This article seems to conflate &quot;openness&quot; with &quot;open source&quot;. As long as something has a free enough license it qualifies as open source in my book. Anyone else can come along grab that software and do everything that the licenses allow with it.<p>As to &quot;Where the model (open source) starts to resemble “evil” is when it pretends to an openness that simply isn’t there.&quot;<p>evil? I could care less how many different organizations or people are contributing to an open source project, is &quot;openness&quot; as the author defines it relevant at all, to anyone? (for most of those projects mentioned in the article the license is pretty liberal - apache 2.0)<p>I would have liked to have read at least some mentions of dispirate revenue models for utilizing open source software that have specificaly failed, unfortunately none of that here. Does anyone know of some?