I suspect you're reading through preconceptions I no longer share. Source available is in nearly every practical sense comparable to open source. The median nu

I suspect you're reading through preconceptions I no longer share. Source available is in nearly every practical sense comparable to open source. The median number of contributors to an open source project is one. Even with exceptional projects boasting many contributors, users who don't edit, but simply use what's given them, vastly outnumber them. The source of "source available" projects is just as available, and frequently in the same places online. Its authors often develop "in the open" with the same tools and infrastructure. Their licenses frequently allow nearly all the use cases that MIT or Apache 2 do. Sometimes that license delta is really the only meaningful difference. If there weren't any discussion to be had on open source, we wouldn't have so many licenses, or so many revisions and later versions. I don't know which four of five you like, but they're highly unlikely to have been first versions or uncontroversial in their days. Alas, "paying the rights you have forward" isn't at all clear. What rights? How paid forward? Are AGPL, OSL, and SSPL "pay the rights you have forward" licenses? The idea that open source isn't reconcilable with capitalism wouldn't sit well with the early advocates for "open source" that I've read or heard from. The Cathedral and the Bazaar can be read, and fairly readily, as an extended pitch that open source sits great with capitalism, and capitalists ought to be excited about it. Capital-issuing public companies fund the Open Source Initiative, the Linux Foundation, Apache, Eclipse, Mozilla, and so on.