That whole 2 wrongs make a right thing, huh?
Just to clarify, you can't steal what is free....... Like if you went camping and drank from a river, would you then be stealing from the park or mother nature? If you said borrowed with out giving credit at least, sure. I'd support that.
It's not as simple as that.
In fact, if in the open source field there are several licenses, it's not for nothing. I didn't go and check myself especially what they "stole", and so I didn't check the licenses used by the open source software that they would have included in their software.
However, I'm pretty sure that a GNU GPL requires that the forks of that software be open source, it's a contaminating license that makes what it touches "contaminate" the forks, so they will have to be open source (under the same license, which can't be commercialized). Other licenses are totally free and allow a person to develop a fork and commercialize it.
Basically, if TX took open source software under the GNU GPL, and then put it into SXOS and sell it as a feature, that's theft, so the accusations would be valid.
Like, nothing is ever simple in life, just because it's free doesn't mean you can't steal it. When it's free, it's because you give something else away, or there's a counterpart, you still have to agree to a certain charter of use, that's not free service either, we're talking about people who use their intellectual property, that's not nothing. And you have to understand that yes, if you develop software to make sure it benefits the community, if you license it under a license that will allow you to make sure that the "suites" also benefit the community, but if someone breaks that rule to take your work (with a little adaptation work, but really little work), I don't see why you would be wrong to feel robbed, when in fact, your intellectual property has been stolen from you.
Maybe someone who knows more about open source licenses or law than I do can correct or complete my statement, but basically it was just to tell you that your analogy was not relevant because, in concrete terms, mother nature doesn't have property rights (yeah, that's the society of humans) and it's not because it's free that you have all the rights to possess it.
Anyway, about the news: It's pretty cool. I'm waiting to see more details, especially if it's a software-only installation or if it requires hardware modifications (I think it's that but I'm waiting for more details before deciding), in any case it's still cool and it shows maybe that TX knows how to do something else than copying Atmosphere modules to offer them later on their paid solution.