Copied from other thread:<p>The case centers on who has the authority to interpret the terms of an open-source license:<p>1.The software developers who adopt licenses like GPLv3, MIT, or Apache 2.0 for their projects
OR
2. The original authors of those licenses (FSF, Apache Foundation, etc)<p>If the appeal fails to overturn the flawed lower court ruling, it will set a precedent allowing legal cases to focus on how software developers themselves interpret the terms of licenses like GPLv3, MIT,Apache 2.0, etc.
This is precisely what happened with Neo4j.<p>This issue is significant enough that two of the leading open-source foundations submitted amicus briefs in the case.<p>I think Neo4j knows it is wrong after this latest Amicus and they have the power to stop this in its tracks by simply settling the case before the ninth circuit makes a ruling which will be precedent.<p>Pretty crazy situation!
From the FSF (21 points, 24 hours ago) <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43249342">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43249342</a>