Yes to everything you're saying. I'd highlight your points in a different priority order. The fact that our society lacks effective concepts for supporting and sustaining anything abundant is the KEY issue. Your "doesnt fit our existing ideas around paying for things" point.
Our whole capitalist system has no means to encourage us to leave nature alone where it happens to provide us immense value. Our system just destroys it (and eventually itself in the process). That we even allow monopolies on products that are basically just ideas is a grotesque aberration.
Although we need to fund development, a lot of it could happen without funding if we simply supported healthy natural systems and didn't have legally-supported monopolies. The challenge that open-source projects have basically amount whether the developers can live okay enough and not have to deal with competition and exploitation from large-capitalized monopolists.
Replace 'rent' with 'support. If a commercial company builds on top of software with a license that says 'use at your own risk' then the buck stops with them.
That's why companies buy libraries from other companies that are supported - as in the liability can be passed down the line.
Not really. Redhat sells support, Microsoft charges rent. This is made even more explicit with SaaS - Software as a Service. Nobody is providing service, they're simply providing access to the capabilities of the software for a fee. That's rent.
Development teams are usually classified as cost center, not any kind of customer service.
Even software companies are charging rent for what already exists, and using some of that to develop their next version or new product.
The zero cost reproduction enables the free collaboration, but doesnt fit our existing ideas around paying for things.
I think that notion that all commercial software is rented needs to be widely understood.