I think that at least one thing that's going on here that while OSS does, all else being equal, create more value for the world, when the world contains monopolistic megacorporations like Amazon, they will be able to disproportionately benefit from any such value.

As I noted in a comment elsewhere on this article, if the corporate landscape now looked more like it did 30 years ago, a good open source project with a permissive license would be likely to enable a wide variety of competitive small-to-medium companies to do cool things. Today, by contrast, even if there are small-to-medium companies who try to pick it up and do a cool thing with it, they're not trying to compete with other companies in the same weight class: they have to compete with Amazon, a 900-pound gorilla who just muscles out or outright eats its competition.

So I don't think a fair takeaway here is, "It feels like permissive open source should be better, but because massive conglomerates like Amazon can make disproportionate use of that to hurt everyone else, restrictive licenses are better on principle."

I think it's much closer to, "It feels like permissive open source should be better, but because massive conglomerates like Amazon can make disproportionate use of that to hurt everyone else, we should find ways to break the disproportionate power of massive conglomerates."