What's the point of "open sourcing" if you get annoyed at people redistributing your work? Honest question here.
I'm really not interested to know who's in the "right" or in the "wrong". I want to know, what's the motivation for opensource if not "reuse my code please"
That question makes the wrong assumption. You assume "OSS" is a given and "getting annoyed at Amazon" is the issue. In reality, "getting annoyed at Amazon" is the given and "OSS" is the issue.
Then, you can ask "if they get annoyed at Amazon, why open source?" and the answer is "indeed, and now that they realized their mistake they're changing it".
> Then, you can ask "if they get annoyed at Amazon, why open source?" and the answer is "indeed, and now that they realized their mistake they're changing it".
Notably, they're changing it after building a business off the back of many contributors, many of whom expected to be contributing to OSS. Sure, there's a CLA so there's no legal issue, but I'm not sure it's any more morally virtuous than what Amazon's doing. Both are versions of "trying to make billions of dollars off the backs of other people's work".
There's having cake, and then there's eating it. Either you want to retain control over something so you can monetize it to the max, or you want to particpate (and benefit from) the OSS community and build something that benefits everyone.
I'm really not interested to know who's in the "right" or in the "wrong". I want to know, what's the motivation for opensource if not "reuse my code please"