Just going off this table [1] there is pretty wide disagreement of what constitutes open source between different groups, so to claim without qualification that you alone get to define and arbitrate that seems pretty crazy to me. Like either you are stuck in an echo chamber or you've lost sight of the difference between yourself and the community e.g. if you aren't with us you are against open source. Either way, it does not make me want to use the OSI my north star. Not sure who elected them kings of open source. One could argue that the list of licenses on Wikipedia is more reflective community consensus since, in theory at least, it is the product of a lot of debate and consensus from many contributors.[2]<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licences#Approvals" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licences" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_free_and_op...</a>
I don't see how the OSI can move past this incident without losing credibility for their position on the meaning of "open-source". If you're trying to convince people that "open-source" <i>genuinely</i> means something different than what they might otherwise have thought, I would think it kind of undermines your position when you get caught twisting the meanings of other words in the process of finding support for your position.
One thing this article doesn't mention, which I had mentioned on the previous thread, is that this really feels like 'false advertising' was used because they couldn't make 'copyright violation' stick. If so, this is the exact opposite of a victory for OSI, as the court judged in favor of the guys making things not-open-source and against the guys trying to make it open-source.
Further even, the OSI and FSF lost in that the courts upheld that you can add the Commons Clause to the AGPLv3 despite the AGPL having a clause saying further restrictions can be ignored. (It gets a little complicated, I believe the reasoning was that Neo4j could only add the commons clause as the original copyright holder/licensor, no sub-licensor could add it)
Funny to see people talking about the case.<p>I thought it was interesting that the 9th circuit made so many mistakes that they had to append the ruling. The fact that they got the defendants wrong is quite strange to me. The Graph Foundation was not part of the case any longer. They joined the case but then settled. The injunction itself that<p>Neo4j was very sloppy when adding the commons clause into the AGPL. They literally added the commons clause to the AGPL, leaving in the preamble and all, and call it the ‘Sweden License’. (Virtual name)<p><a href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/neo4j/neo4j/3.4.18/enterprise/neo4j-enterprise/LICENSE.txt" rel="nofollow">https://raw.githubusercontent.com/neo4j/neo4j/3.4.18/enterpr...</a><p>This ‘sweden license’ literally states it is a ‘free, copyleft license.’<p>copyleft = opensource according to Philip Rathle, Vice President of Products at Neo4j Inc. (6-ER-1368 ¶¶ 10-11 of appeal except of records).<p>Therefore according to Neo4j - it is free and open source.<p>Neo4j says their 'Sweden License' (AGPL + Commons) is both open source and not open source at the same time.<p>I call this: 'Schrödinger's Sweden License'<p>Keep an eye on the case - it is now in the second phase of the case where everyone will learn about Neo4j’s behavior. It would make a good Netflix mini series.
I don't get why this text says AGPL's section 10 would "allows removal of additional restrictions". But AGPL's section 10 does not such thing, it forbids imposition of any further restrictions - which is somewhat the opposite.
Thank you. Open-source foundations are too quick to interpret legal matters in their preferred light, as though law is something they can sway in their favor if they get enough people to misinterpret it the same way they do.