That's a huge misrepresentation of fair source licenses. They prevent competing with the original vendor, but still try to retain Right to Repair as much as possible, for example:

> The Fair Core License, or FCL, is a mostly-permissive non-compete Fair Source license that eventually transitions to Open Source after 2 years.

The license is what I say it is when I release. You get no rights. You won't be able to fork. You won't be able to legally compile it. You get no rights. Because you have abused the trust of the devs. This is the new normal. Congrats on destroying one of the biggest sources of value in society. And nobody else using it will care because they aren't sociopaths that think they have the right to steal from others.

> aren't sociopaths that think they have the right to steal from others.

I cannot possibly fathom how you're getting from "I deployed some GPLv3 software as part of my hosting service" to "sociopath that think(s) they have a right to steal from others."

Copyright, by default, reserves all rights for the author. The authors then chose to license under a license that explicitly gives all those rights back, and when users leverage those rights, it is being cast as theft. That's...not coherent.

These companies want it both ways: open-source to gain traction, closed-source to monetize. In other areas, we call this "enshittification", and that's what it is here, too.