[orangeshark]

I would agree the big difference is culturally, but I don't think it is really just the licenses that they choose. Free Software people value user freedoms, any license that allows that is good for them. There is no difference when a user uses a copyleft or more permissively licensed software because they have those same freedoms. Now when the code is a library, that is definitely a concern for the Free Software person because a permissive license can allow that code to be included in software that removes those freedoms from the user. So they might prefer a copyleft license like the GPL or a slightly more permissive license like the LGPL.

Open Source might be a bit more complicated to explain because there actually seems to be multiple groups under it. A big part of it is more about a development method where you develop the software out in the open, allowing anyone to contribute. This was made popular by Linux and is now pretty much used by all Free and Open Source Software projects. People in this community will often say this is a superior way to develop software over other methods and allow you to create better quality and more reliable software. Then there is the group that prefers permissive licenses because it is more business friendly as described by this post. Then more recently is this new group that wants to restrict a bit on the usage of their software with licenses like the Commons Clause and the Server Side Public License. I know many don't consider these open source, but it is a valid concern for these type of projects and they are originally open source projects trying to figure out a solution.

[pabs3]

The code doesn't have to be a library in order for permissively licensed code to be included in proprietary software, so copyleft licenses are usually preferred by Free Software people, unless there are other goals like widespread adoption that are more important than software freedom for the particular project.