Given oligopoly cloud corps are the biggest exploiters of OSS (to everyone elses detriment), I'd prefer an OSS license that was simply OSS for everyone under < $1B ARR.

> Given oligopoly cloud corps are the biggest exploiters of OSS

Not exploiters unless they are breaching OSS licenses. Why do you think Cursor exists? The forked and made VS code their own. Why is it exploiting when Amazon or MS is doing the same? Am nowhere close a fan of these corps but we need to be very clear when throwing words around like exploiters.

All the LLMs are probably breaching the OSS license though. We don't care about that cos we need it. How can we complain about something we use daily eh?

What are they exploiting? Are they violating the terms of the license? The point of OSS is that there aren't arbitrary restrictions to its use; you can do what you like with it and the open source maintainer has absolutely zero obligations to continue supporting the software, or implement any of your requests.

> ARR

This is not a "real" (i.e. GAAP or accounting standards) metric, so that would seem like a bad idea.

The trouble is that lots of even the accounting metrics are gameable, but a comptent auditor(s) probably won't let the metric divulge too much from "reality" (i.e. conformance with accounting standards).

> I'd prefer an OSS license that was simply OSS for everyone under < $1B ARR.

They will find a way of gaming the metric.

For example, they run the software through a subsidiary that makes $900m ARR.

So basically Big Time Public License. https://bigtimelicense.com/versions/2.0.2