I didn't assume it must be free of charge. I only mentioned it isn't, to point that this is not a possible reason they chose AGPL. I did, however, assume the O

I didn't assume it must be free of charge. I only mentioned it isn't, to point that this is not a possible reason they chose AGPL. I did, however, assume the Open Source <=> OSI approved license. How else to define Open Source? Transparency alone could be achieved with their own Source Available license, so it doesn't seem like a reason for double licensing.