I am really confused by what is going on here. Was Neo4j the original author of the code? Because if so, then they can license their own code however they like. The potential sticking point would be if they represented the license as being AGPL3 when it is not because this would be fundamentally misleading, and it sounds like the court agrees that this is a valid concern because it awarded a partial summary judgement that, “The court did affirm that a license created by combining the AGPL with other non-open-source terms cannot be called ‘free and open source.’”
It is noteworthy that apparently the Free Software Foundation did not think that this legal case was worth intervening in.
The FSF doesn’t seem to have teeth when it comes to things like this, instead it’s the SFC who intervenes.
In January, the Software Freedom Conservancy, an open source advocacy group that intervened to help Suhy several years ago, submitted an amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit
I am really confused by what is going on here. Was Neo4j the original author of the code? Because if so, then they can license their own code however they like. The potential sticking point would be if they represented the license as being AGPL3 when it is not because this would be fundamentally misleading, and it sounds like the court agrees that this is a valid concern because it awarded a partial summary judgement that, “The court did affirm that a license created by combining the AGPL with other non-open-source terms cannot be called ‘free and open source.’”
It is noteworthy that apparently the Free Software Foundation did not think that this legal case was worth intervening in.
The FSF doesn’t seem to have teeth when it comes to things like this, instead it’s the SFC who intervenes.