So those who are not paying are dishonest. That's a bit aggressive, don't you think?
> There's no such thing as free software. The question is, "Who pays the price?"
You're conflating two things here: the license of the software and profits of the programmers. I understand that conflating them here works for your argument here, but they are different things. Of course there is such a thing called free software. Go's HTTP library, which Caddy is wrapping, is a free (both as in free beer and as in freedom) software for example. Are you "honestly" going to send some percentage of your earnings to Google, and "pay back the value it provides you"?
My entire OS is free software.
I do donate sometimes, but this has nothing to do with the license of the software I'm using. I'm donating not because somebody is trying to convince me that not doing so is immoral, but because I can and want to.
All this sounds similar to what Elementary OS people did a while ago. They called their non-paying users cheaters. And while they asked money for their FOSS distro, they weren't paying upstream or Debian anything. By their logic, they are also cheating, but of course they don't talk about it.
Disclaimer: Never used your product (or Elementary OS for that matter), never going to use it either.