3 ms·
> But if the license is referred to as the AGPLv3, then its Further Restrictions Clause – which allows users of APGLv3 licensed software to remove added licensi
by jacooper 4y ago
> But if the license is referred to as the AGPLv3, then its Further Restrictions Clause – which allows users of APGLv3 licensed software to remove added licensing terms – should apply. If the court accepts that argument, it would be a significant reversal: PureThink would be allowed to fork Neo4J EE under the AGPLv3.
Huh, what if they removed that but still called it an AGPLv3 license?
Also does that apply to other GPL licenses like the normal GPL or LGPL?
- db48x 4y agoIf they had removed the Further Restrictions clause and still called it the AGPLv3, then they would have infringed on the FSF’s trademarks. The FSF grants anyone a license to use the language of the GPL, LGPL and AGPL licenses however they want, provided they either use the whole thing under the proper name, or they use only the parts they want under a name of their own.
- Beldin 4y agoThanks! That is an aspect the fine article omitted, alas. It explains the title as well as giving a reason why a private company couldn't release something under whatever license they like. Basically: they can, but cannot give the license a trademarked name then.
- 8note 4y agoI don't think that would change the actual license on the code though? Just that fsf could sue them over using that name