Free Software Foundation Rides To Defend AGPLv3 Against Neo4j License Add-ons (fsf.org)
- Reference: 0176648357
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/03/08/0613217/free-software-foundation-rides-to-defend-agplv3-against-neo4j-license-add-ons
- Source link: https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-submits-amicus-brief-in-neo4j-v-suhy
"At stake is the future of not just the AGPLv3, but the FSF's widely used GNU Public License it is largely based on, and the software covered by those agreements."
> A core tenet of the GPL series is that free software remains free forever, and this is woven into the licenses' fine print. This ongoing legal battle is a matter of whether people can alter those licenses and redistribute code as they see fit in a non-free way, or if they must stick to the terms of an agreement that says the terms cannot be changed... If the Ninth Circuit upholds the [original district court] ruling, it's likely to create a binding precedent that would limit one of the major freedoms that AGPLv3 and other GPL licenses aim to protect — the ability to remove restrictions added to GPL licensed code.
"Neo4j appended an additional nonfree commercial restriction, the Commons Clause, to a verbatim version of the GNU AGPLv3 in a version of its software..." according to [2]an FSF announcement this week . "The FSF's position on such confusing licensing practices has always been clear: the GNU licenses explicitly allow users to remove restrictions incompatible with [3]the four freedoms ." (You can read their [4]amicus brief here .)
Thanks to Slashdot reader [5]jms00 for sharing the news.
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/03/04/free_software_foundation_agplv3/
[2] https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-submits-amicus-brief-in-neo4j-v-suhy
[3] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
[4] https://static.fsf.org/nosvn/fsf-docs/FSF-Amicus-Brief-Neo4j-Suhy.pdf
[5] https://www.slashdot.org/~jms00
copyright (Score:4, Informative)
This is poorly explained in the summary, so... here goes:
The FSF holds copyright on the AGPLv3 - the license itself . The AGPLv3 states that any additional restrictive terms added to the license are not valid and can be disregarded -that the license is only valid in its original form as published by the FSF. It is specifically allowable to use the license as written, and to redistribute copies of the license, but not to modify the license.
Neo4j's use of a modified AGPLv3 is an unlicensed derivative work , a violation of the copyright on the AGPL.. But this does not address the point of whether the license is a valid license. (**MY TAKE is that it would still be a valid license and that the copyright violation in creating a derivative work would be a separate matter legally.**)
Neo4j added their terms to the end of the AGPLv3 (in violation of the license on the AGPLv3) -complete with the clause stating that the added terms are invalid. There is a conflict in the license as presented: Clause X says that Clause Z is invalid. What happens then?
The court ruled that Clause Z stands, because it was the intent of the publisher (Neo4j), and their mistake did not invalidate the intent.
This is being contested (by John Mark Suhy and his two companies PureThink and iGov) on the grounds that (per contract law statute and precedence) vague terms or conflicts within the terms of a contract MUST be interpreted in favor of the party that did not write the contract.
The FSF is writing as a "friend of the court" in assertion of their copyright on the AGPLv3 license and their intent as its publisher that the license not be modified.
Re: (Score:3)
> The likelihood that a court would sustain any cause of action based on copyright infringement of the AGPL or GPL itself is about nil.
Copyright infringement is copyright infringement.
You could argue it would be commercial/criminal copyright infringement, which comes with much bigger penalties.
But the license wasn't modified and they didn't violate the terms of the copyright.
> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
The copied it verbatim. Adding stuff on the end of their license isn't changing the verbatim copy they made.
Being a verbatim copy, means in included this little bit here
> 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Do these random contracts have specific language in them saying you aren't allowed to distribute modified copies of their text?
It's one thing to fair use handwave-as-conventionally-accepted only-copyright-violation-in-a-hypertechnical-sense copying text of random licenses and contracts, but a typical conventional contract or license doesn't specifically ask you not to distribute modified copies of it.
Re: (Score:2)
You could argue it would be commercial/criminal copyright infringement, which comes with much bigger penalties.
I would argue that it is possibly Fair Use to modify the AGPL to create "John Doe's" AGPL and then apply that modified AGPL to your software. The Fair Use analysis would have to include the fact that the AGPL's purpose is not commercial to begin with, and it also has unlimited Verbatim distribution for free. Your modified AGPL does not affect the market for the original license, and, A key c
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say it's fair use when used with a commercial product, to stop others using the work for commercial purposes.
It's not "John Doe's AGPL", it's "Neo4J Inc's AGPL"
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there is any copyright issue with Neo4j adding clauses to the end of AGPLv3. They're not modifying the license, they reproduced it in full.
If they removed the clause that allows any restriction added to be removed, that would be a violation of the AGPLv3 copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a problem because the resulting license (AGPLv3 plus additions) is self-contradictory.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly why the license is written like that, so it can't be combined with an enforceable commons clause.
Re: (Score:2)
Neo4j added their terms to the end of the AGPLv3 (in violation of the license on the AGPLv3) -complete with the clause stating that the added terms are invalid.
In violation of the Distribution agreement for the text of the AGPL
However, the modified AGPL is still the license that applies to the software. The author could have complied with the Distribution Agreement for the AGPL by shipping the AGPL in its original form And specifying that the software is licensed under "An Amended AGPL" with the
question (Score:2)
so is the issue here that neo4j developers were lazy and dint write their own license but just modified the fsf one. or is it that the fsf thinks that the license restriction will be applied to older versions and they want to prevent that? or finally is it that they dont like that neo4j is relicensing code (which seems like somehting they could do given they probably own the copyright?
Re: (Score:1)
The FSF claims that users are free to delete the additional terms, which is a very ... creative ... interpretation of how copyright works. Otherwise it's the first of your alternatives (the FSF doesn't think the Neo4j people should have modified a GPL version).
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't that creative. You've been given a license that has a certain set of terms, one of which says that you're allowed to ignore additional attached terms.
This is ultimately a copyright issue -- of the license itself. FSF doesn't want their licenses used for non Free Software contexts, which is why you are only allowed to distribute the license unmodified and said license text is poisoned against trying to attach additional stuff to it.
From the point of view of FSF this wouldn't primarily be about anyth
Re: (Score:2)
They copied the AGPL license verbatim, including the clause that says you can remove any restriction added to the license, then tacked on the commons clause restriction at the end.
I'm surprised a court didn't just say tough shit, you said this guy could do what he did in the license you distributed the software under.
I don't think the guy had a lawyer and I think he represented himself.
Re: (Score:2)
It might still be an argument, because if a license is self-contradictory, which interpretation do you choose?
Re: (Score:2)
It might still be an argument, because if a license is self-contradictory, which interpretation do you choose?
For starters It is probably going to depend on HOW the author informed you of what the software's licensing was. And how that "additional restriction" was added. There are obviously ways a copyright owner can license something to you and Not allow you to remove a restriction, even if one of the license agreements they are including had said so.
If a Contract contains conflicting terms, then th