I did not modify anything Citus related, just wrote scripts that are using their API.

Also the code is messy (as everything built for an in-house use).

It is AGPL, not GPL, so code using the API must be AGPL as well. That's the difference.

Oh God, please don't quote stackoverflow for legal opinion. An interesting confirmation bias problem. :/

But no copy/paste without attribution, which is the usual thing (and a reason why some companies block SO). So that's good! :)

Love what Citus is doing as well! And looking into the product now, talking with the team, and considering purchasing.

That is an interesting point.. if it's AGPL and you are calling user defined functions from your application that are implemented in the AGPL postgresql extension is your codebase affected by virality clause?

Or would that only count when you write new UDFs that call into the extension? Or are neither affected?

Would really love to know because that might affect my willingness to spend time making automated Citus stuff a reality.

Disclaimer: work for Citus, but am not a lawyer, nor an executive.

There's some additional information at https://www.citusdata.com/faq under "How do I license Citus Data Products?".

I hope that clarifies the intent of using AGPL somewhat?

I don't think it does.

> Require users who choose to modify Citus to fit their needs, to release the patches to the software development community.

Do you consider a script that uses your API a patch? In my opinion there is no modification to Citus directly. It's used as intended and the only change is how is used instead of what it does. But it's not clear to me.

Based on this [0] the code doesn't have to be shared. Also would not like to publish code that goes against commercial interest of the Citus team, which I like quite a lot.

[0] http://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/314908