Certainly, and I think that if we want OSS to thrive we need to move towards a future where it's easy for companies to make a return on their investment by releasing OSS. I think Amazon and all the "I provide your software as a service" providers eat into that and hinder that future.

Yes, GPLv3 was meant to fight Tivoization, but it never anticipated providers providing services on an OSS product without contributing significantly, in combination with the companies that develop the OSS hoping to make money off the same hosted service that the former undercuts.

Basically, monetization strategies for OSS are few, and one that is beneficial for both the company and the consumer is providing hosted services. A third company that doesn't have to develop the software is usually a good enough competitor, but since the developer has the obvious support/knowledge advantage, they can still compete. This breaks down when Amazon comes in with its lock-in advantage and sucsk all the money away from the developer.

This is why we're seeing these new licenses, because there's no way currently to be "OSS except Amazon". I think we do need to figure out some way.

Well, the so-called "service provider loophole" was certainly well-known when GPLv3 was drafted. That's why AGPLv2 was created some years prior. IIRC early GPLv3 drafts contained AGPL-style language, but several of the companies involved in the GPLv3 drafting process (such as Google) objected, and those clauses were withdrawn from the final GPLv3.

It isn’t a limited requirements. There is a very real legal risk that using GPL software in an enterprise code base means you have to open source of your entire code base. That is an unacceptable risk for almost any business so GPL software doesn’t get used.

And this, right there, is how MySQL AB was purchased for a billion dollars in 2008: you dual-license your software. Release it under a copyleft license that bigco's don't want to touch (AGPL3 is tempting today!), and offer a commercial license that gives your customers the freedom to use it as they need.

GPL allows you to "use" but not "make derived works".

Plenty of companies use Linux... this seems like something people worried about in the 90's but have now generally accepted.

You're sadly right that many big enterprises purport to believe there's some special extra risk unique to the GPL, but you're wrong to say it's a "very real legal risk"; there's no reasonable basis for believing that at all.