I disagree. On trust, first, public domain tools can also have hidden agendas. Second, non-public domain tools are clearly actually trusted. Third, non-public serves to make the product exclusionary, which enables the owner to capture some of the value, which increases the resources available to the owner to improve the product, potentially making it more trustworthy. You can't just pretend that benefit doesn't exist. Fourth, risks about hidden agendas can be mitigated by means other than public domain. On speed and cost, implementation time is not the only relevant factor. Reuse beats reinvent most of the time. Buy is a version of reuse, and the ability to profit from selling it creates a motivation to share that does not exist otherwise. There is no open source version of myriad tools that exist in closed source. That public domain alternatives are superior to closed alternatives does not mean everything should be public domain. The public domain option needs to exist before it can be better, and public domain reduces the incentive to create. Where they exist, they are preferable, but that is not prescriptive about when to create them.