[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.