you're spending considerable time and energy on this, which means you care about Mattermost, and that is a huge compliment to everyone who works on the project.
I won't say that but I see what you're hinting at. I like and support the project, and appreciate the efforts of everyone who has contributed. But I'm confused by the ambiguity around licensing when that's one subject that should be clear cut.
To be clear, I'm not knocking or critizing any commerical intents. People can talk about the spirit of free as in beer all day long, nobody has ever paid their electric bill with hopes & dreams. So I've no problem paying for the enterprise version once it GAs. But the marketing since the inital public release as been based on the project being open source and permissive ie. an "alternative to proprietary SaaS". Yet your responses above seem to aimed at discouraging superficial modifications.
With regards to security I'd see it more a question of transparency than anything else but that's what the license you choose is designed to protect against. It's restrictive in the sense that it enforces disclosure of changes regardless of how small or relevent. You said as much yourself in the MIT announcement post.
I'll drop the subject now. Whitelabeling isn't something I'm interested in, I just found your position on the subject strange given that it defeats the purpose of releasing the code under AGPL3 in the first place.