AWS didn't "kill" anything since everything they did is allowed by the terms of FOSS licenses and was known to be possible for many years. It would be more accurate to say that there was never a valid business model in the first place. People originally wrote FOSS to "scratch an itch", not make money.
Be careful.
These companies aren't trying to do something good for open source software. They are trying to protect their own business models. IMO they have the right to develop and release software under whatever license they want.
But as a user of that software, make sure you understand: if they decide your use of their software has potential revenue that they want, they are going to adjust the license to try to force you to pay up.
That is, their software is only as open as is currently convenient for their business objectives. Really not "partially open" at all.
IMHO proprietary software is better than no software, but open source software is better than proprietary software in terms of societal benefit.
My favorite open source business model is the "Free Software Product" model. (Best articulated here -> https://sfosc.org/docs/book/business-models/#free-software-p...)
The core ideas are: 1. Free software products have trademarked, proprietary distributions, with commercial terms attached. 2. Free software products (may) have 100% open source distributions, but they must use different trademarks and naming conventions, and receive no direct customer support or interaction from the upstream. They are strictly downstream repackaging of the proprietary upstream distribution. This is true regardless of which source code repository is being committed to - the user relationship is defined in terms of the commercial product, not the free software project.
By either using this model on its own or combining it with OpenSaaS, I think it is entirely possible to run a profitable business, while providing public access to the code that benefits society.