3 ms·

The GPL is a copyright work in and of itself and has its own license, which prohibits changing it. Arguably adding extra clauses to the GPL is ‘changing it’, w

The GPL is a copyright work in and of itself and has its own license, which prohibits changing it. Arguably adding extra clauses to the GPL is ‘changing it’, which violates the license to the license, and it implies that the plaintiff themselves have committed copyright violations by modifying and distributing the license. The FSF themselves would have cause to sue Neo4j.

pengaru 5y ago
Section 7 of AGPLv3 [0] is entirely about augmenting the license, it's certainly not clearly prohibited. What this decision demonstrates is that section 7 is legally problematic as-is. [0] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
- mr_toad 5y ago
  I’m referring to the very top of the GPL where it states that anyone may copy but not modify the license.
  - pengaru 5y ago
    This doesn't preclude additional restrictions (or permissions) in a supplemental license file. Section 7 practically encourages augmenting the license.
    - btdmaster 5y ago
      It explicitly says that: Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions; the above requirements apply either way. Above requirements include: 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. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying.
  - Jon_Lowtek 5y ago
    that part says "this license document" and that refers to the very text in the document that is claimed to be the AGPLv3. It does not mean it is not allowed to license a work under another license that makes references to the AGPLv3 and includes it, only that the included document should not be changed.

pengaru 5y ago

Section 7 of AGPLv3 [0] is entirely about augmenting the license, it's certainly not clearly prohibited. What this decision demonstrates is that section 7 is legally problematic as-is. [0] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html

mr_toad 5y ago
I’m referring to the very top of the GPL where it states that anyone may copy but not modify the license.
- pengaru 5y ago
  This doesn't preclude additional restrictions (or permissions) in a supplemental license file. Section 7 practically encourages augmenting the license.
  - btdmaster 5y ago
    It explicitly says that: Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions; the above requirements apply either way. Above requirements include: 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. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying.
- Jon_Lowtek 5y ago
  that part says "this license document" and that refers to the very text in the document that is claimed to be the AGPLv3. It does not mean it is not allowed to license a work under another license that makes references to the AGPLv3 and includes it, only that the included document should not be changed.