I think it's a common misconception that open source equals free (monetary), it does not, though it can be free of cost.
I think it's a common misconception that open source equals free (monetary), it does not, though it can be free of cost.
Something Went Wrong
Open source does not mean free (monetary). It means one can modify and redistribute code and software.
In this case, the software is not open source but source-available. I just figured even the owner admitted it on Reddit.