Before moving from permissive licences to non-open-source licences (because they have exceptions for TooBigTech), an easy step would be to use copyleft licences, wouldn't it?
Not necessarily. Amazon sells a hosted Grafana service, which is AGPL.
That's wrong: they pay Grafana Labs to use it as proprietary, as noted in another comment:
https://lwn.net/Articles/1019686/#CommAnchor1019710
> Grafana's a great example of this. AWS and Azure _could_ have sold the unmodified AGPL Grafana as a service or published their modified versions, but instead, they both struck proprietary licensing and co-marketing agreements with Grafana Labs.
Testing my LLM-detection abilities. Did you write this yourself? Or is this LLM produced?
The phrasings stick out to me as super GPT-like.
Open source succeeded because it created shared public infrastructure. But hyperscalers turned it into extraction infrastructure: mine the code, skip the stewardship.
The result? We’ve confused “open” with “free-for-the-powerful.”
It’s time to stop pretending licenses are enough. This is about incentives, governance, and resilience. The next generation of “open” has to bake in counterpower — or it’s just a feeding trough for monopolies.