[itsabug]

I... Think this ruling is good, even if you disagree with the Commons clause? I'm not sure I'm thrilled with limiting the speech of developers by saying they cannot ever place any restrictions whatsoever on how their code is used.

[jamestanderson]

Developers certainly can place restrictions on how their code is used.

In my view, if developers want to add those restrictions, via the Commons Clause or otherwise, they should not license their work under the AGPLv3 (or other Open Source licenses). It appears the courts do not agree though, at least in this case.

[Dylan16807]

Well it's not AGPLv3, it's a modified version.

[djur]

Yeah, I don't see any reason to think it's wrong. Neo4j is in the wrong in that they represented their corrupted AGPL as "free and open source", and they should not have used the original name and text of the AGPL. But I don't see any good argument that the FSF's interpretation of the corrupted AGPL should supersede that of the copyright holders.

[wtallis]

> But I don't see any good argument that the FSF's interpretation of the corrupted AGPL should supersede that of the copyright holders.

It seems like the copyright holders assembled a chimera license that is in conflict with itself. The resulting ambiguity should be construed against the copyright holders and in favor of the users.

[djur]

The court's answer to that is that the language in the Neo4j license referring to "this License" should be interpreted as referring to the entirety of the license (i.e. AGPL combined with Commons Clause), which means there is no conflict.