There have been a lot of good points critiquing the adoption of Commons Clause. So as to not rehash them… +1
What does best reiteretion is that the CC in its application here is far more broad than you are purporting. Did you consult an attorney or licensing expert?
I am myself both an attorney and a developer. And not that I am rendering an opinion fo anyone else, but I can strongly state that I CANNOT adopt dgraph for any commercial project because of the CC.
It is not in our interest to go after individuals
If this is true, then your license should reflect that. Your statement by itself does not protect me. Your license does.
They can continue to build commercial applications on top of Dgraph
Except doing this violates the license. An application merely needs to derive “substantial” value. Any application that serves data from dgraph is deriving value from it. The question then is it substantial or not. This is such a slippery slope of a word that has no definition in your license. Maybe all you need to do is define that word. As written, however, it encompasses any usage that I would use for driving an application. Why? Because a data driven app needs… well… data. And presumably I am adopting dgraph because I see value in it over an alternative. The data layer is not incidental or minor. It is a critical component of a stack that drives many design decisions. How many apps can without blinking an eye switch their data layer? Usually this is a painful process by cause the application layer is tightly coupled with the design decisions of the DB. Accessing and serving data is a substantial part (if not THE biggest part) of most applications. After all, that is what a web app does. Stores data, manipulates data, serves data, and then persists data. Dgraph is involved in at least two of these four processes. That is not incidental or ancillary.