An Appeals Court May Kill a GNU GPL Software License (theregister.com) 36
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is set to review a California district court's ruling in Neo4j v. PureThink, which upheld Neo4j's right to modify the GNU AGPLv3 with additional binding terms. If the appellate court affirms this decision, it could set a precedent allowing licensors to impose unremovable restrictions on open-source software, potentially undermining the enforceability of GPL-based licenses and threatening the integrity of the open-source ecosystem. The Register reports: The GNU AGPLv3 is a free and open source software (FOSS) license largely based on the GNU GPLv3, both of which are published by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). Neo4j provided database software under the AGPLv3, then tweaked the license, leading to legal battles over forks of the software. The AGPLv3 includes language that says any added restrictions or requirements are removable, meaning someone could just file off Neo4j's changes to the usage and distribution license, reverting it back to the standard AGPLv3, which the biz has argued and successfully fought against in that California district court.
Now the matter, the validity of that modified FOSS license, is before an appeals court in the USA. "I don't think the community realizes that if the Ninth Circuit upholds the lower court's ruling, it won't just kill GPLv3," PureThink's John Mark Suhy told The Register. "It will create a dangerous legal precedent that could be used to undermine all open-source licenses, allowing licensors to impose unexpected restrictions and fundamentally eroding the trust that makes open source possible."
Perhaps equally concerning is the fact that Suhy, founder and CTO of PureThink and iGov (the two firms sued by Neo4j), and presently CTO of IT consultancy Greystones Group, is defending GPL licenses on his own, pro se, without the help of the FSF, founded by Richard Stallman, creator of the GNU General Public License. "I'm actually doing everything pro se because I used up all my savings to fight it in the lower court," said Suhy. "I'm surprised the Free Software Foundation didn't care too much about it. They always had an excuse about not having the money for it. Luckily the Software Freedom Conservancy came in and helped out there."
Now the matter, the validity of that modified FOSS license, is before an appeals court in the USA. "I don't think the community realizes that if the Ninth Circuit upholds the lower court's ruling, it won't just kill GPLv3," PureThink's John Mark Suhy told The Register. "It will create a dangerous legal precedent that could be used to undermine all open-source licenses, allowing licensors to impose unexpected restrictions and fundamentally eroding the trust that makes open source possible."
Perhaps equally concerning is the fact that Suhy, founder and CTO of PureThink and iGov (the two firms sued by Neo4j), and presently CTO of IT consultancy Greystones Group, is defending GPL licenses on his own, pro se, without the help of the FSF, founded by Richard Stallman, creator of the GNU General Public License. "I'm actually doing everything pro se because I used up all my savings to fight it in the lower court," said Suhy. "I'm surprised the Free Software Foundation didn't care too much about it. They always had an excuse about not having the money for it. Luckily the Software Freedom Conservancy came in and helped out there."
Erm? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Bad example, does not threaten GPLv3 (Score:5, Informative)
https://neo4j.com/developer/cl... [neo4j.com] They even have a special revised CLA for IBM employees to sign before sending in PRs https://dev.assets.neo4j.com/w... [neo4j.com]
Indeed, as you say, by holding full copyright they can dual license or freely relicense new versions of the project at-will. If anything, these forkers should be going after any weaknesses in that CLA and contesting if neo4j really can do whatever they want with only joint copyright (assuming the forkers are also contributors). Otherwise they should respect the copyright holder and only build their forks off the AGPLv3 Neo4j Community Edition, any features they added themselves, and not appropriate any of these non-free "Enterprise Edition" code releases.
Re: (Score:2)
"Neo4j actually complied with the cease and desist - meaning they knew they were wrong."
LOL school children
Re: Erm? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The open source movement was popularized by Bruce Perens and the gun nut Eric Raymond. They went out of their way to dilute and adapt the concepts of free software into an amorphous "open" version that has since caused the proliferation of half assed licenses that company lawyers love.
Merging the two terms into FLOSS doesn't guarantee anything, because the OSS part doesn't guarantee an
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"However, I can state..."
Anyone can state anything.
"... that the FSF does not allow the making or distributing of altered versions of the licenses, including the GNU AGPLv3, resulting in unauthorized derivative works and confusing users. The FSF is working to make sure this is understood."
FSF has no authority to allow or disallow the licenses that other people use for their own works. Using different licenses doesn't create confusion, and a license is not a "derivative work", although no one doubts that th
Re: (Score:2)
The issue isn't that they are offering the code under certain terms, its that they are changing the GNU AGPL (which is a copyrighted work of the Free Software Foundation) in ways the license (and the copyright permission given by the FSF to make copies of the license and to change those copies) doesn't grant you the legal right to do.
Re: (Score:2)
A license cannot grant any legal right to use another license.
Re: Erm? (Score:4, Interesting)
The AGPL (a copyrighted work of the free software foundation) says "you can make copies of the AGPL only if you follow these rules". Since these guys aren't following those rules, they are infringing on the copyright of the free software foundation.
Obviously a bogus move by Neo4j (Score:3)
If one license can be ignored at will then they all can. All licenses would become meaningless. Open-source or not.
Re: (Score:1)
"If one license can be ignored at will then they all can."
False, and ignorant. If one law can be ignored then they all can, right?
I don't see the issue (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Neo4j was deceptive..."
So what, not against any law or a violation of any license.
"...and tried to add restrictions into the FSF AGPL license."
False. They added restrictions to their license which they legally controlled.
"All they had to do..."
Possibly true, but this contradicts your other statements. First, you openly admit here that they were not trying to modify an FSF license and that they were careless, not deceptive.
" Makes you think why they are still fighting even when they know they are wrong."
O
Re: (Score:2)
"Neo4j was deceptive..." So what, not against any law or a violation of any license.
Um, lots of jurisdictions have laws prohibiting deceptive business practices.
Re: (Score:2)
that's not what they did. they maintained the same license but added restrictions, which the same license they were using explicitly makes moot:
7. Additional Terms
All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
baring specific exceptions: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/a... [gnu.org]
these licenses are perpetual once released. they might have "forked" the code and changed to a different license model from there on, but all versions up to that point would stay with the original agpl. my impression is that they thought that would cause a bad impression. now they're causing an even worse
Can someone explain... (Score:2)
Can someone explain why anyone thinks "you can't use a modified version of this contract" is legal?
It seems to me that if I take a contract and add or remove terms, then use that contract to create an agreement with other people -- not trying to fool them about what I've done, being clear that the contract we're using is not the original one but one that I've modified -- that the terms of the base contract I started with are completely irrelevant. I've just made a new contract, and the fact that it happen
Re: (Score:2)
AGPLv3 which was already an unapproved modification of the FSF's GPLv3
I just noticed that this is incorrect. The FSF does approve AGPLv3. I don't think that affects the rest of my argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Can someone explain why anyone thinks "you can't use a modified version of this contract" is legal?
Because copyright law. If someone gives you their copywritten item you abide the terms of their licensing, else forfeit right to their work (subject to fair-use). If you do not have any right to a work (or have lost a previously granted right), you certainly cannot create modified versions to distribute to further parties.
AGPLv3 the license does not protect itself .. it protects the use of some other creative work.
Re: (Score:3)
AGPLv3 the license does not protect itself .. it protects the use of some other creative work.
But that's just it: the way I read it, AGPL v3 does in fact protect itself, by allowing any modifications to be removed.
What's puzzling me is why neo4j didn't just create their own license that accomplishes what AGPL v3 + their modifications would have, and call it something else. Then there could be no objections, or threats to AGPL v3. If neo4j is as committed as they claim to open-source, this is what they ought to do.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't protect itself, it claims the right to invalidate other licenses.
Creating a derivative of the AGPL in no way modifies the AGPL itself. You'd think open source lovers would understand this by now, but it doesn't suit Stallman's narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't protect itself, it claims the right to invalidate other licenses.
It claims the right to invalidate modifications or additions made to it. There's a difference.
Creating a derivative of the AGPL in no way modifies the AGPL itself. You'd think open source lovers would understand this by now, but it doesn't suit Stallman's narrative.
I suppose it depends on what you call the resulting license. If you take the vanilla AGPL and add your own restrictions when the license says you can't, then don't be surprised if you wind up in a conflict. Whereas if you write your own license that functions like AGPL plus the restrictions you want - and name it something else - then I would assume the legal case for treating it like AGPL would be harder.
Re: (Score:2)
no one "gave" Neo4j anything, it was their work that they were licensing.
The question was how can a clause in a license prohibit use of other licenses. It cannot.
"AGPLv3 the license does not protect itself .. it protects the use of some other creative work."
Exactly, now tell yourself that.
Re: (Score:2)
You can modify the contract - they're mostly considered public domain as they become "extensions of the law".
What you can't do is redistribute code that was licensed to you under one contract with another contract without permission from the copyright holder.
And with viral licenses (e.g. GPL vs. LGPL) you can't even link non-GPL code under another license with GPL code and distribute it.
People can write their own code if they don't like those terms.
Some people just want to copy code and not adhere to its li
Re: (Score:2)
"You can modify the contract - they're mostly considered public domain as they become "extensions of the law"."
Yes, tell the FSF that.
"What you can't do is redistribute code that was licensed to you under one contract with another contract without permission from the copyright holder."
Definitely didn't happen here, nor has anyone claimed otherwise
"People can write their own code if they don't like those terms."
Like Neo4j did
MODIFIED Licenses (Score:1)
Any "Agreement" or "Contract" or "License" between the parties is a set-down (written usually, but video works as well) of the "meeting of the minds" as to the "terms" under which there is an "accord" of "consideration" and "satisfaction". I apologize to using all these legal terms in one sentence.
So once there is an "accord" (agreement) where the parties have a "meeting of the minds" and a consideration is offered and a satisfaction provided that should be just that.
That's all undisputed law although the
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see it that way. It's weirder.
Normally a license like the GPL stipulates how you can use the source code it covers. But it appears AGPL v3 includes language that stipulates how you can use the license itself. In particular, it says any modifications you make to AGPL v3 can be "sawed off" -- thus making AGPL v3 effectively unmodifiable, unless you hold copyright on the license?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, the concept of copyright on matters of law is absurd.
"How do you plead?"
"Not guilty, your honor"
"You can't plead not guilty, I own the copyright!"
This can be really bad for the FOSS community! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)