The algorithms of all major search, social and media platforms favor open source projects which are developed by or backed by major platforms. A project cannot propagate without exposure to users and the major platforms decide which projects will have exposure to users.
This perspective is becoming increasingly common: "If only we had a different kind of license, the tech giants would not have it their way". But I find it so very very hard to believe it. Google - a single such corporation - has how many billions in revenue each year again? The proprietary software giants around 2000 would have been in a similar financial situation. Do we seriously believe that the open community could produce a piece of software that these giants could not simply ignore and either write their own or purchase a proprietary alternative instead? That we would have some sort FLOSS utopia if only Apache 2.0 was not slapped onto say Solr? Maybe a license can play a small part here, but it being the solution - I highly doubt it. Rather, I think we would end up in a situation akin to the AGPL, where software is produced but it ultimately doing very little to undo whatever fundamentally economic problem that is the root cause of it all.
A license change wouldn't be compatible with the Open Source Definition, but people moving away from Big Tech open source projects would be. Switch away from their languages and operating systems.
I think the poster above was suggesting anti-trust lawsuits though, get the US government to split them up.
