Isn't the Neo4j case a case of AGPL being undermined as a EULA in court? I'm having trouble interpreting whether the AGPL licence was affirmed or not in this ruling. Never thought I'd see the DMCA used for good and not evil, to be honest, so this ruling is likely running up against some cognitive dissonance in my logic circuits, but pretty sure this is another bad DMCA case from my amateur legal perspective.
Neo4j sued PureThink, a small business that had used a power created under the terms of the GNU AGPL, to remove a restrictive Commons clause that Neo4j had added to the AGPL license. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California made a decision on 2024-07-22 to impose $597,000 in actual damages on PureThink, having previously decided that PureThink had violated the DMCA by removing the Commons Clause from Neo4j's AGPL license, and that it had violated trademark law by continuing to use the name Neo4j in selling to government agencies.
Comments
Isn't the Neo4j case a case of AGPL being undermined as a EULA in court? I'm having trouble interpreting whether the AGPL licence was affirmed or not in this ruling. Never thought I'd see the DMCA used for good and not evil, to be honest, so this ruling is likely running up against some cognitive dissonance in my logic circuits, but pretty sure this is another bad DMCA case from my amateur legal perspective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo4j#Criticisms