It's up to open source authors to protect themselves and stop using permissive licenses. There will certainly be a shift away from MIT and co in the future.
I have zero problem with companies making proprietary software and we should call it as such. If the way your business makes money is by selling or hosting your software then, ya know, not a good fit for OSS -- totally fine. If you develop a piece of software because it solves a problem for you or your business and you think it might help others and you want community contributions then OSS is for you.
Technically true, practically false; AGPL is 100% FOSS and FAANG won't touch it.
Just offer a DUAL FOSS and commercial license. Who cares what FAANG use, FAANG have stopped significantly contributing back to open source.
Like I can’t be mad at AWS for actually keeping ES alive as a community project for the benefit of the people who actually use and deploy it instead of some freemium company product where shit like security is a paid proprietary add-on.
Elastic could provide consulting, support, premium tools with proprietary licenses...
It’s basically tacit approval that “AWS should be allowed to swing in and destroy your business and you can and should do nothing in response”, it lets AWS (or anyone else who wants to try this) continue with this kind of parasitic behaviour.