Everyone is clearly entitled to their own set of ethics, but in this situation ethics is not a problem.
One of the explicit permissions of Free Software (and by extension Open Source Software) is that you can sell the software or otherwise profit off it. There is no stipulation that you need to be the primary author, or any kind of contributer to do this.
Equally there is the very explicit freedom to not restrict what people can do with the software. This is quite literally in the definition of Free Software.
Thus rebranding a product, and hosting it yourself, is completely consistent with the Free Software ideals, as long as the user conforms to the terms of the license (making source code available.)
AGPL does not stop rebranding/ rehosting, nor is it designed to. There are licenses that do that well, but they are not OSS licenses.
Ethically I subscribe to the idea that the author was free to license their work (open or closed) however they chose. I'm happy to use , or not use, the product based on the license -they- chose. I'm not obligated to impose additional restrictions on their work. If they wanted those restrictions they have the choice to add them.
You are of course free to apply any framework of ethics to yourself that you like. I'd also point out that using the AGPL specifically does -not- prevent someone from running your product on their server rebranding it, and selling it for money. Doing that is completely within the bounds of AGPL.
One of the explicit permissions of Free Software (and by extension Open Source Software) is that you can sell the software or otherwise profit off it. There is no stipulation that you need to be the primary author, or any kind of contributer to do this.
Equally there is the very explicit freedom to not restrict what people can do with the software. This is quite literally in the definition of Free Software.
Thus rebranding a product, and hosting it yourself, is completely consistent with the Free Software ideals, as long as the user conforms to the terms of the license (making source code available.)
AGPL does not stop rebranding/ rehosting, nor is it designed to. There are licenses that do that well, but they are not OSS licenses.
Ethically I subscribe to the idea that the author was free to license their work (open or closed) however they chose. I'm happy to use , or not use, the product based on the license -they- chose. I'm not obligated to impose additional restrictions on their work. If they wanted those restrictions they have the choice to add them.
You are of course free to apply any framework of ethics to yourself that you like. I'd also point out that using the AGPL specifically does -not- prevent someone from running your product on their server rebranding it, and selling it for money. Doing that is completely within the bounds of AGPL.