I hate when this analogy is used for open source. It paints an image of these tools being critical but having to be maintained by "other professionals that professionally open source".
The major difference with software is that you as a developer can immensely help! When a bridge falls into disrepair, you can't just start pouring concrete yourself. But when you encounter a bug in open source, not only can you make a huge difference just by filing a detailed bug report, but you can even fix it yourself and possibly for everyone else.
This model just doesn't work and that's exactly what the paper linked in the OP is about. Look at OpenSSL, everyone was (is) using it, one guy was maintaining it and barely earning a salary to do so.
Seriously, read the OP, it's well worth your time and makes an extremely solid case. It's both well-researched and well-written.
Uh, I think you are reiterating my point. Because people just think that open source is maintained "by someone else", it becomes a tragedy of the commons issue.
If we stop perpetuating the idea that it's something different than regular software that anyone can modify, then maybe we can get more contributions.
The major difference with software is that you as a developer can immensely help! When a bridge falls into disrepair, you can't just start pouring concrete yourself. But when you encounter a bug in open source, not only can you make a huge difference just by filing a detailed bug report, but you can even fix it yourself and possibly for everyone else.