It typically takes a small core team to build the framework/architecture that enables many others to contribute meaningfully.

Most OSS projects get bugger all contributions from outside the initial core team, having limited ability to onboard people. The biggest and most active (out of necessity or by design) have a contribution friendly software architecture and process, and often deliberately organized communities (eg. K8S & CNCF) or major corporate sponsors filling the role.

Free Software and resulting ecosystems seem to have a better chance of contributing to the common good over the long term. This is simply because most companies are beholden to their shareholders, and at some point the urge to squeeze every last cent out of an opportunity comes to the forefront, and many initially well intentioned efforts get poisoned.

Free Software licenses like the GPL help to protect our freedom and to set open standards, and are essential for the core technology stack.

When someone can get annoyed with some shitty software or its license-terms and reimplement the core functionality in a few days/weeks/months ... eventually someone will get annoyed and create some decent free software that will kill off the shitty alternatives, or even just a better commercial alternative. This only works because of the open platforms & protocols.

One of the major challenges for consumers is finding good software today in the grey goo of projects and appstores. This harks back to OP's point about curated collections of software. It's also where the various foundations add value (CNCF, Linux Foundation, Apache) ... along with "awesome X" gitlab repos, which are far better than random youtube videos or ad-riddled blogs or magazine articles.