The moral is: if you're a contributor to an "open" web resource, then beware: the hippy ethos simply marks you out as a mug. Unless you protect and license your work, you will be exploited by a powerful corporation.
I normally find Andrew's analysis at least thought-provoking but this article is more than just excuse to beat the exploitation drum, it is extremely patronising.
If I put something in the public domain then I am making a conscious decision to do so. If someone can make money by adding value and presenting it (unlikely for the shit I come up with) to a market, then I'm happy for them as long as they respect my inalienable copyright.