SFC Files Amicus Brief in Support of Users' Rights under AGPLv3§7 - Software Freedom Conservancy

SFC filed an amicus brief in the ongoing case of Neo4j, Inc. v. PureThink, LLC, which is now appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal focuses on a downstream licensee's right under the Affero General Public License, version 3 (and similar rights under GPLv3 and LGPLv3) to remove “Further Restrictions” — even when such restrictions are put in place by original licensors. SFC was proud to stand up for this important right under copyleft, and appears to be the only organization that filed an amicus brief in this case.

While the case in the lower court covered many issues, SFC's amicus brief focuses on one key important issue: the right for licensees — be it for commercial or non-commercial reasons — to remove further restrictions placed by Neo4j — pursuant to this unqualified right enshrined in AGPLv3§7¶4: 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.

Neo4j had appended the non-free Commons Clause at the end of the the full, unmodified text of the AGPLv3 (including its original preamble) to create what Neo4j dubbed the “Neo4j Sweden Software License”. There was no dispute that the so-called “Commons Clause” was a “further restriction” that could be removed under AGPLv3 §7¶4. But Neo4j had argued (and the lower court agreed) that this right was in conflict with AGPLv3 §10¶3 (which, in part, prohibits licensees from adding “further restrictions”). Neo4j further argued (and the lower court agreed) that since §10¶3 did not mention licensors explicitly, then not only must licensors have the right to add “further restrictions” but this implicit right trumped the licensees' explicit right to remove such restrictions under §7¶4.

Leave a Comment