The value-add distribution for software is not quite right. It never goes negative.
Most software exists and can sell because it does things rich people who run corporations want done. That usually means it's good for them and bad for society, since our world is run by people who think in zero-sum terms.
You're using a different definition of value than the author. In which, the housing distribution would also not be right. You can build a house that is extremely dangerous, blocks the sun on the neighbor's otherwise warm sunny pool, replaces an attractive park that was valuable to the area, etc.
Could be good for the buyer, but bad for the neighborhood.
> since our world is run by people who think in zero-sum terms.
Most software exists and can sell because it does things rich people who run corporations want done. That usually means it's good for them and bad for society, since our world is run by people who think in zero-sum terms.
So it's a two-tailed distribution.