[icebraining]

I also have qualms about distributing changes to non-copyleft license code under a copyleft license, but it seems strange to make this the "slap in the face" moment - wasn't distributing them under a proprietary license even worse?

[X86BSD]

No that IS what the BSDL allows for. I wasn't arguing that they shouldn't have made a commercial product on BSDL code. That also was within their rights using said BSDL code. It's just my opinion that to do that, then release your proprietary "bits" under the GPL or variation thereof with more restrictions than what you started with instead of the same BSDL you used to start your business is a dickheaded douche nozzle thing to do. But again they are free to do that, it's within their rights! Just don't be shocked when people like me call you out for what you are. Keep on rocking Citus! Stay classy.

[icebraining]

I understand you weren't saying they don't have the right to do so, I just find it weird that you consider distributing it under the AGPL to be douchy, while not considering the distribution under a proprietary licence to be (even more) douchy.

[anonbanker]

A relicense is a relicense. When you impose new rules on a product, especially if you weren't the original author, is rude.

I'm a GPL zealot, to the point that I've used the GPL as a weapon and as a shield against others in multiple capacities ("You own all my code when you employ me? Sure, as long as I get to dictate the license"). However, I would never take someone's 2 or 3-clause BSD-licensed product, and relicense. Those of us that value sofware freedom value the rights of other licenses that believe the same.

We all see why it was done in this case, however; In order to ensure software freedom in the cloud (someone else's computer), there isn't another license to use. the BSD license completely breaks down in this use scenario, and the best we have is AGPL.

I'd say cloud usage is to 3-clause BSD what Tivo was to GPLv2.