*Please consider adding <[email protected]> to your address book, which
will ensure that our messages reach you and not your spam box.*

*Read and share online:
<[link removed]>*

**BOSTON, Massachusetts, USA (March 3, 2025) -- The Free Software
Foundation (FSF) announced today it has submitted an amicus brief in
the case entitled Neo4j, Inc., et al. v. Suhy, et al., Case No.
24-5538 in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The amicus
brief addresses various misstatements and baseless assertions
regarding the FSF and the GNU Affero General Public License Version 3
(AGPLv3) -- the license at issue in the case -- found in a pleading
filed by Neo4j.**

The [case before the Ninth Circuit][1] is the appeal of [Neo4j, Inc.
v. PureThink, LLC.][2] The case involves, among other issues, the
application of Section 7 of the [GNU AGPLv3][3]. In the case, Neo4j
appended an additional nonfree commercial restriction, the [Commons
Clause][4], to a verbatim version of the GNU AGPLv3 in a version of
its software. PureThink subsequently removed this clause from its
license, based on the following language in Section 7:

> 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.

[1]: [link removed]
[2]: [link removed]
[3]: [link removed]
[4]: [link removed]

The FSF's position on such confusing licensing practices has always
been clear: the GNU licenses explicitly allow users to remove
restrictions incompatible with [the four freedoms][5]. This position
flows from the text of the licenses, and was announced as early as the
the drafting process of GNU GPLv3, which was released in 2007. (The
GNU AGPLv3 is an extended version.) The [GPLv3 Second Discussion Draft
Rationale][6] states as follows:

[5]: [link removed]
[6]: [link removed]

> Here we are particularly concerned about the practice of program
> authors who purport to license their works under the GPL with an
> additional requirement that contradicts the terms of the GPL, such as
> a prohibition on commercial use. Such terms can make the program
> non-free, and thus contradict the basic purpose of the GNU GPL; but
> even when the conditions are not fundamentally unethical, adding them
> in this way invariably makes the rights and obligations of licensees
> uncertain.

The [FSF submitted its amicus brief][7] in response to a pleading
entitled "Appellees' Opposition to Motion for Leave to File [Amicus
Curiae Brief by Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc.][8] (SFC) in
Support of Defendants-Appellants" (the "Opposition"), in which
[Neo4j asked the Court of Appeals not to consider an amicus brief
submitted by the SFC][9], which eloquently sought to point out the
errors of the District Court in interpreting the GNU AGPLv3, Section
7.

[7]: [link removed]
[8]: [link removed]
[9]: [link removed]

"As our amicus brief explains, the FSF previously pushed Neo4j to
correct their abuse of the AGPL," said Zoë Kooyman, executive
director of the FSF. "Their misstatements and baseless arguments in
their opposition have now compelled the FSF to step in again, to set
the record straight regarding the FSF and its intent in drafting the
GNU licenses -- to ensure the protection of software freedom."

Kooyman notes that the FSF's FAQ ["Can I modify the GPL and make a
modified license?"][10] outlines the steps required to make modified
versions of the GNU GPL, including removing specific sections of the
license text and removing any references to its marks. These steps
avoid confusing users of the GNU AGPLv3 and the FSF's trademarks
included in it. Because the GNU licenses have free software's
philosophy implicitly and explicitly ingrained in them, adding
restrictions to a GNU license without using good general licensing
practice as outlined in the FSF's FAQ results in an unauthorized
derivative of the license.

[FSF's amicus brief highlights][10], among other things, the cease and
desist letter sent to Neo4j in November 2023, in which the FSF laid
out a detailed explanation of its position on the confusing license
Neo4j created, stated that Neo4j was using the FSF's rights related to
the GNU AGPLv3 "in a confusing and unauthorized manner," and urged
Neo4j to alleviate this confusion. Following the FSF's letter, Neo4j
eventually removed all the infringing files from its repositories, and
ceased to offer its software as free software under the GNU AGPLv3,
thus implicitly conceding that the FSF's position regarding the
Commons Clause was correct.

[10]: [link removed]

"In our brief, we provide references to pertinent documents that will
help the Court understand our position and the license's intended
operation. All courts, including the courts in this case, should
consider the FSF's intent in drafting the GNU licenses when
interpreting provisions of these licenses," said Krzysztof Siewicz,
the FSF's licensing and compliance manager.

The FSF followed the case as a part of its efforts to [protect free
software against confusing licensing][4]. Kooyman continues: "The GNU
licenses were designed to empower users and we will continue to make
sure this is understood."

[4]: [link removed]

*[You can review the FSF's amicus brief in full here][11]*. To further
support this work, you can support the 501(c)(3) by joining the FSF as
an associate member or by donating to the organization.

[11]: [link removed]

## About the Free Software Foundation

The FSF was founded in 1985 to promote and protect computer users'
right to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer programs.
Over the years it has addressed new challenges, resulting for example
in releasing new versions of FSF's GNU family of licenses. The current
rapid development and public interest in machine learning applications
is another opportunity for the FSF to explore a moral and ethical
question, clarifying what it takes for users to be able to control
their own computing when using these applications.

Donations to support the FSF's work can be made at
<[link removed]>.

More information about the FSF, as well as important information for
journalists and publishers, is at [link removed].

## Media Contact

Zoë Kooyman
Executive Director
[email protected]
+1 (617) 542-5942
--
Interested in helping us expand our reach?

* Follow us on Mastodon at <[link removed]> and PeerTube at <[link removed]>, showing your support for federated social networks.
* Get active on the LibrePlanet wiki: <[link removed]>
* Share on your blog or [social network]([link removed]) that you support us, and why you do so.
* Subscribe to our RSS feeds: <[link removed]>
* Join us as an associate member: <[link removed]>; and display your membership button (<[link removed]>) on your website.

Read our Privacy Policy: <[link removed]>

Sent from the Free Software Foundation,

31 Milk Street
# 960789
Boston, Massachusetts 02196
United States


You can unsubscribe from this mailing list by visiting

[link removed].
To stop all email from the Free Software Foundation, including Defective by Design,
and the Free Software Supporter newsletter, visit

[link removed].