Permalink
7 comments
on commit
sign in to comment.
Browse files
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...
Showing
with
6,534 additions
and 957 deletions.
- +10 −16 community/licensecheck-config/src/main/resources/notice-agpl-prefix.txt
- +22 −11 enterprise/auth-plugin-api/LICENSE.txt
- +10 −16 enterprise/auth-plugin-api/NOTICE.txt
- +23 −11 enterprise/backup/LICENSE.txt
- +13 −19 enterprise/backup/NOTICE.txt
- +23 −11 enterprise/causal-clustering/LICENSE.txt
- +10 −16 enterprise/causal-clustering/NOTICE.txt
- +23 −11 enterprise/cluster/LICENSE.txt
- +13 −19 enterprise/cluster/NOTICE.txt
- +23 −11 enterprise/com/LICENSE.txt
- +13 −19 enterprise/com/NOTICE.txt
- +693 −0 enterprise/cypher/acceptance-spec-suite/LICENSE.txt
- +10 −16 enterprise/cypher/acceptance-spec-suite/NOTICE.txt
- +117 −119 enterprise/cypher/compatibility-spec-suite/LICENSE.txt
- +10 −16 enterprise/cypher/compatibility-spec-suite/NOTICE.txt
- +693 −0 enterprise/cypher/cypher/LICENSE.txt
- +13 −19 enterprise/cypher/cypher/NOTICE.txt
- +693 −0 enterprise/cypher/morsel-runtime/LICENSE.txt
- +13 −19 enterprise/cypher/morsel-runtime/NOTICE.txt
- +693 −0 enterprise/cypher/physical-planning/LICENSE.txt
- +13 −19 enterprise/cypher/physical-planning/NOTICE.txt
- +693 −0 enterprise/cypher/slotted-runtime/LICENSE.txt
- +13 −19 enterprise/cypher/slotted-runtime/NOTICE.txt
- +117 −119 enterprise/cypher/spec-suite-tools/LICENSE.txt
- +10 −16 enterprise/cypher/spec-suite-tools/NOTICE.txt
- +22 −11 enterprise/deferred-locks/LICENSE.txt
- +13 −19 enterprise/deferred-locks/NOTICE.txt
- +22 −11 enterprise/fulltext-addon/LICENSE.txt
- +13 −19 enterprise/fulltext-addon/NOTICE.txt
- +23 −11 enterprise/ha/LICENSE.txt
- +10 −16 enterprise/ha/NOTICE.txt
- +22 −11 enterprise/kernel/LICENSE.txt
- +13 −19 enterprise/kernel/NOTICE.txt
- +23 −11 enterprise/management/LICENSE.txt
- +10 −16 enterprise/management/NOTICE.txt
- +693 −0 enterprise/metrics/LICENSE.txt
- +13 −19 enterprise/metrics/NOTICE.txt
- +23 −11 enterprise/neo4j-enterprise/LICENSE.txt
- +10 −16 enterprise/neo4j-enterprise/NOTICE.txt
- +693 −0 enterprise/neo4j-harness-enterprise/LICENSE.txt
- +13 −19 enterprise/neo4j-harness-enterprise/NOTICE.txt
- +693 −0 enterprise/procedure-compiler-enterprise-tests/LICENSE.txt
- +13 −19 enterprise/procedure-compiler-enterprise-tests/NOTICE.txt
- +23 −11 enterprise/query-logging/LICENSE.txt
- +13 −19 enterprise/query-logging/NOTICE.txt
- +22 −11 enterprise/security/LICENSE.txt
- +13 −19 enterprise/security/NOTICE.txt
- +23 −11 enterprise/server-enterprise/LICENSE.txt
- +13 −19 enterprise/server-enterprise/NOTICE.txt
- +23 −11 integrationtests/LICENSE.txt
- +13 −19 integrationtests/NOTICE.txt
- +23 −11 packaging/standalone/LICENSE.txt
- +10 −16 packaging/standalone/NOTICE.txt
- +23 −11 stresstests/LICENSE.txt
- +13 −19 stresstests/NOTICE.txt
- +23 −11 tools/LICENSE.txt
- +13 −19 tools/NOTICE.txt
| @@ -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. |
Oops, something went wrong.
This comment has been minimized.
jmsuhyMay 19, 2018
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.
jmsuhy repliedMay 19, 2018
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.
This comment has been minimized.
srbakerMay 21, 2018
ContributorHey @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.
srbaker repliedMay 21, 2018
•
edited
Edited 1 time
-
srbaker
edited May 21, 2018 (most recent)
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.
This comment has been minimized.
xizhaoMay 21, 2018
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.
xizhao repliedMay 21, 2018
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.
This comment has been minimized.
srbakerMay 21, 2018
Contributor@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.
srbaker repliedMay 21, 2018
@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.
This comment has been minimized.
xizhaoMay 21, 2018
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.
Licensereferenced 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:
xizhao repliedMay 21, 2018
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.
Licensereferenced 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:
This comment has been minimized.
jmsuhyMay 22, 2018
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.
jmsuhy repliedMay 22, 2018
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.
This comment has been minimized.
digitalstainMay 22, 2018
MemberTo keep the discussion contained, please refer to #11821. This thread will now be closed.
digitalstain repliedMay 22, 2018
To keep the discussion contained, please refer to #11821. This thread will now be closed.