Is this really the line we want to draw in the sand? It’s not open source because it can’t be trivially used by AWS and Google? It feels like the popularism is the point, not the complete lack of restrictions.
Well if we are talking about the point of open source, then really, the lack of restrictions is the point. Some commercial entities wish to redefine the term because it benefits their marketing, but is that the line we want to draw in the sand?
People have different ideas about what open source means. Defining that is what licenses are for. "Unrestricted in all cases" is simply not how that ever played out, historically, at least not for as long as I can recall.
It's not "open source" because it's not free software. We do not have access to the training data (source code). We cannot make new versions by editing the preferred representation. It's a big closed source blob released by a corporation that does a cool thing. At best, it's freeware.
If it were really "open source", nobody would be complaining about its moralizing attitude. They'd just make a new one, without the attitude.
