Being business-friendly is not a goal, and shouldn't be a goal.
Sure, it is, for lots of people. Even, apparently, the FSF, hence the reason non-consumer products are not subject to anti-tivoization rules in GPLv3.
Both the PS4 and the Nintendo Switch run on FreeBSD, by the way.
Not exactly from what I've read, the PS4 runs 'Orbis OS' which is based upon FreeBSD 9, meanwhile the Nintendo Switch is using the network stack from FreeBSD, but also stuff from Android and the custom OS they wrote for 3DS.
Some businesses feel threatened by some open source licenses and other businesses are using the same open source licenses to do the threatening.
The funding for many important open source projects comes from global corporations that use it as part of their strategy, sometimes dominating entire industries based on open source.
A large number of small consulting businesses are based entirely on open source software as well.
Open source is not meant to be anti-commercial, nor would that make any sense, because "commercial" is what most of us do to make a living. That is not what takes away anyone's freedoms.
What does take away many freedoms is the fact that none of the widely used open source licenses fulfill their original purpose.
Linking rights to distribution once meant that users of the software got those rights. Now, in the age of the data center, end users get no rights at all and software can be modified freely by those who run the data centers without granting anyone access to those modifications.
Software has become more opaque than it has ever been before since the dawn of the PC age. Even without access to source code we had more control over Microsoft Excel than we now have over anything that runs in a data center, regardless of whether it is nominally "open source" or not.