If you would actually read the article, you would see, in the second paragraph...
The continued use of OS/2 is made by possible by eComStation, a third-party version of the operating system developed by Serenity Systems International.
And in the third paragraph:
Yet, even with these resources, keeping OS/2 alive is challenging. Most vendors dropped OS/2 support years ago, leaving FOSS projects to provide anything that is lacking. Creative Labs, for example, once supported OS/2 on the older ISA versions of its SoundBlaster cards, but does not support the PCI cards that are now the industry standard. The FOSS Sound Project now develops the missing drivers.
So, by making use of FOSS, those who have a desire to continue to make use of OS/2 can help each other where possible. This is a great example where Open Source can help people where the market is unable or unwilling for whatever reason to do it. Rather than complain that others aren't writing what they need, they can do it themselves and benefit everyone involved.
A little further along, the article mentioned specific Open Source applications that have been ported to OS/2...
The earliest FOSS projects for OS/2, according to Gschwend, were ports of FOSS on other platforms. As early as 1996, OS/2 developers were discussing a port for Wine to add 32-bit Windows support. That interest survives today in the Odin project. Many of the other early FOSS projects are equally recognizable to users of free operating systems: They include Apache, the GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP), Samba, MySQL, Zope, and various versions of Mozilla produced by the Warpzilla project. Just as OS/2 supports DOS and 16-bit Windows from the desktop, many of these ports run only in full-screen mode, and require the OS/2 version of XFree86. However, a project called EverBlue is also underway to integrate them fully into the WorkPlace Shell.
Next time you might bother to read the article. Unless you actually have something to contribute to the thread, don't bother posting to me again.
Sorry, I must have missed that since they are charging $250 for it, I didn't recognize it as "open source" which typically only charges for support. Sounds like a better business plan than just giving it away, hopefully they do well and encourage others to follow their model.