I apologize for not reading it first before commenting. I've done the reading now. Correct me if I am wrong, the main idea is to make participants in a system to be willingly contribute without the thought of monetary compensation in which the contribution will benefit the whole. One hypothesis is to make sure there is minimal obstructions for such contribution to be made as hassle-free as possible. However you have yet to find an economic way to actually incentivize the participants to actually contribute "free of charge". Additionally, this is still an incomplete research into the ideal system that you envision to reach. Am I right?

J. Random Hacker (JRH) will release the patch if he is wise enough to realize that ultimately he will also benefit from his own patch, but he can also do a "hard fork" of the system with his patch as improvement and put his own label on the new and improved version and be sold under his own brand and earn the economic value he so desire. I believe that would actually be done by a highly enterprising and resourceful individual. And so there are 2 challenges this JRH faces. First, he can choose to be lazy, forget whatever economic value he is entitled to for his patch, release the patch and just be contented with the benefit he receive from it, i.e. be a lazy bum that happens to care. Second, he can choose to go real tough by being hardworking and solicit funds to start a company with an improved version of the system (with his patch) and sell it commercially, reaping the value for himself completely, i.e. be enterprising. I am not a Linux user but I can see there are many versions of Linux OS. I think the reason why many of these OS are still available for free is because the adoption rate is still extremely low vs Microsoft OS because of its highly technical nature, and charging a fee for just a small improvement on top of a mainly free OS might be self-defeating, unless there are improvements that are very significant and/or the adopting of it grows so large that technical support is not possible unless it goes commercial under a specific brand. So far I have yet to see a Linux OS version that is as user-friendly as Microsoft OS (point-n-click instead of typing command codes), which is a closed-source entity. Since you use Linux as an example, I checked its market share is 5% compare to Microsoft (https://thenextweb.com/dd/2017/10/02/linuxs-market-share-really-doubled-two-months/#.tnw_TmcCxxss). Another source puts the market share much lower at just 3.04% (https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0). Linux, I believe, remain the OS for techies for its security and high customization features (selfish interest, not common interest), not because of anything else. A person may also contribute his patches for the benefit of peer recognition. If I am a techie and Linux has a major problem unsolvable by my tech peers, and I bring forth a patch to solve it, I may not be rich but I bet I will be held in high regard by my peers as some expert. But if I have plenty of patches to make a totally awesome version of Linux, I may very likely start my own company with a much better OS version and become closed-source.

I believe if a system has no significant economic reward on offer, the extend of a person's contribution would remain highly limited.

I admit my previous point was irrelevant to your inverse common, simply because you have yet found an economic incentive for your system.

Edit:
Another thing to add is this.
Linux, being an open-source sort of "community work", took 26 years to get 5% market share, optimistically. Still no compelling market impact.
Bitcoin, being a closed-source sort of TPTB project, took less than 10 years to reach global storm and expected to continue growing exponentially until it totally displaces conventional system.
This is one point that is pro closed-source.