-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.4k
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Updates enterprise LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt
Includes new copyright and Commons Clause addition Also adds LICENSE.txt to some modules that didn't have it
- Loading branch information
1 parent
ffcdb4f
commit 6558e5e
Showing
57 changed files
with
6,534 additions
and
957 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
26 changes: 10 additions & 16 deletions
26
community/licensecheck-config/src/main/resources/notice-agpl-prefix.txt
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -1,22 +1,16 @@ | ||
Neo4j | ||
Copyright © 2002-2018 Network Engine for Objects in Lund AB (referred to | ||
in this notice as "Neo Technology") | ||
[http://neotechnology.com] | ||
Copyright © 2002-2018 Neo4j Sweden AB (referred to in this notice as "Neo4j") | ||
[http://neo4j.com] | ||
|
||
This product includes software ("Software") developed by Neo Technology. | ||
This product includes software ("Software") developed and owned by Neo4j. | ||
|
||
The software ("Software") is developed and owned by Network Engine | ||
for Objects in Lund AB (referred to in this notice as "Neo Technology"). | ||
If you have executed an End User Software License and Services Agreement, | ||
an OEM Software License and Support Services Agreement, or another | ||
commercial license agreement (including an Evaluation Agreement) with | ||
Neo Technology or one of its affiliates (each, a "Commercial Agreement"), | ||
you may use the Software solely pursuant to the terms of the relevant | ||
Commercial Agreement. | ||
The Software is subject to the terms of the GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE | ||
Version 3 (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html), | ||
included in the LICENSE.txt file, with the Commons Clause. | ||
|
||
If you have not executed a Commercial Agreement with Neo Technology, the | ||
Software is subject to the terms of the GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE | ||
Version 3 (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/agpl-3.0.html), included | ||
in the LICENSE.txt file. | ||
Neo4j Enterprise object code can be licensed independently from the source | ||
under separate commercial terms. Email inquiries can be directed | ||
to: licensing@neo4j.com. More information is also available | ||
at: https://neo4j.com/licensing/ | ||
|
||
Full license texts are found in LICENSES.txt. |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
6558e5e
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am pretty sure you can't add additional terms to AGPL such as the commons clause you added. I'm reaching out to the free software foundation to verify if this is allowed.
6558e5e
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hey @jmsuhy, I'm not a lawyer, but it looks pretty clearly not allowed based on a simple reading of the license text. Specifically, section 10 of the AGPL says:
neo4j/enterprise/server-enterprise/LICENSE.txt
Lines 468 to 474 in f691b07
The additional terms one is allowed to add to an AGPL licensed product are covered in section 7:
neo4j/enterprise/server-enterprise/LICENSE.txt
Lines 348 to 357 in f691b07
The relationship between the two sections is addressed in the FAQ: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#v3Notwithstanding
In order for the Commons Clause to apply, the AGPL text would have to be modified, which is strictly not allowed in the first paragraph:
neo4j/enterprise/server-enterprise/LICENSE.txt
Lines 21 to 22 in f691b07
I look forward to hearing what the FSF has to say about it in particular, but a simple reading of the text here makes it seem pretty clear.
6558e5e
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Folks, we're not dealing with a copy of the software here -- this is the original license document provided by Neo, the copyright holder and licensor.
In my understanding, the scope of this AGPL restriction (as well as these kinds of restrictions in all OSS licenses) is to disable the ability for "man-in-the-middle" sub-licensing, effectively ensuring that the license grant comes from the original copyright holder no matter how the software is conveyed. However, as the original copyright holder of the codebase is Neo, they can add whatever terms or exceptions best fit their original licensing intent -- the protections in the original AGPL prevents third parties from altering or sub-licensing those terms.
To clarify, the entire file, including the added clause, is the original license from Neo. This is obviously not the original AGPL, and whether this still fits the "free software" definition is up for debate, but an entirely separate matter.
6558e5e
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@xizhao this has nothing to do with whether neo4j has the right to apply whatever license they want to software they own or not. Of course they do: they chose the GNU AGPL.
The entire point is: neo4j chose to apply the AGPL to their software, which pre-emptively renders additional restrictions null, and then added nullified additional restrictions.
If they don't want the AGPL then they are certainly free to change that in future versions (because copyright is not retroactive). But they cannot call something AGPL which is not.
6558e5e
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right, I don't think we disagree on that. Whether this is AGPL, "free software" or anything else is a different matter that I'm not interested in, hence my note:
I just wanted to clarify against the license restrictions you cite would disable the license itself -- I don't think that's how it works.
License
referenced in Section 10 refers to the entirety of the document that clause is embedded in, so I don't want people to get the wrong idea from your comment here:AFAIK this is a valid license. And as you said, that's independent from how it should be named:
6558e5e
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree @srbaker : You can not represent your license as AGPL if it is not in fact AGPL. Not only is there ethical issues with that, the free software foundation forbids it. Below is a comment I added to the ticket corresponding to this issue.
The issue at hand is that you can not add restrictions to AGPL then misguide the community and committers as to what is happening.
Not only does AGPL forbid this, it is not fair to committers and the community as a whole.
If your intention was to keep Neo4j free and open, then you should know your restrictions are not allowed by AGPL and we can continue the 'debate' in that direction.
I think you should be upfront with the community that helped make Neo4j what it is today.
6558e5e
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
To keep the discussion contained, please refer to #11821. This thread will now be closed.