Companies rarely switch from BSD to a commercial license - they are moving from a highly commercially restrictive license like (A)GPLv3 to something even strong

Companies rarely switch from BSD to a commercial license - they are moving from a highly commercially restrictive license like (A)GPLv3 to something even stronger. These are typically very unbalanced relationships between the project "owner" and any contributors - the "owner" may require CLAs and copyright assignment, and reserve the sole right to relicense the code under any license they see fit - but for these sorts of more restrictive relicensing exercises and for an exclusive rights to sell under non-open/copyleft "commercially friendly" licensing. The anger and frustration usually come from thinking that even though the relationship was unbalanced, there was an understanding and social contract where both a community member and the commercial enterprise got value. The relicensing is unbalanced - it removes value from the community member without providing any new benefit. Sure, they can quit the community, but that also removes the sources of their value. In the most extreme cases, there have been successful attempts to create entirely new communities (strangely these are predominantly around Oracle-owned projects like MySQL, Hudson, OpenOffice). There is interest in creating a community Redhat-like distribution in the face of RHEL changes, and the HashiCorp change has prompted some to consider new efforts like OpenTF. To your question, BSL provides additional legal ammo and changes some contributors to competitors, so it is indeed quite different than if the company going out of business.