> They have no obligation to do so under a permissive license. That they do so under any license should be celebrated, IMO.
They are doing it as a growth hack, to ride the publicity of being open source without allowing any of their actual customers to benefit from it. They are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts or altruism. The class of software they provide are next to useless for non-commercial customers. If they are not open source, they won't get the free attention and eyeballs. It is very much a bait and switch, and they very much deserve to be insulted and dragged through the mud for their bullshit. Don't apologize for their bad behavior, Open Source is not a magic panacea that waives all ethical judgment.
They are doing it as a growth hack, to ride the publicity of being open source without allowing any of their actual customers to benefit from it. They are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts or altruism. The class of software they provide are next to useless for non-commercial customers. If they are not open source, they won't get the free attention and eyeballs. It is very much a bait and switch, and they very much deserve to be insulted and dragged through the mud for their bullshit. Don't apologize for their bad behavior, Open Source is not a magic panacea that waives all ethical judgment.