The response didn't seem marketing heavy at all and directly addressed all of the points... I see posts like yours all the time - attacking companies who belie

The response didn't seem marketing heavy at all and directly addressed all of the points... I see posts like yours all the time - attacking companies who believe in open source but know that the existing situation can and will lead to abuse by huge players in the market. It sounds like they have a very happy medium. I find posts like this very frustrating because you almost never see the same kind of standards for proprietary software. People get less pushback for closed source than they do for "90% open, with restrictions on the last 10%". As for AGPL dual license, have you tried selling AGPL software before? Even dual licensed, you've just added a massive roadblock - and it's no better than a custom license anyways, since it implies one. Not to mention you've completely broken any path from "I'm a free user" to "I'm a paying user" - someone has to decide upfront to pay. Given that this is the most significant "win" for open source software (try before you buy, easy to inspect and get started with) it's kind of ridiculous how often I see it suggested. Let's say I work for a company willing to pay for software. I have a hackweek where I want to try out TimescaleDB, in a world where it's AGPL or, upon payment, dual licensed. That's now dead in the water - I can't use it, AGPL is banned at every company I've worked at and we're not going to pay for me to try it out for a hackweek project.