It’s open source, if you’re mad a company used the software in a way you don’t like, you’re not really getting it.
But OSS is a fragile and wonderful thing, and an entity with the resources and clout of AWS would (at least in my opinion) do well to tend that garden rather than strip it bare.
That’s the whole point of the license. You’re putting code out there for others to use however they want.
This isn’t even about legal requirement vs intent. If you put up a super permissive license, you are making the intent very clear that people can do whatever they want with it.
The lack of obligation, both legal and societal, of using open source software is what makes it so useful and lets the whole ecosystem flourish.
If your in open source for glory and getting monetary or promotional credit for your work, you’re doing it for the wrong reason.
Same thing with a company like Amazon. They are enormously wealthy. So we look poorly on them when they don't give back to those bringing them even more wealth. Because they easily could. Because it wouldn't hurt them at all. Because it is right.
Use an open source license that contains ALL of the terms you want involved. You don't get to back out of the open source deal or heap guilt on others because you have regrets about other people literally complying with your terms.
To say “if you want to restrict use, then license appropriately” is to push heavily towards everyone using more restrictive licenses.
If other people contribute back, great. If I get credit, great. But those are not the motivations when you put up something like a BSD license. Licenses mean things so you need to choose a restrictive license if you get your feelings hurt when people use your software in a way you don’t like.