I understand how it can be misread though. In the documents it does seem like the court is taking a stance, but in fact it's punting on that because the two par

I understand how it can be misread though. In the documents it does seem like the court is taking a stance, but in fact it's punting on that because the two parties agree. Because both parties agree that AGPL + Common Clause can't be classified as "free and open" the court can decide if ONgDB is "free and open" by determining if it's licensed under AGPL + Common Clause. The court doesn't have to have an opinion on what "free and open" means, because the involved parties are already in agreement.