I don't think those are really reasons for choosing an OSS license, they are reasons for choosing a source-available license (of which OSS licenses are just one kind).
> I'm not denying AWS is adding value, but it sure is odd that they're the only ones making a dime there.
I don't understand what's odd about it. If ES were never open source and was a proprietary product from the beginning, there would be nothing stopping Amazon from paying for it and providing it as a service under contract from Elastic, if they thought it added enough value to make that worthwhile. Then they would both be profiting in a monetary sense from the relationship. But it's not a proprietary product (or at least, it wasn't previously)
> I'm not denying AWS is adding value, but it sure is odd that they're the only ones making a dime there.
I don't understand what's odd about it. If ES were never open source and was a proprietary product from the beginning, there would be nothing stopping Amazon from paying for it and providing it as a service under contract from Elastic, if they thought it added enough value to make that worthwhile. Then they would both be profiting in a monetary sense from the relationship. But it's not a proprietary product (or at least, it wasn't previously)