But this restricts corporations from selling this as a service. Similiar to how some open source liceases require you to provide any modifications if you choose to reuse and modify.

They are still open source because the source is open.

Not every open source lic is like MIT where you can do whatever you want.

> They are still open source because the source is open.

That is not the definition of 'Open Source'. Using it interchangeably with 'open source' just adds confusion. And from the other uses of 'open source' in your comment, it seems you're using it in the same sense as 'Open Source'

> Not every open source lic is like MIT where you can do whatever you want.

No Open Source license allows you to "do whatever you want". Even the WTFPL, which comes close to that goal, is not an Open Source license. Being Open Source comes with a few requirements, which every Open Source license, licensor, and licensee must fulfill.

https://opensource.org/osd

Open Source has a definition. It includes things like GPL and MIT- a wide range of options. The BSL is not an open source license.

Well, what is your solution? Have Sentry go bankrupt because AWS takes their service and offers it at a scale Sentry can't?

the solution is to vet the license and consider whether it is compatible with the current Open Source definition.

if it is not, then Sentry needs to consider whether it is important for them to stay Open Source or not.

and, if we see many more cases like this, then maybe it's time that we rethink what the Open Source definition should be.

it looks like neither Open Source, nor Free Software haver put much consideration to this problem yet, and it's time that we look at the implications.

my expectation is that any change in the definition of either will not meet much positive reaction, but i think the discussion is worth having.

Can you identify a single company that's happened to?

No, because they’re dead. Withered on the vine.