I'm saying if a company modifies open source software and distributes it, they should be required to distribute the modified source as well. I'm further claiming that providing a hosted service is a form of distribution.
> “free for everyone… except them - they make too much money.”
Free for everyone, and if you make changes to improve it, and let others use the software you changed, you contribute those changes back. That's the basic principle of OSS, no?
It’s clearly up for debate, but I’ve always thought that imposing obligations for how people use the product/code, or implying obligations for what the project is “owed” by users, isn’t free as in freedom, or beer. So I don’t think it’s a basic principle of open source. I think some people want it to be though.
I get it though. People see aws et al making a business model of hosting FOSS and making boatloads of money doing it, and they don’t like it.
