source (FOSS), and even if it is FOSS, it might still have a restrictive licence. The code being available in and of itself does not give you a right to take it, modify it, or redistribute it.

If you replace it with this version, I am happy:

When software is source-available, it is source-available, not necessarily open source or free and open-source (FOSS). The code being distributed under a source available license does not give you a right to take it, modify it, or redistribute it.

I think it’s really important that we keep a clear delineation between free/open source software on one side, and source-available (proprietary software) on the other.

A lot of companies are trying to co-opt and blur the meaning of the term so they can say “seeing the source was always the point, none of the other freedoms mattered”, in order to sell you proprietary licenses.

Open source gives you the right to take, modify and redistribute it. Source available does not. And that’s ok, just please don’t blur the terms together.

even if it is FOSS, it might still have a restrictive license

Likewise, this is definitionally untrue. The whole purpose of FOSS is to give you the four freedoms.

I would love for such a fund to invest very liberally in these companies, on the condition that anything it funds must be free and open source - public money, public code! The only way to take down these giant US companies is to work together, and the most effective way to work together is to release everything in the open in such a way that anyone can build on top of it.

If the money just gets funneled into these companies so they can build their own lock-in, the EU would be recreating the same dependency on a few small companies that happened in the US. It wouldn’t increase productivity in the long run, it would instead substitute dependency on a few US companies for a few EU companies.

But, if they invest in open source software, it could spur innovation not only in the companies that are directly funded, but also thousands of other companies throughout the EU that would now have common infrastructure that they can build on top of.

That’s good news, in my opinion. If they’re allowed to just completely disregard copyright when training, then I should be able to completely disregard any attempted copyright on the output too.