If that's what you took from the article, then you got completely the wrong end of the stick. The problem was the removal of the author's attribution and illegal relicensing. He says himself he was glad when Apple later included his tools in macOS with correct attribution and licensing.
The problem he should have noticed was that the Sun was selling the code he wrote for hundreds of thousands of dollars and not passing any of that on to him.
Step one shouldn't have been to worry about putting his header comment back in place and getting them the latest version of his code to sell to their customers. It should have been negotiating a redistribution license for his code if they wanted to continue selling it.
No, the problem was the licensing change and removal of attribution. I would strongly suggest reading what Brendan says in the article.
On this topic, I work for Red Hat where we made $3.4 billion in revenues in the last published year (before being acquired), making exclusively open source software which you can download yourself for no cost.
