The case centers on who has the authority to interpret the terms of an open-source license:
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)
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.
This issue is significant enough that two of the leading open-source foundations submitted amicus briefs in the case.
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.
It looks like the Free Software Foundation is not standing on the sidelines any longer and have called out Neo4j in the newly filed Amicus Brief filed February 28th, 2025.
Many in the community are only just starting to realize the potential impact of this case on FOSS licensing
the impact is that if the developer gets to set the rules on how to interpret the license text then there will be a lot of confusion and doubt, because two projects can use the same license and interpret it differently. but while that is potentially a problem it should only affect licenses with ambiguous clauses of which there should not be many in the original GNU licenses, so the primary projects that will be affected are those that modify the GNU licenses and add additional terms.
that modified GNU licenses are problematic should not be surprising. i'd stay away from any project that tries to do that.
the impact is similar to companies calling their products open source even though they don't use an open source license. now we get a company calling their license GNU even though it actually isn't.
beyond that i don't think the outcome of the ruling will matter much.
So Neo4j added additional restrictions to their "GPL" licence, those were removed by a project that redistributed it.
FSF called out Neo4j and Neo4j just relicensed their entire project rather than make it properly GPL, but won't stop hassling the redistribution of the old version. Presumably to stop a GPL version of their older code being out there?
I think there is more to the story. Here is an interesting tidbit: The person Neo4j is fighting (Suhy) is the founder of ONgDB and DozerDB - the 2 biggest open source forks of Neo4j. (Possibly the only forks)
The open-source community is finally realizing that Neo4j v. PureThink could set a dangerous legal precedent, allowing companies to impose new restrictions on open-source licenses.
If the Ninth Circuit upholds the lower court’s ruling, it won’t just threaten the GPL, it could undermine all open-source licenses, undoing years of work to protect software freedom.
The danger here isn’t just about AGPLv3 or even GPLv3, it’s about setting a legal precedent that could be used to undermine all open-source licenses, including permissive ones like MIT and Apache.
GPLv3 will be decimated if the ruling is upheld. You could never trust that a GPLv3 licensed project could not pull a bait and switch like Neo4j in the future.
The lower court’s ruling effectively says that a licensor can override open-source freedoms by tacking on new restrictions, even when using a license that explicitly prohibits them.
If upheld, this decision could be cited in future cases to argue that a licensor’s intent matters more than the actual terms of the license, opening the door for companies to attach proprietary restrictions to open-source projects without consequence.
In other words, the entire legal framework that ensures open-source licenses are binding and enforceable is at risk, making it easier to impose restrictions after distribution—something previously considered legally untenable.
This isn’t just about “virality” in GPLv3, it’s about whether any open-source license can still be trusted to mean what it says.
Thanks for looking out for the community!! The community needs more organizations like yours - who will stand up to this type of behavior.
Neo4j’s actions are very disappointing.
It’s hard to ignore that this litigation is aimed at someone who also happens to be the founder of the two largest free and open-source Neo4j forks, ONGDB and DOZERDB.
Makes you wonder if this litigation is really about stifling open-source competition.
I believe they are part of the recently setup homesteading program similar to what Alaska setup in the 80s. If they can put a stake in the ground they get 20 acres around the stake.
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)
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.
This issue is significant enough that two of the leading open-source foundations submitted amicus briefs in the case.
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.
Pretty crazy situation!