That philosophical question is asked of people who do Open Source projects all the time in many ways. I saw Bill Gates mention it in a Public TV interview. He said that those people should get something for the work they do for humanity. I thought that was very telling. If everyone in the world worked openly, the human race would be living on other stars and would have life spans in the thousands of years and energy sources would be a non-issue. The sun produces an astronomical ( pun intended ) amount more energy than what falls on the surface of the Earth and there are ways to take advantage of that fact.
IMHO, the fact that every person thinks that there must be some parity in what we produce and I should get the exact and greatest amount of worth out of ideas is destructive to the easy resolution of many problems. If Newton, Descartes, Voltaire, Galileo and others had ascribed to this principle, we would be still paying royalties for the laws of Physics and trying to find a way to roll around on Fred Flintstone wheels.
So the idea that Microsoft is promoting, that they want to help Open Source along is absurd, as their philosophy is that a person should be compensated for creativity at a scale greater than the investment. They feel that if you can induce somebody to pay an unreasonable amount for something that you have exercised some great higher intelligence that deserves to be rewarded at the expense of the survival and prosperity of all of humanity. It is self destructive in its implementation, because the end result is a society where you cannot buy a valued commodity ( no matter how much money you collect ), because it is never realized.