The anger over cloud hosting came from a specific set of Open Source companies that produced cloud software with the intention of earning money by selling hosting. Mongo, Elastic, and Hashicorp were the big ones. These companies failed to realize that the licenses they chose were incompatible with the business model they chose and then blamed the resellers for their own failure to plan.

It was particularly problematic for the FOSS companies because each of these players' plans was to resell the Big Three clouds and live off of the margin, so the instant that the cloud providers decided to just directly compete in the hosting space the original company physically couldn't compete on price.

The moral of the story is that if you're releasing cloud software as FOSS you can't plan your business around the idea that you'll be the only hoster.

> The problem is that it scares away also others. Personally I avoid such projects for any purpose, they simply don't exist for me.

I think this isn’t a problem — not everyone has to contribute to any project! People sometimes struggle with the choice between GPL and MIT for similar reasons of popularity.

People who want the widest possible usage/corporate adoption can pick licenses that reflect that and embrace the tradeoff

> People who want the widest possible usage/corporate adoption can pick licenses that reflect that and embrace the tradeoff

This subthread started with the implication that people shouldn't be doing that. But you are right, that's exactly what most are doing.