4 ms·

This is the part of the decision I don't understand. The AGPL seems pretty clear: > All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restricti

This is the part of the decision I don't understand. The AGPL seems pretty clear: > All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.

josefx 5y ago
As far as I understand it was never legally AGPL licensed, it was licensed on a custom license that just happened to merge AGPL and commons clause. The commons clause in this case is not an addition to existing AGPL licensed code.
- mintplant 5y ago
  I don't think this argument holds, because Section 7 refers to "this License", which the AGPL text defines specifically as: > "This License" refers to version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License. Thus I don't think that references to "this License" within the portion of their custom license that is the verbatim AGPL text would automatically expand to also encompass the tacked-on Commons Clause text.
  - josefx 5y ago
    Okay, if I read the court document correctly Section 7 explicitly refers to Section 10 to limit its scope and section 10 is explicitly about things a licensee (You) isn't allowed to do. So it cannot be applied to terms added by the licensor.
joshuaissac 5y ago
The longer order with the facts[1] has more details about this point than the shorter decision.[2] They explain their rationale on pages 24-25. It seems that this question was already decided by the court in an earlier case, Neo4j, Inc. v. Graph Found., Inc 2020.[3] They decided that only restrictions added by downstream licensees could be removed in this way. The original licensor can impose additional restrictions, and those cannot be removed, because it would be "contrary to the principles of contract and copyright law" to allow such a thing. 1. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.335295/gov.uscourts.cand.335295.118.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.33... 2. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.335295/gov.uscourts.cand.335295.140.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.33... 3. https://casetext.com/case/ne04j-inc-v-graph-found-inc/ https://casetext.com/case/ne04j-inc-v-graph-found-inc/

josefx 5y ago

As far as I understand it was never legally AGPL licensed, it was licensed on a custom license that just happened to merge AGPL and commons clause. The commons clause in this case is not an addition to existing AGPL licensed code.

mintplant 5y ago
I don't think this argument holds, because Section 7 refers to "this License", which the AGPL text defines specifically as: > "This License" refers to version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License. Thus I don't think that references to "this License" within the portion of their custom license that is the verbatim AGPL text would automatically expand to also encompass the tacked-on Commons Clause text.
- josefx 5y ago
  Okay, if I read the court document correctly Section 7 explicitly refers to Section 10 to limit its scope and section 10 is explicitly about things a licensee (You) isn't allowed to do. So it cannot be applied to terms added by the licensor.

joshuaissac 5y ago

The longer order with the facts[1] has more details about this point than the shorter decision.[2] They explain their rationale on pages 24-25. It seems that this question was already decided by the court in an earlier case, Neo4j, Inc. v. Graph Found., Inc 2020.[3] They decided that only restrictions added by downstream licensees could be removed in this way. The original licensor can impose additional restrictions, and those cannot be removed, because it would be "contrary to the principles of contract and copyright law" to allow such a thing. 1. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.335295/gov.uscourts.cand.335295.118.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.33... 2. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.335295/gov.uscourts.cand.335295.140.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.33... 3. https://casetext.com/case/ne04j-inc-v-graph-found-inc/ https://casetext.com/case/ne04j-inc-v-graph-found-inc/