> 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 ONg

> 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.