Open source can't do that, literally. Any license that tries to impose "copyleft" on the whole platform like that will necessarily fail to meet the Open Source Definition.
Just call it something new if definitions matter so much. "Fair Play Source", "Fair and Open", etc.
Fuck open source the way Amazon likes it. Look at how the giants abuse it to crush smaller innovators. It's not rewarding the original authors. It's turning them into labor slaves whose collective work is captured and monetized, with little hope of fair competition or reward.
Might as well call it "open slavery" and imagine Amazon as some Jabba the Hut creature.
The work was intended to be open. They just didn't imagine the giant Jabba slug eating the whole pie and freezing them out. Unintended, yet fatal, consequences.
The DOJ should look very closely at this behavior. It's anticompetitive af and wholly against the spirit and intent of the original authors.
Amazon is working on a fully open version that you can fork, edit and host yourself. Elastic closed their product and is changing their client libraries to not support the open version. In fact, this whole thing started because Elastic got envious of Amazons revenue, which is not quite the open source spirit.
I mean, I get why Elastic is not happy. But in this case, neither intent is pure, but at least the result on the Amazon side is.
> But in this case, neither intent is pure, but at least the result on the Amazon side is.
Indeed. Amazon may be doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, but that's still better than doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons, which is what Elastic did.
