> Large companies using their scales to compete is a feature of capitalism, not a bug.

It's more fundamental that that. It's this idea that a corporation can arbitrarily change licensing terms already granted to end-users to extort them.

This is not limited to any managed service provided by a random cloud provider. The core reasoning is a corporation identifying end-users who are profiting from a service that directly or indirectly involves a project they release to the public under a FLOSS license. They see people getting paid, and retroactively change terms to coerce them into paying them. The same argument they throw at AWS providing a managed service also applies to any company using their project. How does this make any sense?

> It's this idea that a corporation can arbitrarily change licensing terms already granted to end-users to extort them.

If contributors refused to sign CLAs, then corporations would either not get contributions or not be able to arbitrarily change the licence. It's also the contributor's fault if they contribute to a permissive project and give up their copyright. Is it extortion if they agreed to it?

And then those contributors come whining because the corporation does whatever they want. Too bad, don't sign a CLA. And don't contribute to permissively-licenced projects if you don't want your code to end in proprietary products.

> Large companies using their scales to compete is a feature of capitalism, not a bug.

Large companies using their dominant position to compete is not a feature of capitalism. Antitrust laws prevent that. It's just that the US ignores them.

> AWS only gets to compete using their source code because they opened it in the first place. The competition was explicitly invited.

This part I agree with: if you build a permissively-licenced project, you don't get to whine when competitors use it in their own proprietary alternatives.