3 ms·

The FSF license is not just to protect the rights of the open source authors but the users too. If a software author doesn't understand this, they are the one w

The FSF license is not just to protect the rights of the open source authors but the users too. If a software author doesn't understand this, they are the one who are to be blamed, as they don't understand the open source philosophy that the FSF advocates. One can ofcourse choose to disagree with some of their principles. In such cases, they are free to copy the FSF license an modify it as they want, but they can't call it an FSF license. Or they can choose a different open source license that aligns more with their philosophy.

didibus 4y ago
That's what Neo4j did, they took the AGPL and added a Commons Clause making it AGPL with Commons Clause. They then say: > Neo4j Enterprise consists of modules from Neo4j Community Edition and modules licensed under AGPLv3 with the Commons Clause in this repository, and other closed source components not present in this repository. I actually don't see them claiming their enterprise edition was ever open source, they also have an open source community edition licensed under GPL V3. This is their License file: https://github.com/neo4j/neo4j/blob/3.4.13/enterprise/com/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/neo4j/neo4j/blob/3.4.13/enterprise/com/LI... You can see the: "Commons Clause" License Condition at the end of it. Also, the history of the project, their enterprise edition started as AGPL, and later versions they added the Commons Clause over it, and finally now they've just gone closed source, probably to avoid all these legal woes.
- webmobdev 4y ago
  Advocates of FSF argue that if Neo4j changed the AGPL license in a way that invalidates the intent and principle behind AGPL, they can no longer refer to it as an AGPL license. And if they do so it is false advertising. The court has agreed with this assertion and also said due to the changes in the license, Neo4j was doing false advertising by claiming it was "free and opensource".

didibus 4y ago

That's what Neo4j did, they took the AGPL and added a Commons Clause making it AGPL with Commons Clause. They then say: > Neo4j Enterprise consists of modules from Neo4j Community Edition and modules licensed under AGPLv3 with the Commons Clause in this repository, and other closed source components not present in this repository. I actually don't see them claiming their enterprise edition was ever open source, they also have an open source community edition licensed under GPL V3. This is their License file: https://github.com/neo4j/neo4j/blob/3.4.13/enterprise/com/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/neo4j/neo4j/blob/3.4.13/enterprise/com/LI... You can see the: "Commons Clause" License Condition at the end of it. Also, the history of the project, their enterprise edition started as AGPL, and later versions they added the Commons Clause over it, and finally now they've just gone closed source, probably to avoid all these legal woes.

webmobdev 4y ago
Advocates of FSF argue that if Neo4j changed the AGPL license in a way that invalidates the intent and principle behind AGPL, they can no longer refer to it as an AGPL license. And if they do so it is false advertising. The court has agreed with this assertion and also said due to the changes in the license, Neo4j was doing false advertising by claiming it was "free and opensource".