This article doesn't really explain what happened, and the details it does give contradict each other. Here it is as I understand it: - the plaintiff's softwar

This article doesn't really explain what happened, and the details it does give contradict each other. Here it is as I understand it: - the plaintiff's software was under the AGPL+Commons, which makes it non-open-source - the defendants copied the software, re-releasing it under bare AGPL, under the clause that says you can remove upstream restrictions - that clause is actually about licensees, and the plaintiff isn't a licensee, they're a copyright holder. So the defendants had no right to remove it and their version can only be, and therefore is, subject to the Commons Clause too - their declaration of being open source would have been valid if they had the right to license the work as they did, but they didn't, so it's not open-source I assume that the plaintiff couldn't figure out a way to make a copyright license violation accusation stick, so they went after them for false advertising instead, and the judge judged it with the intensity of a copyright license violation because he knew the score too. This seems like a bizarre train for the OSI to leap on because it doesn't further anything about open-source and only furthers the interests of people who aren't.