Looking at the license (MIT) we already got much more than what we paid for and the authors don't "have to" do anything but accept thanks of those who chose to be grateful for software they got for free.

This. It's ridiculous how often people complain about the design of free software. If you don't like it, just don't use it! Use something else! Build your own! Or fork it to work in the way you described that you'd prefer - you can do that yourself if you really want since the source is available

It is totally valid to tell people not to criticize a project offered by someone who made it for their themselves or wants to offer the value to the public but doesn't have the resources to do everything perfectly. But this is not that, and I don't see a non-profit org behind it, so it appears to be something that is being offered on a quid pro quo basis. Thus we need to figure out where the value is being extracted and if the dev are cagey about it, that rings alarm bells.

Brother.

The default of the command is to generate locally. They don’t need to open source an entire web app. It’s easier to deploy themselves then deal with the burden of open sourcing and maintaining.

This isn’t some conspiracy. It’s a tiny startup trying to ship something useful.

I think you misunderstand my comment. I was addressing whether or not it can be appropriate for someone to question an aspect of an open source project, and not whether this project was part of a conspiracy.

So once can no longer comment on anything?

It's not complaining to provide critique, especially when the tool is being marketed and part of a technique to sell services.

The point of my post was to say why I'm not interested in using it.

This has nothing to do with being grateful or not.

I am having an allergic reaction too, I don't see any reason this should exfiltrate any information from my machine.