Is that right now Open Source nerds would rather discuss “purity” of one’s license than the fact that companies like Amazon are preying on the FOSS community and making monetising SaaS extremely difficult.
apparently Aurora (amazon's mysql fork) is GPLv2! however, since the GPLv2 only applies to downloaded software you can never submit a GPL source request and Aurora remains technically licensed under the GPL and also closed source!
"it's my legal right as the owner to not enforce my copyright."
This is something oft forgotten when people are armchair-legalizing about licenses, proprietary rights, IP, copyright and all. People, even corporate legal departments, have the right, and often exercise that right, to just not give a damn.
Necessary preface: I'm not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer, this is not legal advice, this is an opinion statement, this is my opinion, it can be incorrect or show factual errors. Seek an attorney if you require legal advice, or if you intend to interpret this opinion legally.
If copyright law mandated that every violation be met with swift enforcement, then they wouldn't be called "licenses", they would be the body of law. It would bankrupt individuals, both creator and user, because any work being exploited outside of the framework of "my license said so" would be a court case.
Not only this, but a license is not a body of contract. You are not signing a contract with an EULA or by downloading GPL software. The violation of a copyright license is in the domain of copyright law, and largely concerns the copying of the work. Likewise, the rights-holder can independently decide that any person's (corporation's, etc.) license to the work is invalid, without necessarily having to define that in the word of the license.
This is the meaning behind "all rights reserved"; it's not a magical three-word spell that makes you czar over your work. That's already the case. It means that, unless you exercise a contract that otherwise binds the work against your rightsholding in some fashion, you reserve the right as creator, to your work, including the right to deny a license, or to grant more permissive license over said work, beyond a public license statement otherwise.
Whereas with trademark, active use and pursuant enforcement against misuse is required in order for a trademark to be valid; in copyright, enforcement is elective. no enforcement is required, and none is often pursued.