Cool. So if someone makes a company for a novel technology, but plans for the company to remain very small, then it's not a start-up even though it shares similarities, right?

Huh I created it? That was an accident. It's hard to belive it didn't already exist, after all economics are all about companies, is it not?

What you describe in the last part is exactly what happened in Germany in 1923 :)

Why do you say "ours"? Not every user here is from the United States of America (including possibly the OP)

Your point about Red Hat stands, but after a quick look at their job proposals, most of them are related with sales, marketing and technical support, and only a small percentages are development opening. (This gives a good indication as where their income comes from and how their revenue is distributed). Also, this question would probably be flagged off-topic on Stack Overflow (although I'll have to re-read the help in order to be sure)

I don't disagree with any of what you said, but really, I can't accept the answer, because it does not answer my question. You seem to try to convince me how great GNU is, but there's no use because I'm already convinced since a long while. You also seriously underestimate the difficulties of modifying and adapting someone else's code, as well as coordinating multiple people working on a software project. I might have exaggerated the issues in my questions, but still, it can be a major issue. I still don't know how the large GNU software sustains economically.

Well 2 depends heavily on the programming language, and effort put in documentation of the program's architecture. As for the evidence, I can find this, this and this

Originally, it was because some regions have more natural resources than others. Nowadays it's not that simple anymore. The actual question would be: "Why does the prosperity of countries not correlate with their natural resources anymore?"