> means that if you offer a modified version of a piece of software, you can't advertise it as "free and open source" when the forked version is still bound by

> means that if you offer a modified version of a piece of software, you can't advertise it as "free and open source" when the forked version is still bound by the Commons Clause prohibiting selling it in any way. This argument makes no sense. If the original modified AGPL license was "open source", then it wouldn't have been false advertising to make that claim since that was the license that actually applies. From the original (non-appealate) decision: >As discussed above, Defendants’ claim that ONgDB is free and open source Neo4j is false because it relies on an interpretation of the Neo4j Sweden Software License that this Court has rejected. The actual argument here would be that the usage of "open source" only constitutes false advertising because it was being used in the context of claiming to be different from the original license, thus implying a meaning in-line with the one used by OSI. It is quite possible that in other context (i.e. not part of a direct comparison to a less open license) that courts will decide that does not constitute false advertising.