[acefaceZ]

The danger here isn’t just about AGPLv3 or even GPLv3, it’s about setting a legal precedent that could be used to undermine all open-source licenses, including permissive ones like MIT and Apache.

GPLv3 will be decimated if the ruling is upheld. You could never trust that a GPLv3 licensed project could not pull a bait and switch like Neo4j in the future.

The lower court’s ruling effectively says that a licensor can override open-source freedoms by tacking on new restrictions, even when using a license that explicitly prohibits them.

If upheld, this decision could be cited in future cases to argue that a licensor’s intent matters more than the actual terms of the license, opening the door for companies to attach proprietary restrictions to open-source projects without consequence.

In other words, the entire legal framework that ensures open-source licenses are binding and enforceable is at risk, making it easier to impose restrictions after distribution—something previously considered legally untenable.

This isn’t just about “virality” in GPLv3, it’s about whether any open-source license can still be trusted to mean what it says.

That is a big deal.