Open source software took over the world – TechCrunch
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
The author repeatedly expresses that there is one open source business model, “the open source business model”, at a given time. It’s not that they really believe there is only one model. They acknowledge and describe changes and variations. But from their point of view, one model seems to monopolize mindhare at any given time, and successive generations of companies refine it, in reaction to how the prior generation fared.
In skeptical terms, it’s a herd mentality. In positive terms, it’s a codeveloping state of the business art.
Most of the people I run into in Seattle that are all psyched about Open Source are of the lawyer for BigCo type, or are personal zealots who have been diving down the rabbit hole and buy the ideology of "true freedom". Problem is, you don't create much of a virtuous cycle of improvement when there is no incentive to contribute back to upstream, or even post your fork online.
I'm afraid that's incorrect.
The moniker "open source" was coined in working group leading up to the formation of the Open Source Initiative, as a rebranding of Free Software to industry, around the time of Netscape's software release. OSI published an "Open Source Definition" based directly on Debian's Free Software Guidelines, which explicitly set out to describe both permissive terms like BSD and copyleft terms like GPLv2. The OSD doesn't have an "Example Licenses" section, but DFSG still does:
https://writing.kemitchell.com/2017/11/12/DFSG-versus-OSD.ht...
Folks do commonly distinguish BSD- and GPL-style licenses, as you imply. The most popular lingo says "permissive" contra "copyleft". Lawrence Rosen's book popularized "academic" versus "reciprocal". We could also say "BSD school" and "FSF school".