The criticisms also apply to the linux kernel. The article even mentions the elimination of seats on the linux foundation's board for "community" members, and

The criticisms also apply to the linux kernel. The article even mentions the elimination of seats on the linux foundation's board for "community" members, and the increase in seats allocated to corporate members. The linux foundation today is pretty much completely controlled by corporate interests. Linus is still the benevolent dictator, but as time passes, and Linus finally retires, unless something changes the future of control of the linux kernel will go farther and farther from it's roots as a user/contributor project in the "free software" spirit. To provide a definition of the primary difference between "open source" and "free software" development models: Free software development is primarily by a group of users, for themselves and other users. Open source is a business model of using community s/w development for a project that is ultimately intended to be sold for profit. One is development of software by a group of users for their use, the other is commercial product development. That's not to say that product development is inherently evil, but it does have very different objectives compared to s/w developed by users for their own use. Linux started as a free software project where contributors were users, and has morphed into an open source product development project.