![]() Understand that FOSS can be commercial as well.) “proprietary” in that section - it seems they do not (BTW, the court confuses “commercial” and Source” version and/or alternative to proprietary-licensed Neo4jĮE, the Court held that removal of the “Commons Clause” was not permitted. “Neo4j Sweden Software License” is a “free and open The Neo4j Enterprise edition that was released under the so-called Support the Court's order that temporarily prevents Suhy and others from saying that Section regarding licensing deeply concerns us. That ruling is not particularly related to FOSS licensing questions, but The Court partially granted Neo4j's motion for summary judgment. Suhy's suggestions to others that removal of the “Commons Clause” was legitimate)Ĭonstituted behavior that the Court should enjoin or otherwise The license information in the repository (and/or Judgment motion, Neo4j argued that the removal of the “Commons Clause” from These allegations in court - asserting that his removal of the “Commons Clause” was legitimate and permitted.įor summary judgment on all the issues, and throughout their summary Subsequently redistributing the software under pure AGPLv3) in paragraph 77 of However, we focus on the matter of most interest to us and many FOSS activists: Suhy's permissions to remove the “CommonsĪccuses Suhy of improperly removing the “Commons Clause” from the codebase (and In this case we agree that there are lots of There are many complex issues of trademark and breach of other contracts This license mash-up (if legitimate, which we at Software FreedomĬonservancy and Suhy both dispute), is not an “open source ![]() “Commons Clause” - a toxic proprietary license. (“AGPLv3”) (a license that I helped write), and the The entire text of the Affero General Public License, version 3 Specifically, Neo4j attempted to license the codebase under something they (later, in their Court filings)ĭubbed the “Neo4j Sweden Software License” - which consists of a LICENSE.txt file containing However, theĬlaims central to our concern relate to a dispute between Suhy and Neo4j regarding Suhy'sĬlarification in downstream licensing of the Enterprise version that Neo4j distributed. Rights regarding “Neo4j” and related marks. Most of these claims centered around trademark To paraphrase LeVar Burton, we encourage all our readers to not take our word (or anyone else's) for it,īut instead take the time to read the dockets and come to your ownĪfter canceling their formal, contractual partnership with Suhy, Neo4j alleged multiple claims ![]() Other available public materials, we've come to understand some basic facts and Studying the docket of the case, and a relevant related case, and Relicensing company, against a very small company called PureThink, run byĪn individual named John Mark Suhy. The primary case in question is a dispute between Neo4j, ![]() The appeal (decided this month) even an actual appeal of theĭecision itself! This lawsuit is far from completion. It's true that part of the summary judgment decision in the lower court bodes badly for an important provision inĪGPLv3§7♤, the good news is that the case is not over, nor was ![]() We've seen much understandable confusion in the public discourse about the status of the caseĪnd the impact of the Ninth Circuit's decision to continue the trial court's preliminary injunction while the case continues. PureThink, LLC ongoing case in the Northern District of California, and the preliminary injunction appeal decision in Toward this goal, we have studied the Neo4j, Inc. Software Freedom Conservancy proudly and vigilantly watch outįor your rights under copyleft licenses such as the Affero GPLv3. PureThinkīad Early Court Decision for AGPLv3 Has Not Yet Been Appealed An Erroneous Preliminary Injunction Granted in Neo4j v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |