Exactly. PostgreSQL has been here this whole time with RDS and Managed SQL and I haven't heard a damn thing. Somehow this only seems to come up with companies in the red-hot SaaS space where people are making lots of money, and basically nowhere else. Hundreds to thousands of classic open source projects are important to billion dollar businesses, but we only ever hear about VC-funded NoSQL databases and that kind of crap, and many of them probably weren't going to get an Amazon managed service to begin with. This is the closest I've ever felt to like I'm seeing some kind of psyop crap going on.

Yes, we get it. You want to attract developers, gain mind share, get some good press. So you go open source. Then later you have developers, mind share, and good press, and now you'd really like it if you had exclusivity over the rights to host a SaaS for your open source product. And you know what, if you want to do that rug-pull, go for it. You presumably used some horrible CLA that gives you carte blanche to crap all over the community you fostered, so go ahead.

But for the love of God, please stop talking about "open source sustainability." Google and Amazon may be terrible companies, but they contribute far more to open source than 99% of SV companies ever will. They're great for open source, they're just bad for your business model. It is genuinely a shame that some projects die because the company that sustains them are unable to manage to find a business model, but you knew what you were getting into the moment you went for funding, or if you didn't, then you failed to act responsibly. The reason why people are mad is because you're acting like you're trying to fix a "bug" in open source, but it's not a bug, it's a feature. The freedom that actually free and open source projects give you is exactly what attracts people. You're relinquishing some level of control by releasing things permissively like this. There's a reason why there's an open source movement and not a shared source movement.

I want to say that what people are learning is why it used to be the default to not open source things, but actually I'm pretty sure a lot of these people knew from the get go. If you really didn't know what you were up to, you probably wouldn't have, super early on, selected a CLA that explicitly gives you the legal right to go for a rug-pull later on. (Supposedly the Apache CLA is better in this regard, but I haven't had a chance to read it.)

And of course, the open source movement has a solution for the loophole anyway. It's called AGPL and as far as I know big corporations treat it like toxic waste. So go for the AGPL dual license if you want to still be considered "open source" and also not have Amazon compete with you. Sure, it may be a bad license from some standpoints even disregarding the FUD, but it is child's play compared to the legitimate nuclear waste that is the SSPL. I'll just quote the SSPL itself:

> If you make the functionality of the Program, or a modified version available to third parties as a service, you must make the Service Source Code available via network download to everyone at no charge, under the terms of this License. Making the functionality of the Program or modified version available to third parties as a service includes, without limitation, enabling third parties to interact with the functionality of the Program or modified version remotely through a computer network, offering a service the value of which entirely or primarily derives from the value of the Program or modified version, or offering a service that accomplishes for users the primary purpose of the Software or modified version.

> “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available.

This license is supposed to save open source. lol