I don't see the issue - the creator is reserving the right to create their own paid hosted version?
That's absolutely fine for them, but they shouldn't call it "Open-source" and "Fully open source" (like they do on the linked page).
This software is source-available. Open Source licenses don't discriminate on the basis use of the software.
Using the term Open Source for license like this is dishonest. It seeks to profit from the goodwill from actual Open Source software.
alt Hacker News
That's absolutely fine for them, but they shouldn't call it "Open-source" and "Fully open source" (like they do on the linked page).
This software is source-available. Open Source licenses don't discriminate on the basis use of the software.
Using the term Open Source for license like this is dishonest. It seeks to profit from the goodwill from actual Open Source software.