Earlier in the 1990s, it was kind of an open secret that Open Source was largely a movement by and for academics. Most the headline open source projects were launched and maintained by people who could rely on an academic or research institution's patronage to put food on their table. RMS's own ideas arguably grew out of his frustration at restrictions on academic freedom - in the form of restrictions on access to computing resources - on DARPA-funded projects that he saw while working at MIT, and concerns about the lab becoming dependent on - and therefore partially controlled by - commercial software vendors.

Somewhat later we'd have large corporations like IBM contributing to FOSS projects, almost as a form of patronage. Linux wasn't their core product; Linux was just a way to help them sell their core products. Products like Amazon Coretto arguably fall under a similar model. It's not actually all that far from how academic projects get funded.

Where it gets tricky is when you've got companies whose core or only product is an open source application, and when you've got individuals who are sinking a lot of free time into being maintainers instead of being able to do it on the clock.

I take this as an indication that Open Source has always been shaped by money. The movement's core ideals and structure are inextricably linked to a certain way that people make money. And therefore not necessarily so well-adapted to the needs of people whose relationship to capitalism works differently.