If your main customer base is other SaaS providers, then making the app impossible to host on the same network or customize is essentially a bait-and-switch poison pill.
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.
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.