Nope. The debate in the community before OSI existed was between free software and open source as terms. Free software was the term preferred by the FSF and the

Nope. The debate in the community before OSI existed was between free software and open source as terms. Free software was the term preferred by the FSF and the GNU project, with their more stringent notions of free. "Open source" was the term coined counter to that to describe things like BSD licensed code. The OSI was founded as a way of promoting this whole world of software development to businesses, and they focused on "open source" as a labeling strategy so they could distance themselves from the FSF. The OSI is really just a way of branding certain licenses so IT departments at companies can point their legal departments at the website and say, "Look, this is legit." We forget today that in the 1990's people would assume that software they didn't pay for was shoddy, or that if they were running it, it was stolen and they were going to be audited and sued. I think Amazon running their own ElasticSearch service and competing with Elastic is entirely faithful to the original spirit of free software, where Stallman was backporting innovations from commercial Lisp Machines onto the MIT free Lisp Machine OS that anyone could use. There is the model right now of founding a company to host your software or similar as a funding model. While it is popular, I doubt it is any more sustainable than any of the other models we've seen. My lesson from all of this is that capitalism lacks funding mechanisms for producing commons, and that the proper solution is to produce non-capitalist avenues for doing so.