Opinions like that are the reason why more and more companies are walking away from the great attempt of building stuff collaboratively.
> There's nothing in open source about friendliness or collaborative development.
Your view of the meanings of "free" and "open source" software is very literal and narrow. I'm not trying to debate the technical definitions of those terms, because frankly, I don't care and I don't think they matter in this discussion.
The crux of what I am saying is this:
A company may choose to share their source code for others to benefit from, under the hope that large players will contribute back in some way rather than use the situation to the disadvantage of the upstream company.
In other words, they might hope to:
* Let hobbyists learn from and use their code for free.
* Let competing companies use their code, as long as they contribute something back (money, bugfixes, festures, community support, QA).
* Make their employees happy.
and they may not hope to:
* Empower other large companies to freeload--ie, profit without contributing back at all.
Yes, I understand that permissive open source licenses allow freeloading in a legal sense. That does not mean the upstream companies have to be happy about it, much in the same way that you're allowed to use your office's shared kitchen to microwave fish, but your colleagues do not have to be happy about it.
What about this is so hard to understand?
While you are correct that the Free Software Movement has slogans like "free as in freedom" and has a definition based on "the four freedoms," the Open Source Movement also recognizes and advocates for "Software Freedom" as well.
"We build a world where the freedoms and opportunities of Open Source software can be enjoyed by all." [1]
Software that is licensed under Apache 2.0, MIT, BSD, or any of the other so-called "permissive" licenses is labeled "Free Software" by the Free Software Movement as-is. It does not require a "relicense" to become Free Software.
Said another way: you don't have to use a copyleft license like the GPL to qualify for the "Free Software" label.
It is just a different name for the same thing, because there was a group that developed a vocabulary before another group existed.
That's the Free Software slogan, not open source. The only relationship between the two is that open source can easily be relicensed into Free Software (or proprietary, or whatever.)
There's nothing in open source about friendliness or collaborative development. I'm not forced to take your advice or contributions just because I'm open source, so how could that have anything to do with it?