3 ms·

Totally confused after reading the article multiple times here. What license did OngDB use?

by nailer 5y ago

Someone 5y ago
https://opensource.org/blog/court-affirms-its-false-advertising-to-claim-software-is-open-source-when-its-not https://opensource.org/blog/court-affirms-its-false-advertis... (Linked to from the article): “The facts, as described by the trial court, are that Neo4j, Inc. had been through several releases of its software and several license choices along the way, ending with what the court called “the Sweden Software License,” because the licensor was a Swedish subsidiary of the plaintiff. This “Swedish license” was simply the combination of the Affero General Public License with an additional restriction known as the Commons Clause. The defendants forked the software, renamed it “Open Native Graph Database” (ONgDB), and started distributing their version as AGPLv3-only licensed. They advertised ONgDB as “free and open source,” “100% free and open,” and “100% open source.” The parties didn’t dispute that the use of the Commons Clause makes a license non-free. There was also no allegation that Neo4j had claimed that its software under the AGPLv3 + Commons Clause was open source. However, the court held that it was improper for the defendants to remove the Commons Clause, and therefore the defendants’ claims in advertising that its ONgDB software was open source was false advertising.” That page also says: “There's another interesting aspect to this case. Even though the AGPL has a clause specifically allowing downstream recipients to remove "further restrictions" like the Commons Clause, the court stopped the defendant from doing just that. We'll cover that in our next post.” I couldn’t find such a post.
- nailer 5y ago
  > However, the court held that it was improper for the defendants to remove the Commons Clause, and therefore the defendants’ claims in advertising that its ONgDB software was open source was false advertising.” So the headline was misleading. OngDB was licensed under an open source license (see https://opensource.org/licenses/agpl-3.0 https://opensource.org/licenses/agpl-3.0) but OngDB did not have the ability to license the software in the first place, because the court says the AGPLv3 licenses grant to remove additional clauses is void.

Totally confused after reading the article multiple times here. What license did OngDB use?

by nailer 5y ago

Totally confused after reading the article multiple times here. What license did OngDB use?

https://opensource.org/blog/court-affirms-its-false-advertising-to-claim-software-is-open-source-when-its-not https://opensource.org/blog/court-affirms-its-false-advertis... (Linked to from the article): “The facts, as described by the trial court, are that Neo4j, Inc. had been through several releases of its software and several license choices along the way, ending with what the court called “the Sweden Software License,” because the licensor was a Swedish subsidiary of the plaintiff. This “Swedish license” was simply the combination of the Affero General Public License with an additional restriction known as the Commons Clause. The defendants forked the software, renamed it “Open Native Graph Database” (ONgDB), and started distributing their version as AGPLv3-only licensed. They advertised ONgDB as “free and open source,” “100% free and open,” and “100% open source.” The parties didn’t dispute that the use of the Commons Clause makes a license non-free. There was also no allegation that Neo4j had claimed that its software under the AGPLv3 + Commons Clause was open source. However, the court held that it was improper for the defendants to remove the Commons Clause, and therefore the defendants’ claims in advertising that its ONgDB software was open source was false advertising.” That page also says: “There's another interesting aspect to this case. Even though the AGPL has a clause specifically allowing downstream recipients to remove "further restrictions" like the Commons Clause, the court stopped the defendant from doing just that. We'll cover that in our next post.” I couldn’t find such a post.

nailer 5y ago
> However, the court held that it was improper for the defendants to remove the Commons Clause, and therefore the defendants’ claims in advertising that its ONgDB software was open source was false advertising.” So the headline was misleading. OngDB was licensed under an open source license (see https://opensource.org/licenses/agpl-3.0 https://opensource.org/licenses/agpl-3.0) but OngDB did not have the ability to license the software in the first place, because the court says the AGPLv3 licenses grant to remove additional clauses is void.