I think it's fair to point out that there are two distinct open source models in play here;
There's the "old school" open source, which releases product for the common good. Think Linux, Gnu, Emacs etc. This group would object to the term "business model" since they are explicitly not "businesses".
The second group are commercial products, from commercial companies who wish to leverage some aspect of Open Source to further their commercial ambitions. Think (pretty much) any VC funded "Open source" product. I 100% agree with you in this context.
The latter group (sooner or later) discover that cloud providers will happily offer their product as a service, exactly how their OSS license permits. They are well positioned to extract value from the offering, and thus charge for it.
So yeah, you'll see these companies pivot to a proprietary license - but honestly I don't mind when they do - for them, being OSS was transactional in the first place do it was never going to last forever.
There's the "old school" open source, which releases product for the common good. Think Linux, Gnu, Emacs etc. This group would object to the term "business model" since they are explicitly not "businesses".
The second group are commercial products, from commercial companies who wish to leverage some aspect of Open Source to further their commercial ambitions. Think (pretty much) any VC funded "Open source" product. I 100% agree with you in this context.
The latter group (sooner or later) discover that cloud providers will happily offer their product as a service, exactly how their OSS license permits. They are well positioned to extract value from the offering, and thus charge for it.
So yeah, you'll see these companies pivot to a proprietary license - but honestly I don't mind when they do - for them, being OSS was transactional in the first place do it was never going to last forever.