Speaking as a person who was very excited to discover Dgraph half a year ago and is a huge fan of your work: Please revert this change and return to an Open Source license.
The Commons Clause is a horrible misnomer for a proprietary license that is more restrictive than even Microsoft licensing in some ways - and adds severe legal concerns for any user or contributor to Dgraph. I’ve outlined some of them in this thread: https://twitter.com/ggreve/status/1032520322170462208
The result of this change is that Dgraph is now proprietary, just like Tiger Graph or Amazon Neptune.
But the legal risk of adopting Dgraph >=1.0.5 is larger than that for Tiger Graph or Amazon Neptune.
Whatever problems you were experiencing with the AGPL, they are nothing in comparison to the damage the Commons Clause can do to Dgraph. Which would be a shame, because I am truly a great fan of your work, and Dgraph is an exciting piece of technology. You have done so many things right already. It would be a shame to see the choice of license force a fork of your project.
So if the AGPL was not right for you, which is possible, there are still a huge number of better options available. Even dual licensing - while the poor man’s choice of unimaginative business model - would be a better choice than this.
You are citing the difficulty of adoption by Google under AGPL as one of the reasons for changing the license above. I can pretty much guarantee you Google would not touch Dgraph under the Commons Clause and might even forbid its engineers to study it for concerns of Copyright tainting. If they were to look at Dgraph for themselves, they would likely ask you to rather provide them with a regular proprietary license.
Which is exactly the same they would have asked of you if you had kept Dgraph under AGPL.
I’d be happy to have a chat with you about the various options I have seen work over the years as I really want to see Dgraph succeed.