>> In simpler language, it means that the value of a piece of software
>> to any user increases as more people use the software on their
>> machines and in their particular settings."
They skip a step: it gets more useful _only because people will fix and extend it_ and the only way people will gain that benefit is if more people use it and get interested.
They are not saying that if you download a particular version of a particular program and never get an upgrade that it will be more valuable as other people use it.
I think they are trying to make the point that rather than voting with your $, you vote by becoming part of a community to push it forward because there is a "user base" ... if I write a program and make it available and no one uses it, it's unlikely that I'll put out new versions. In particular, if someone puts out something better, I may just throw in my experience and skill on the 'better' (read: more popular) program.
> Which makes me wonder...could something like FOSS happen in any other
> economic sector? How many things are like this? Works of art popped
> into my mind, but my enjoyment of Beethoven is unaffected by the
> number of other people enjoying Beethoven, and my enjoyment of an
> obscure indie band might be reduced if their number of fans gets too
> large.
The Beethoven example is bad because he's dead :-)
The indie band is a good one, because the more fans they have, the more likely they'll stay together and make new stuff that you'll also like. Also it's more likely that they could get some external (to the consumer) support.
I saw a guy on Jon Stewart a few weeks ago who is a mountain climber. He wrote a book, and he has sponsors -- that's how he is able to keep going back. But in a seense, Comedy Central has sponsored him by making him more popular. It's now more likely that he can continue his climbing. Broadcast TV (and now, to a certain extent, 'basic cable' as a baseline) is sort of an 'open source' effort if you think about it.
/jordan