Just a little disclaimer, I’m in a bubble of open-source software which is used mainly in commercial businesses and not used by my mom and dad on their private computer :) I think this can make a big difference, cause there is money involved from a value/profit chain perspective. From my experience, I have seen two characteristics of how “Projects” from “Products” differ which is mainly in governance. Products mostly have a private entity as an owner, Projects have more of a shared ownership in the form of a steering board.

As soon you are in the “Product” space you need ways to cripple your 0-cost product to create a differentiator to your product behind a paywall. There are more or less ethical ways to cripple your 0-cost product.

A more ethical way - from my perspective - is crippling it on stability; for example when companies decide to provide a “long-term support” version. The 0-cost version has all the latest and greatest features and the company maintains a less feature-rich but more well-tested version out of it. It is in my point of view a very honest model.

A less ethical way is #fauxpensource, where you cripple the 0-cost product on the features to make people pay you for a proprietary version of it. When it is a “Product” you get very very quickly into a value/profit/market type deal situation. The more ethical way is extremely hard to sell and the less ethical way is pretty straightforward to explain and understand.

#opensource projects have mostly a different type of government and have mostly a much bigger and long living lifespan to cover.