It seems from their repo (need to verify) that they did the right thing and changed the License to their own license name called Dgraph Community License (DCL)
Compare this to Neo4j, who added the commons clause to the AGPL License complete with FSF copyright and preamble. Neo4j kept the License as AGPL and reaped the benefits from open source community.
Neo4j’s approach made people think it was still open source under the AGPL, while dgraph’s approach was proper and clear.
Neo4j’s approach was deceitful in my opinion, and I believe it’s finally coming back to haunt them after some toxic rulings put the GPL structure at risk unless an upcoming appeal overturns it.
Good for dgraph for doing it right in the end and not making people think they were Apache licensed with commons.
2 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 17.4 ms ] threadIf Dgraph has the commons clause then it is no longer open source or free software (as in libre free).
If they are still calling it open source, they should be warned the courts have ruled that the commons clause means ‘not open source’.
Compare this to Neo4j, who added the commons clause to the AGPL License complete with FSF copyright and preamble. Neo4j kept the License as AGPL and reaped the benefits from open source community.
Neo4j’s approach made people think it was still open source under the AGPL, while dgraph’s approach was proper and clear.
Neo4j’s approach was deceitful in my opinion, and I believe it’s finally coming back to haunt them after some toxic rulings put the GPL structure at risk unless an upcoming appeal overturns it.
Good for dgraph for doing it right in the end and not making people think they were Apache licensed with commons.