No, it's not, and I think that's the crux of most of the controversy. One quick comparison would be Drupal: https://dri.es/solving-the-maker-taker-problem
I don’t know if there is past precedent, but it’s certainly not the norm.
What would be more normal is a company more or less owning the open source software and simply licensing it under a permissive license and then having a closed source or open core fork. An example there would be any number of Red Hat projects.
The very core of free software (as in beer, not the fsf definition) is, well, dramatic reduction of cost for customers. Opening the source for modification is merely in expectation that some of the customers would contribute something back. The relationship is highly asymmetrical. Therefore, Takers in Drupal lingo are inherent, consequential part of the deal.
Drupal's system just goes one step above in recognizing those who contribute back in a mostly good faith, unbiased effort.
The typical business models behind FOSS are professional services (support and training) and commercial extensions (open-core model). In the latter model (or both), the governing body makes the majority of contributions and consequentially (key word) steers the project. For example chromium is the way it is not because Google said it should be that way, but rather they put the effort to implement their wishes.
Some FOSS-on-the-surface projects reject contributions that do not align with their commercial vision and even go as far as to chase legal action against forks. Both examples have been discussed in this very forum quite thoroughly.
This brings us to the problem with wordpress, wordpress foundation and Matt/Automattic. The governing foundation is generally established so that the major Makers and Takers (remember, entities can exist in Maker-Taker duality) do not go into open warfare and in turn sabotage the whole FOSS project. Wordpress itself is a FOSS project, directly enabling both Automattic and WPE. WPE is a clear Taker here, no objections to this judgement. However, Foundation is for all intents and purposes Matt/Automattic. When Matt and WPE did go into open warfare, this lack of separation between commercial and charitable operations meant that Matt abused his powers over WPF, weaponized it and used it against WPE in Automattic's fight against WPE.
This is where WPF-Automattic relationship is totally out of the norm in open-source/open-core business models.
Because that's the expectation that was set by Mullenwegs words and actions. Who ever said you need to be under oath for deception to take place?
That press release was made the very same day as the WFP then silently granting back exclusive rights to Automattic.
The WFP has never, until this court case, acknowledged that any org has such commercial rights, let alone "irrevocable, exclusive and universal" rights. For the best part of a decade.
Matt may not have been under oath but the announcement on behalf of WPF was entirely factually inaccurate, because a commercial organization absolutely did and would have those rights over "WordPress". And he can't even claim ignorance, because he was the one granting those rights, that same day.
Now if someone made the claim that he perjured himself that would be different.