The parent said:

"Contributing to OSS is a non-zero-sum game and the sooner companies realize this, the better."

So I am asking him how could companies possibly think that contributing to OSS is a zero sum game? Its either zero sum or it is not. If they need to realize its non-zero-sum they would have to be under the impression that it was a zero-sum game.

I hope that cleared up my question. I'm sorry if my intentions were opaque, that was not my intention.

The default assumption ascribed to enterprise is that they don't want to contribute to open source because there is no "return" on such an investment. It is a zero-sum mentality which says "I am worse off for having shared my technology".

This may actually be the case in many situations, and where it's not, the possibility of outside contributions subsequently improving the technology is often overlooked.

Thank you for responding. One of the things I hate about HN is that discussions sometimes fall of the cliff as soon as a story leaves the front page.

I think I was getting hung up on how the contribution would harm the contributor and overlooking the "no return on investment" mindset.