I follow you explanation but not your end statement.
What I think GP is getting at in my understanding is that all this OSS/licensing stuff was a cautious attempt to assert a radical idea into an atmosphere of extrem secrecy: That information wants to be free.
Now we have a fat cooperation making a public statement of putting the value of advancing humanity over the value of honoring weird old Victorian ideas of "intellectual property" - which is what we are always tried to do, no?
Not that there is nothing to criticize, but I think that's a good thing on the whole.