That’s simply not true, and you know it. Violating my privacy with a EULA is the issue there. It’s ok to put a EULA on software, but to pretend it’s still free software is the dishonest part.
The trigger happens when someone interacts with your code over a network, such as in the context of a SaaS product.
The line is when you try to profit off of someone else's work that it becomes "not free".
Also, not free simply means it needs to be in public.
This is so that any additive features that you construct can be taken back by the original maintainers. Thus, you have no competitive advantage.
If you wanted to, through marketing or similar, compete with them, you are more than welcome, but it would be with feature parity.
I'm not so sure this very fair compromise warrants your rhetoric.
The issue I have with it is the hypocrisy, not the code. They pretend that it’s free software but it’s just an anti-commercial use restriction EULA.
Anyway, most AGPL stuff is a 48 hour Claude rewrite away from having a free clone these days anyway. (In fact I have done just that several times recently, without even cloning/downloading the AGPL “upstream” repo, just with a vague mental model of what the db schema might be.)