Is the IBM open source model the way of the future?

I ran across a couple articles that got me thinking about the future of open source software. I land somewhere in the middle when it comes to software. When I really like and really need a particular application I fork out the dough and pay for it (or for work-related projects, get my employer to). However, like most folks, I'm not made of money and most of my personal software needs outweigh my ability pay so I look for the cheap and free ones to get by. (Even if I can't contribute to the project financially, I try to at least help out in other ways.) When it comes to either proprietary or the open source stuff, I always appreciate a well put together application.

Jeff Attwood wonders in a very heavily commented upon post about open source why it is that people don't care that the software they run and platforms they run them on put them at the mercy of vendor restrictions and potential dead ends? Ironically, its also these same proprietary focused vendors that seem to be providing the most innovation. Why is it that people shell out tons of cash for software that is locked down when the open source model can theoretically provide more innovation and a virtually endless lifespan?

One thing I would like to add to the conversation is an observation I have about how IBM has embraced the open source movement. This hybrid model of combining a for profit element to a project (i.e. Eclipse/Expediter or OpenOffice), thereby injecting some much needed financing and even some leadership does show some promise of making software better for end users while at the same time not limiting the platform they operate on.

A post on the ZDNet Open Source blog also confirmed for me that others view Symphony as a worthwhile piece of software too.