I really struggle with this attitude that companies that make their code available, but don't do it "open enough", are therefore "BadCompanies".
Companies are not obligated to make their source code available (excl: copy-left, where they are).
Those that do, often choose to do so in a way that balances aiding a community, and growing their business.
That's a good thing IMO. Being commercially savvy, and ensuring the company that authors software today, will be here tomorrow, is good for the software, and therefore, for it's community.
I don't understand where the sense of entitlement comes from that it's OK to shame/berate/insult a company who publishes their source code, because of the restrictions they elected to impose.
Companies like Lago are small startups, who need to pay the staff to author the software. They also created a company to generate profits. Electing to do so under an Open Core model is a good thing - as we get Open Source software as a side-effect.
They have no obligation to do so under a permissive license. That they do so under any license should be celebrated, IMO.
> many new YC open core companies are doing this now.
Great! Long may this continue. Companies that are open-core are beneficial for everyone. Splitting hairs over the license they elect seems ungrateful IMO.