An Appeals Court May Kill a GNU GPL Software License (theregister.com) 70
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:5, 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, Informative)
Re:Bad example, does not threaten GPLv3 (Score:4, Insightful)
"Neo4j actually complied with the cease and desist - meaning they knew they were wrong."
LOL school children
Re: Bad example, does not threaten GPLv3 (Score:3)
There is literally a clause in the license neo4j published saying any restriction added to the license can be removed.
If they took that part out of the license before publishing it, there would be no problem and this guy wouldnâ(TM)t have a case. But they left it in and now theyâ(TM)re trying to argue thatâ¦. I donâ(TM)t even know. If you follow the license.txt it specifically states you can remove the commons clause and redistribute it
Re: Bad example, does not threaten GPLv3 (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
By that notion the GPL itself wouldn't be considered open source as it only permits charging a fee to cover distribution costs.
Re: Erm? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
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)
The correct terms are free software and free open source software.
Even the LGPL and Linux kernel exception clause are sketchy along with the claim that interfacing in memory at runtime would somehow magically make something independently produced a derivative. This reasoning was a load of nonsense originally injected from the Microsoft FUD camp that for some reason was propagated by Stallman.
Your characterization of Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond are unfair. The OSI specs were created because sketchy compani
Re: (Score:2)
In the community, there are those who code, and those who evangelize. I do not think that the OSI turned out, on balance, to be a good idea for the community, and the strong libertarian ethos emanating from Raymond did not ultimately help hold t
Re: (Score:1)
I'm an anti-woke libertarian and I strongly support GPL/Free Software/Copyleft terms as the best decentralized mechanism for empowering individuals rather than depending on faulty trust models and central authority.
Rather than debate your ideology and mostly agree with your conclusions I'll say this.
The standards and definitions Bruce and Eric helped make possible were too loose for my taste and yours, clearly in time companies have proven us right by working around them. But for a time companies WERE relea
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
"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:1)
"Copyright over a legal agreement is preposterous"
Why? If I'm a divorce lawyer and spend months crafting the perfect flawless and ironclad prenup agreement then everyone just gets to copy and modify it to their hearts content?
I can't imagine a world in which you could claim software qualifies for copyright and legal agreements do not.
Re: (Score:3)
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:3)
A license cannot grant any legal right to use another license.
Re: Erm? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
That may well be, but the wronged party, FSF is not suing. PureThink is suing, and copyright law doesn't allow you to sue for infringement on someone else's behalf, so they got smacked down, and rightly so. And FSF is not suing, probably because they don't want to get involved in a costly legal battle over pretty much nothing. They'd win, but how much do you think the damages would be for stealing few pages of text? Few hundred bucks? Since it's the text itself of the licence that is being infringed, not th
Re: (Score:1)
Legal texts:
- the laws itself
- rulings based on this laws
- opinions brought up in a court of law
- contracts (as those might sooner or later be a topic in a court of law)
- licenses - because they are contracts
- and several other things in the context of law
have no copy rights
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
contracts [...] have no copy rights
[citation needed [upcounsel.com]]
[citation needed [quora.com]]
[citation needed [aiacontracts.com]]
Re: (Score:2)
You'll never convince Angelo with mere proof.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
You'll never convince Angelo with mere proof.
Oh, I am in no way trying to convince him of anything. I'm providing others with the information and also mocking him, both of which are public services.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't really deter him though -- I've done all of this and more to him countless times. It's not really a public service because few people browse this deep and never really notice. Take swipes at him early on in the topics. Also you'll burn yourself out quickly if you're simply trying to drag him down for the benefit of others. If you're going to do this, you have to troll properly. It has to be as much for your own personal entertainment as it is a public service. Shots below the belt are by far the
Re: (Score:1)
It doesn't really deter him though -- I've done all of this and more to him countless times.
Wow, now you are sinking very low.
So far you only were an idiot. Now you are sinking into the realm of a liar.
You never proved anything to me.
You only provide random links, which usually support MY point of view, and not yours.
Oh, stupid me just posted that already a few minutes ago: .Net CIL bytecode is nearly identical
- JVM bytecode and
You claim it is not. And? All your "proves" were wrong. (Oh, I said byte code,
Re: (Score:1)
A proof always convinces me.
However people are bad in proving things, for example your parent, did not read the links he quoted.
They all make clear: a contract in general can not be copyrighted. Simple ...
It does not make sense to google "copyright on contracts" and then copy paste the first three hits.
It would make more sense to READ them first. And if one likes to argue with links: at least copy/paste a few lines from the text behind the link.
But: that would be to simple.
Re: (Score:2)
I read very word of all of them, and none of them say what you just said they said.
I conclude that you are a troll since I know you are at least intelligent enough to read those things. Thanks for making it clear three times over.
Re: (Score:2)
You're a pompous troll, you always have been and you always will be.
When you pontificate it's a safe bet that you have no idea what 're talking about, like when you claimed Southeast Asia doesn't have weekends.
Go back to 4chan where you'll be welcomed among your own kind. Or maybe talk this out with your therapist (if she's taken your name off of the restraining order).
Re: (Score:1)
You should read what you link.
The links clearly state that it is nearly impossible to put a copyright on a contract.
Contracts and the Copyright Law
You may be able to copyright certain elements of drafting a contract such as the way you use the clauses or the key phrases. Basically, there are two difficulties involved in copyrighting a generic contract as such:
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:2)
"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?
Re: Obviously a bogus move by Neo4j (Score:2)
I don't see the issue (Score:1)
Re: (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:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the issue is going to be that "7. Additional Terms" section of the AGPL when applied makes your license to distribute the software Invalid.
Because of the fact that when the Author states that "You may distribute under the AGPL subject to these additional restrictions".
The author's grant of license to you is conditional and only exists upon you agreeing to follow BOTH set of conditions at the same time: the author's additional restrictions and the AGPL.
You are not granted any rights whatsoever un
Can someone explain... (Score:3)
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 happens to share a lot of text with the original isn't relevant.
I think the only way the author of the original contract could complain is on the basis of their copyright in the original contract. Assuming it's possible to own the copyright on contract language (I'm not sure), the original owner could argue that I had no right to create a derivative work of their contract, perhaps. But even so, while that might expose me to civil action over my copyright infringement, I don't see any way that would affect the validity of the contract. Especially since Neo4j made allegedly-unapproved modifications to a AGPLv3 which was already an unapproved modification of the FSF's GPLv3.
Note that I'm using the word "contract" where I should use the word "license", but I don't think it makes any difference in this case, and I think it's easier for people to reason about contracts. If that bothers you, apply s/contract/license/g to the two prior paragraphs.
I am not a lawyer, so maybe there's something I'm missing here, but it seems to me that the lower court got this absolutely right, and I expect the Appellate court to affirm it.
I also don't see how this endangers free and open source in any way... rather than tweaking AGPLv3, Neo4j could simply have written their own license that meant the same thing as their tweaked AGPLv3 and used that. And it's on everyone else to look at the license they're using and decide whether those terms are or are not acceptable. I can write a license saying that you're free to use my code, but only if you worship me with (legal) blood sacrifices every day at noon, and if you're okay with that then you're the idiot (or really just wanted an excuse to perform daily blood sacrifices).
The one way in which this might make sense is if it appears that Neo4j did something to hide their modifications to AGPLv3. If they were intentionally misleading people, then maybe the courts should refuse to honor their deception, but I don't see anything that indicates that to be the case.
Re:Can someone explain... (Score:4)
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: Can someone explain... (Score:2)
Using a derivative of GPL while claiming "GPL licensed" might be legal, but it puts a giant "asshole" sign on their forehead. People should boycott them for that deceit.
Re: Can someone explain... (Score:2)
P.S. (adding to above reply) The fact that the FSF is apparently not quick to jump to defend the defendant might mean that RMS' narrative might not be what you think it is.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the FSF is apparently not quick to jump to defend the defendant might mean that RMS' narrative might not be what you think it is.
What do you think RMS/FSF's narrative is?
The best I can figure out is that FSF doesn't want the guy to litigate this in the first place, and hopes he gives up. Why? Because it would be a bad battle to lose. It seems to me that the AGPL's intent here is to stop people who create derivatives of AGPL code from adding restrictions to it. Not so clear, at least to me, is whether the original code authors can add such restrictions to AGPL. I would not want to see a ruling on the latter case affect the former.
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)
Because copyright law. If someone gives you their copywritten item you abide the terms of their licensing, else forfeit right to their work
You can copyright the text of a license. This would allow you to prohibit distributing an edited version of the license.
But it is not possible to prevent an author from applying an Amended license to their work by using a statement like:
"You may distribute this software under the terms of the GNU General Public License Version 3.0 subject to the amendments and conditi
Re: (Score:3)
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:1)
> ...that you shoudl not guess about...
Where I live we're allowed to opine on things not yet determined, asshole.
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!"
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't modify it correctly, it still included a clause which states any modifications can be ignored.
If they wanted to make a modified version they should have removed that clause, as well as removing reference to the name "AGPLv3" as that specifically means the original unmodified terms.
This can be really bad for the FOSS community! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This can be really bad for the FOSS community! (Score:2)
The FSF has no say about the license terms in this case because Neo4j didn't use their AGPLv3 license, they just invented another one that superficially look like it.
The FSF should have a say about this bastardizing of GPL, but it's not relevant to the current lawsuit.
Re: This can be really bad for the FOSS community! (Score:3)
More frauds like Neo4j will certainly appear... but the defense from them is easy. Just check their license. If it says GPL, compare it with the actual GPL from FSF. If the licenses match verbatim, then you're safe. If not, then you're dealing with frauds and you shouldn't touch their code with a ten foot long pole.
FSF just filed Amicus Brief in the case (Score:1)
Didn't we already discuss this, Beau? (Score:3)
What's up with these dupes? Anyway, the conclusion is clear. The court will most probably confirm the findings of the lower courts, Purethink will be spanked, Neo4j are assholes for bastardizing the GPL even if it is found legal, and should probably be boycotted until they change the problematic deceptive license to some clearly non-free license, GPL and open source are not actually in danger because nothing prevents a licensor from using whatever license they want, and the FSF is passive precisely because the suit doesn't actually concern the AGPLv3 license.
Re: Didn't we already discuss this, Beau? (Score:1)
Copyright or trademark (Score:1)
They should trademark and copyright the license and clearly state that it is not allowed to modify nor extend them unless in ways compatible with the license.
Otherwise it is possible to smash together a text you want to pass as open source and call AGPL, but it actually isn't one.
Of course you can modify a license (Score:3)
Of course you can modify a license. And if you remove the "additional restrictions are removable" clause, the additional clauses are also no longer removable. BUT ... the GPL is copyrighted by GNU and if GNU disallows modifying the license text, you're not allowed to use the text as base for your own license. This would simply be copyright infringement on the license text.
Also most modifications by people who are no lawyers end up causing troubles with unintended consequences:
https://opensource.stackexchan... [stackexchange.com]