I think romange put it well: balance. There's a lot of room between {completely F/OSS, that a cloud provider can implement and bankrupt the company supporting

I think romange put it well: balance. There's a lot of room between {completely F/OSS, that a cloud provider can implement and bankrupt the company supporting project development} and {completely evil closed source company like Oracle}. In the end, we all want good software, with the maximum amount of permissions and source, free. It's just a question of tweaking the support model to get there. IMHO, the "Don't call yourself OSS if you're not 100% OSI OSS" is counter-productive. But I understand why they do it, and I understand the history and abuses that caused them to do it. I'd just say if we no-true-Scotsman our approach in a way that precludes profitable, sustainable OSS companies... we're going to have less quality OSS. :(