Isn’t that problem easily solved by adding to your open source project’s license: “FAANG companies (like Google, etc.) cannot use or make profit from this project” ?
Better stated, of course, but you get the point.
Better stated, of course, but you get the point.
The open source license is designed to guarantee your liberties. The moment you start to remove some liberties you have neutered it.
Meta's LlaMa for example is "OSS" but under a custom license which effectively prohibits hyperscalers from using it
The real reason might be VCs. The companies going closed source have raised from VCs and they are pushed to more and more growth just changing licenses and taking control.
Certainly one of the reasons why open source is popular in software is that it gives you options for maintenance prices. You can do it yourself or pay any number of consulting agencies to do it for you, or the creators of the software. When it becomes locked to one vendor suddenly the market economics change hugely. Now that vendor can crank the price up extremely high, basically until just before the point your willing to engage in a hugely expensive software refactor to move to a different product.
Open standards were supposed to help make it easier to move to new products, but in reality, it rarely is that clean. E.g. look at SQL, while it's easier maybe to move from one SQL database to another than from one completely custom database to another, it's still a massive amount of work due to details of each SQL server.