'It is a false advertisement to sing open source even though the software is not open source'

It is false that the

Open Source Initiative , an organization that aims to promote open source, claims in the US District Court that 'software not licensed under an open source license' is open source. It was decided that it would be an advertisement. '

(PDF file) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.335295/gov.uscourts.cand.335295.118.0.pdf

Court affirms it's false advertising to claim software is Open Source when it's not | Open Source Initiative | Guaranteeing the'our' in source ...

Court says non-open'open source' code is false advertising • The Register

According to the Open Source Initiative, the decision is that the Open Native Graph Database (ONgDB) developed by the Graph Foundation as a fork of the open source graph database ' Neo4j Enterprise Edition' is '100% free and open source version'. What I ordered not to insist. Similarly, PureThink and iGov, who were also developing Neo4j forks, were ordered not to call themselves open source.

Neo4j was originally released under the GNU Affero General Public License version 3 (AGPLv3) license, but from one version it adopted its own license with additional restrictions in the Commons Clause. This new Neo4j EE license prohibits non-paying users of the software from reselling code or providing some support services and is not open source as defined by the Open Source Initiative.

However, the Graph Foundation has released ONgDB as a 'free & open source version' of Neo4j. So in 2018 and 2019, Neo4j and its Swedish subsidiary filed a claim against each company for trademark and copyright infringement. The Graph Foundation then settled with Neo4j and its subsidiaries in February 2021 to discontinue support for ONgDB versions 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6, and to use OngDB version 1.0 as a fork of Neo4j EE version 3.4.0.rc02, which was only AGPLv3 licensed. Released.

However, because PureThink and iGov appealed, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court's ruling that 'the statement that ONgDB is a free and open source version of Neo4j EE is a false ad.'

The ruling said, 'This price difference (free and paid) could influence customers' purchasing decisions because the defendant pretended that Neo4j licensed ONgDB under APGL version 3 was a free version of EE. There is no doubt that it was. Therefore, the court finds that the defendant's remarks suggesting that customers have access to a 'free and open source alternative to Neo4j EE' were important. '

Bruce Perens, one of the advocates of open source, said in an email to The Register, 'This is interesting, even though the court has not registered the term'open source'as a trademark. Instead, I admitted it as a technical claim that could be fraudulent if misused. '

The Open Source Initiative said, 'There is another interesting point in this case, even though the AGPL has a clause that explicitly allows recipients to eliminate'further restrictions' such as shared clauses. The court denied that the defendant would do that. '

'Even if the AGPL has the wording to allow the removal of the shared clause, the license is not universal. The license is valid only to consider a person who does not comply with the terms to be a copyright infringer. And the copyright holder himself cannot be an infringer of the work he owns, he is only an infringer of the work of others. '

in Software, Posted by log1i_yk