If you said “our source is now available under the AGPL, if you’d like to keep using the software without reverse licensing modifications and your patents you’l

If you said “our source is now available under the AGPL, if you’d like to keep using the software without reverse licensing modifications and your patents you’ll need to remain on your current plan”, how many would walk? Or similar, “our software is open source but still requires a license for commercial use” would 70-80% give you the middle finger and say okay sue us then? Just curious if there is a dual licensing strategy that could work for you. I mean think about it, the companies you’ve sold the software to have now seen your sources. If they could take the code and do it better themselves and it was just a question of “knowing the secret sauce” then wouldn’t 70-80% of them have done so (if your claim is accurate). There’s something else happening here. They’re paying for your team to maintain the software and provide continual updates. Getting the source code is most likely an implementation detail to the purchaser. Open source doesn't mean free as in free beer. It’s a myth that you can’t charge a company for an open source product.