This is literally what open source is. If you don't support this, you don't support open source.

There isn't a 'purer' form of open source which does exactly what you want with respect to big companies using the code.

You can be in favour of licensing that restricts Amazon or Microsoft's right to use your work. But that position is detrimental to, not supportive of, open source, since such a license would not be open source.

I've always been a little sceptical as well of the grassroots (maybe, maybe not) resistance on here against any efforts to stop the big 3 from using their network effects to syphon off the revenue from these projects.

The messaging against elastic style licences and even copyleft licenses is too convenient for me to trust as being 100% genuine.

These handful of companies have employed legions of people at this point and I think plenty pump their own brand, not unlike colleges with their alumni networks.

Like elastic did to Apache Lucene, the core of their product?

Or when they infected their previously open source components like logstash?

The main incentive for maintainers of open source software is to see many happy users of this software. Most open source maintainers do not care about monetizing their products (or the monetization has very low priority).

That's why most open source maintainers use truly open-source licenses for their software - BSD, MIT, Apache2, and they will be happy if Amazon, Google or Microsoft builds successful product on top of their open-source software, since this gives them the desired recognition.

Source available + MAU/ARR restriction clauses that prevent hyperscalers from robbing the bank.

Because that worked so well for Elastic here.

Elastic waited until it was too late.