I'm like OP, trying to take a step back. What do we want here? As users? As developers? That no one does too much (or any) money hosting our software for other people willing to pay? Profit-sharing? On what basis?
Really, naively, apart from the use of the Elastic brand, that I might conceive could cause problems, who's hurting whom?
Sure, but maybe there's a way for the original creators to get more than $0 (while still satisfying OSS people)?
Is there a way to get the benefits of OSS AND for the creators to get more then zero dollars when someone makes a shitload of money off of just putting their software on an enterprise cloud?
> Is there a way to get the benefits of OSS AND for the creators to get more then zero dollars when someone makes a shitload of money off of just putting their software on an enterprise cloud?
You're basically asking if something can be simultaneously open and not open.
The benefits come precisely because someone can come along and create a successful business using your software without owing you anything. That is the reason for the benefits.
You also have to take into account that companies use OSS to gain adoption and pull off once they're established. This is why GPL and AGPL are essential. It ensure everyone has to contribute back.
It does not prevent someone from making billions off of doing nothing but hosting your software because they are better than you at hosting.