> now it's suddenly AWS who are the bad guys for using the FOSS software the way the license always said they could
That's not a fair representation of the objection. The thing under contention here is a behemoth freeloading for substantial profit. The reason it's viewed as bad is because that behavior undermines the community at large. Participants need to contribute back proportional to their benefit when realistically able lest the community decline over time.
It's conceptually similar to the disapproval employers with poor workplaces are subjected to. Even if they technically obey all the labor laws, by prioritizing their profits over worker health and well being they garner a bad reputation. "But we didn't do anything illegal" isn't going to get them out of it.
> The reason it's viewed as bad is because that behavior undermines the community at large. Participants need to contribute back proportional to their benefit when realistically able lest the community decline over time.
Why? No one has been able to articulate this for me. Why does Amazon using the software cause the community to decline? Doesn't it make the software more popular with broader reach?
When you give software away for free, you've given it away for free. You're producing it with the intention of it being used. Why does that suddenly become a problem when it gets used on a large scale?
> Why does Amazon using the software cause the community to decline?
It doesn't - at least directly.
> You're producing it with the intention of it being used. Why does that suddenly become a problem when it gets used on a large scale?
You're setting up a cause and effect here that I never put forward. It isn't the use itself that suddenly becomes problematic.
The behavior is the issue. If everyone else pitches in and you don't, you come out ahead. It's the game theory behind cooperative behavior. If only you abstain the community isn't necessarily worse off, but if everyone abstains then it is (ie compared to if they all contributed). The optimal outcome for the group as a whole is for everyone to pitch in.
I do get where you're coming from. Legally speaking it's quite silly for someone investing money not to proactively prevent this from the beginning.
This isn't about the legality though. It's about social responsibilities. Entities with more resources - individuals, corporations, and even governments - are generally held to higher standards in the public eye. The legal system alone is not sufficient to make society a nice place to live.
That's not a fair representation of the objection. The thing under contention here is a behemoth freeloading for substantial profit. The reason it's viewed as bad is because that behavior undermines the community at large. Participants need to contribute back proportional to their benefit when realistically able lest the community decline over time.
It's conceptually similar to the disapproval employers with poor workplaces are subjected to. Even if they technically obey all the labor laws, by prioritizing their profits over worker health and well being they garner a bad reputation. "But we didn't do anything illegal" isn't going to get them out of it.