SO many people and companies make money off of ("take") open source projects like apache httpd, postgresql, or even linux itself, without "giving back". So many companies have stacks based on these software, stacks they make money from, who never would even consider sending a patch back to postgresql or apache httpd or what have you.
Is this considered against typical open source norms and values?
If not, what makes this situation different?
So one difference people talk about is that your stack might be based on postgresql and you might sell a service, but you aren't actually selling postgresql as a service. OK... but I suspect there are people selling (especially) postgresql or mysql as a service, without ever sending patches back; say, a traditional kind of PHP web host, right? This hasn't to my knowledge led to much controversy; or the idea that their entire webhosting/dashboard/management layer has to be open source if they provide postgresql. What's the difference?
I am not saying there can't be a difference, there are all sorts of differences always. But in elucidating what the pertinent/meaningful difference is, we actually are clear about what we think, instead of just a gut-reaction "I don't like amazon and I don't think they should be able to profit off of elasticsearch" -- cause that IMO doesn't have anything to do with "opensource values and norms".
I think, again, is that the real problem is that the traditional models of open source, the traditional norms and vlaues of open source, are becoming less and less capable of supporting sustainability and proper income for open source development. (Which reminds me of the OpenSSL problem of course. Is everyone who uses OpenSSL, which means like everyone, violating "norms and values" if they don't send patches back? Obviously not).