Here is a great ambiguous line of argument: The Open Source Heretic - Forbes.com: "Since 1993, Larry McVoy has been one of the closest allies to Linus Torvalds, creator of the open source Linux operating system. "
Closest ally? He provided a library system.
So this McVoy has moved away from Open Source? Well, no, there is no evidence in the article that he has ever "bought into it"; he convinced someone from the Open Source community to use his (non-OS) stuff. Seems like both sides of that deal are unhappy now.
Notice we are tempted to think that BitKeeper is an innovative product which can't be Open Source - but there is no concrete evidence. Actually isn't Linus writing something to replace it?
I don't really understand what people find so difficult about Open Source. You can give the software away 'cos you have already made a mint, or you can charge for service, or consulting, or to share development costs when the code is not a competitive weapon. Or others.... No one is forcing you - its your code!
But don't let people tell you they have the complete and final analysis of Open Source's value in business; especially people with a great bias.