3 ms·
I don’t understand how this argument helps PureThink at all. Even if Neo4j is not allowed to refer to their license as “AGPLv3 with the commons clause as follow
by antiterra 4y ago
I don’t understand how this argument helps PureThink at all. Even if Neo4j is not allowed to refer to their license as “AGPLv3 with the commons clause as follows” then isn’t that between them and FSF?
PureThink isn’t a party to that dispute, and the inclusion of the clause was apparently stated at the beginning of the license that they are, presumably, subject to.
That said, what does look interesting to me is the whole ‘Additional Conditions’ section of AGPL which one could argue is still effective over what is written in the “Commons clause.” From that clause:
> Without limiting other conditions in the License, the grant of rights under the License will not include, and the License does not grant to you, the right to Sell the Software.
Since it does not limit the Additional Conditions section or say ‘notwithstanding’ that verbiage, then it seems it would still be subject to subsequent removal of the commons clause condition.
- hirako2000 4y agoPureThink sued, it surely has some to say in the dispute.
- toyg 4y ago"defendants PureThink and founder John Mark Suhy, who were sued by database biz Neo4j in November 2018, for alleged trademark and competition law violations."
- hirako2000 4y agoThat is what i meant. PureThink (got) sued. Ironically, i would guess they'd like to have nothing to do with the matter and get back to whatever it is they do. neo4j have lawers in the drawers, they can battle for years over this.
- antiterra 4y agoI’m talking specifically about the defense in the article that ‘if they include AGPLv3 in the title then it has to be AGPLv3’ due to the GPL/AGPL being a trademark owned by the FSF (this is argued in the expert report linked in the article.) That defense somehow would require a trademark issue with the FSF to be remedied by granting a more lenient license to the third party (PureThink, the defendant here.)
- cowl 4y agoAs I understood it, AGPLv3's contains a clause that allows the users (Purethink in this case) to remove additional conditions added to the license. In this case to remove the Commons clause because it was added to the AGPLv3. So they can use the Software under pure AGPLv3. | 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 – If they had called anything else than AGPLv3 (something that i understand is permissable) than they can not remove the extra restrictions because only the users of AGPLv3 can remove those.