It's not an abuse. This is by design. It's one thing many don't get about Open Source. The goal is to not discriminate against any kind of use.
If you want to discriminate users by how they use it, then you don't want open source.
If you want to discriminate users by how they use it, then you don't want open source.
I'd rather use an AWS service with an open source core than a closed-source service. Migrating away from AWS in the former case is arguably easier than in the latter.
And this is because of the open principle.
> I'd rather use an AWS service with an open source core than a closed-source service.
I guess it’s just a problem with the people who work in software engineering. You won’t use anything closed source, but also don’t care if other engineer’s valuable open-source tools are hijacked by companies with billions in resources.
Basically, you want to have your cake and eat it too.
You think uses should be discriminated between acceptable and abusive.
It's OK to think that way, but it's not an open source way of thinking.
The people taking someone else's tool and rehosting it with better SEO and more ads steals revenue from the original author and makes them less likely to make more open source stuff. It's greedy and hurts the community. I get why people would want non-OSI licences that allow everything but that.
As for whether its Abuse, idk, I don't want to lay out a precise definition and have a semantics argument. But its definitely not a cool thing to do
That and the search engine mayhem are abusive behaviour, even if not abuse of the license.
It's being a dick, deliberately.