To a degree. But the corporate interest is spread across enough organisations that it's much harder for the Linux kernel to reject a patch solely because it's good for business, whereas a lot of corporate open source projects - even those with an OSI approved license - will actively refuse to merge code that competes with their commercial offering or simply isn't submitted by a customer. Hashicorp already operated like this long before they switched to BSL. Unfortunately having a project owned by a foundation isn't a good indicator either, because I know of at least one Apache project where the entire membership is one company, the CEO is the project chair and code is sometimes just dropped into repos in one huge commit.
To a degree. But the corporate interest is spread across enough organisations that it's much harder for the Linux kernel to reject a patch solely because it's good for business, whereas a lot of corporate open source projects - even those with an OSI approved license - will actively refuse to merge code that competes with their commercial offering or simply isn't submitted by a customer. Hashicorp already operated like this long before they switched to BSL. Unfortunately having a project owned by a foundation isn't a good indicator either, because I know of at least one Apache project where the entire membership is one company, the CEO is the project chair and code is sometimes just dropped into repos in one huge commit.