| Funny to see people talking about the case. I thought it was interesting that the 9th circuit made so many mistakes that they had to append the ruling. The fact that they got the defendants wrong is quite strange to me. The Graph Foundation was not part of the case any longer. They joined the case but then settled. The injunction itself that Neo4j was very sloppy when adding the commons clause into the AGPL. They literally added the commons clause to the AGPL, leaving in the preamble and all, and call it the ‘Sweden License’. (Virtual name) https://raw.githubusercontent.com/neo4j/neo4j/3.4.18/enterpr... This ‘sweden license’ literally states it is a ‘free, copyleft license.’ copyleft = opensource according to Philip Rathle, Vice President of Products at Neo4j Inc. (6-ER-1368 ¶¶ 10-11 of appeal except of records). Therefore according to Neo4j - it is free and open source. Neo4j says their 'Sweden License' (AGPL + Commons) is both open source and not open source at the same time. I call this: 'Schrödinger's Sweden License' Keep an eye on the case - it is now in the second phase of the case where everyone will learn about Neo4j’s behavior. It would make a good Netflix mini series. |