What's their point? That they should not be open source? Or should not be allowed to ever launch a paid product? Or be forced to add a pricing page that...goes nowhere?
The point is that Deno has already a plan to monetize and they haven't, which puts a lot of doubt into if they will ever manage to and whether that will affect existing projects which rely on the runtime.
Deno has already monetized. Their tech powers many of the "serverless" platforms offered by other hosts. Just because they don't have a public pricing page for B2C doesn't mean they don't make money.
My point is that they could be transparent about the fact that they're collecting users along the way to extracting money from them. They chose not to. That's concerning to me. Possible explanations include "they have no idea what they're doing" and "they know exactly what they're doing but think people won't like it".
As the rest of your hyperventilation, no, none of those are my points, and I think you were smart enough to figure that out without me having to say so.
> collecting users along the way to extracting money from them
Can you listen to yourself?
When was the last time you paid Node or npm inc? Projects have the absolute right to monetize without having to start that way. You can use bun without signing up, there’s no data, there’s no registration. There are only entitled users.
I'm not a JS person, so never. But the first has a foundation, and the second has a transparent revenue model.
Bringing up rights is a straw man. They have a right to conceal their plans. I have a right to criticize them for it. You have the right to do defensive, awkward, unpaid PR for people who have millions of dollars. All rights are being honored here.