The mit license allows a mix of public and commercial code run by the same company, with minimal legal issues. One can use other tactics I am sure, but this one seems good when the commercial code absolutely needs the public code .

I think some confusion here can be resolved by stating this is anti foss, taking advantage of foss, it is capitalism taking advantage of having a good code base while making sure any contribution from outside the company is minimized. At the same time it gives my company absolute control over the private part.

Usually get into arguments here! I’m not defending it, but am saying open source would be less without.

For our use case, this makes the most sense.

I’m not at all sure about the larger trend you noticed, but I know a non trivial number are doing it for the same reasons

Speaking for myself, it’s because future monetization can be easier under mit when using a foss utility and private code.

My project would not exist at all unless there were ways to make money off it.

True, others can also use that same code too, in the exact same way, but that requires quite the investment, and those of us that are doing this are banking on not getting the interest of a monopoly in that way. We are competing against other small businesses who have limited resources.

At the same time the free part can get a boost by the community.

I comment a lot in politics here, and am sometimes an ass, so cannot name this project