> This is an instance where people believe that it is ethically unacceptable for Amazon to do what they've been doing, so strongly that they are relicensing open source software to prohibit Amazon from continuing to benefit from their work on it.

Elastic isn't the saint here, they aren't doing this to "Double Down On Open Source" as they claim. They're simply doing it so they can squeeze the hell out of the SAAS market by betraying their promises to the community and contributors.

> It is absolutely possible that something legal can still be ethically unacceptable.

I didn't say that wasn't the case.

I specifically made this claim:

It is not just legal for Amazon to do this, but it is also ethical. They are contributing value, not just to their paying customers but to the whole FOSS community. That's a moral good under my framework. You may have a different ethical framework; that's fine.

what value did they contribute? the 9 shitty PRs? A rich person going to the British Museum and leaving a 1£ donation is ethically unacceptable in my book.

This is about a for profit corporation making more money, not ethics.

If there’s been any breach of ethics, it’s Elastic’s license change in the first place which was completely contrary to the spirit and intent of open source.

Perhaps you don’t agree. That’s fine, but let’s not assume this is consensus and that Elasic, Inc. is all about having the highest of ideals. From my POV, They’re panicked about a business model.