Not in this position, but obviously this might be the first of many measures taken. Next they could make the repository private. Code is only for customers, Red Hat style. It's not as popular as RHEL - a CentOS style effort is unlikely to materialize. Bug tracker and forums private. Lawyer letters about whether or not your usage is license compliant and a reminder that it would be expensive to prove it is, Oracle style.
Open source means what the license says it means. Expectations and conventions can be broken.
Most of people here put an equal sign between being open source and having Docker image.
For me open source is a license, and Docker is a distribution feature. From this prospective I can not understand how distributional channel and type of license are related, as code is still AGPL.
Open source means what the license says it means. Expectations and conventions can be broken.