Linux banned Russian contributors. Does my FOSS project need to worry about U.S. Sanctions?

by Rick Sanders on December 12, 2024

Since the Linux project removed a number of entries from the MAINTAINERS file, all of whom were putatively Russian, in October, we've been receiving questions about U.S. sanctions against Russia and what, if anything, we should do about them. As I explain below, our position is that such drastic action, though defensible, is unnecessary.

What would compel the Linux project to take action against specifically Russian contributors—and is it a good enough reason such that other FOSS project should follow suit? The Linux project has access to the lawyers of the Linux Foundation, after all. Unfortunately, the Linux project's initial announcement said only that the removals were due to various compliance requirements. The announcement added that the Russian contributors can come back in the future if sufficient documentation is provided. But it didn't say what sort of documentation would be required. Linus Torvalds added a little clarity when he said that "sanctions" were the cause.

Speculation quickly centered on Executive Order (“EO”) 14071, one of the U.S. sanctions against Russian. It had recently been expanded to include software development and IT services, just a month before the Linux project's announcement. (EO 14071 dates to April 2022, but its scope is expanded from time to time to include new industries.)

The problem with this theory is that EO 14071 doesn't apply to contributions from a Russian national to a software project (even though it now applies to software development). It is true that, when a Russian national makes a copyrightable contribution to a software project governed by the GPL, the Russian national enters into a contractual relationship with (at least) all downstream distributors. But EO 14071 doesn't sanction any and all contractual relations with Russian nationals. It only prevents the provision of certain software- and IT-related services (including software development and consulting) to Russian nationals from a “U.S. person”. In other words, EO 14071 works in reverse to the Linux project's situation.

So, if it's not EO 14071, could it be some other U.S. sanction? There are, after all, quite a number of them. On October 24, James Bottomley provided something of an answer. Citing Linux Foundation lawyers, Bottomley wrote that the Linux project means to exclude companies on the U.S. OFAC SDN lists, subject to an OFAC sanctions program, or owned/controlled by a company the list. (OFAC is the Office of Foreign Assets Control, a division of the Treasury Department, in charge of maintaining these sorts of sanctions. SDN means “Specially Designated Nationals,” i.e., persons and businesses, as opposed to entire regimes.) Under this analysis, the documentation referenced in the initial announcement would be paperwork tending to prove that the contributor did not work for such a sanctioned company.

Alas, this doesn't tell us very much. Not only are there several U.S. sanctions against Russians, which cover different activites and serve different purposes, but each of them affects its own set of (overlapping) Russian parties. Wading one's way though these sanctions is a slog that almost no FOSS projects can possibly wade through. You have to parse the actual statutory and regulatory language, review later regulations and executive orders that might alter the sanction's scope, check whether a given Russian individual or entity is subject to that particular sanction (because two given sanctions don't necessarily apply to the same Russians), then check whether your activity or relationship with that Russian individual or entity is covered by the sanction. (On the upside, the U.S. government provides a handy website that allows you to check which sanctions, if any, affect a particular Russian person or entity. But, even if you can be sure you've checked the right person/entity, you still need to determine whether the sanction actually applies to your own activity.)

This is a lot of work. And I think that explains the Linux project's cautious approach: namely, suspending all Russian contributions to the project temporarily; then checking each contributor, case-by-case; and (presumably) reinstate them if they don't show up on any sanctions list. Even this strategy might not be feasible for many if not most projects. They might be more reliant on Russian contributions, be less able to withstand the blowback from sudden suspensions, or simply lack the legal resources.

In my view, none of the Russian sanctions prevents Russians from contributing to American-based software projects governed by the GPL. While the approach taken by the Linux project is reasonable and understandable, I do not believe SFC's projects to take similar actions at this time.

Besides, the spirit of FOSS, I think, requires a bias toward acceptance of otherwise valid and competent contributions. The goal is great software that, in many cases, affirmatively improves people's lives. Rejecting good contributions undermines that goal. Further, rejecting otherwise good contributions does nothing to further the sanctions' goals. The sanctions are primarily intended to punish Russia for, and to degrade its ability to conduct, its interference in U.S. elections, its flouting of international rules, and its aggression in Ukraine. It is difficult to see how rejecting Russian contributions furthers any of these goals.

There remains one final mystery. Some of these Russian sanctions are several years old, so why is this an issue now? My best guess is that EO 14071 brought the issue of Russian sanctions to Linux Foundations's attention because it was explicitly directed at software development. Even if EO 14071 was found to be inapplicable, Linux Foundation couldn't ignore the whole raft of other Russian sanctions, which would take time to sort through.

Ideally, we could keep geopolitics (and lawyers!) out of FOSS. But that's not always possible. U.S. sanctions are one reason. There's no harm in being cautious, so long as the spirit of FOSS is respected. Different projects and organizations will reasonably come to different conclusions on this matter.

Links to the documents referenced above:

• OFAC FAQ 1128, which sets forth various expansions of EO 14071:
• OFAC FAQ 1187, which explains what's covered by "IT consultancy and design services."
• OFAC's webpage re: Russia-related sanctions
• OFAC's Sanctions List Search

[permalink]

Tags: law, resources

How I watched a Motion for Summary Judgment hearing

by Denver Gingerich on October 12, 2023

In SFC's ongoing lawsuit against Vizio asking to receive the source code for the copylefted components on their TVs, last week we had a hearing with the judge to discuss the Motion for Summary Judgment that Vizio filed (requesting that the court reject our case before it even went to trial). A couple of our staff attended in-person (in an Orange County courthouse in Southern California) while others, like myself, watched remotely.

I was hoping to be able to use a standard interface to view the proceedings (such as streaming video provided to a <video/> element on a webpage), but unfortunately that was not available. The only way to view hearings in this court remotely is via Zoom, which SFC has talked about recently. This presented me with a conundrum - do I join via Zoom to see what was said? Or am I prevented from accessing this civic discourse because the court chooses not to use a standard video sharing method, preventing a large segment of society from taking part? As part of their normal practice, the court does not record (nor allow recording except through an official court reporter that can be hired by the parties to take a textual transcript) of proceedings, so I needed to decide with some urgency how to proceed, as failing to join now would mean I couldn't see the hearing at all, neither now nor in the future.

I am not sure how other countries approach this problem, and maybe it is no different elsewhere, but it did concern me deeply how this technical decision to demand the use of proprietary software could leave so many people disenfranchised, both with respect to their legal system, and other public services as well.

As part of SFC's policy to allow the use proprietary software if it is critical to our mission, I decided that it was more important for me to be able to view the proceedings (and avoid charging many hundreds of dollars to SFC for an international flight and hotel). Note that SFC would never require this of me, and would gladly pay for me to attend in-person to avoid the proprietary software, but I felt personally it was the right decision for me to make in this context.

Once this dilemma was resolved (for better or worse), I went through the technical steps required to join the Zoom call for the court hearing, where I was presented with this text:

By clicking "Join", you agree to our {0} and {1}.

Now there were no links to {0} or {1}, so I made some guesses as to what I was agreeing to. In the best case, I was agreeing to nothing, and in the worst case I was agreeing that 0 and 1 provided the foundation for all humanity which, while potentially troubling, did have a certain appeal as a technologist. In any case, I clicked Join (possibly leaving an indelible mark on the future of the universe) and was at last able to observe the hearing, after dialing in by (SIP) phone for the audio, to reduce the amount of proprietary code being run for me to view the hearing.

The hearing event itself was familiar to those who have attended such court proceedings - there were many other cases heard that day, that touched on issues such as whether you could get a DUI while riding a horse (answer: yes), to much more serious and unfortunate clear instances of DARVO tactics in domestic disputes (which we hope will not ultimately sway the judge). It appeared the judge wanted to save our hearing for last, possibly due to its complexity or novelty. The lawyers in most of the other matters appeared remotely.

Once the other cases were heard, the judge turned to us, with both our lawyers and Vizio's lawyer physically present in the courtroom. She asked Vizio to go first (since it was Vizio's motion), and their lawyer went over the points from their Motion for Summary Judgment, eventually clarifying seven specific objections Vizio had made to our case in its motion - the judge had clearly read our brief and wanted to know more on these seven topics given how we addressed them.

It was a bit jarring to hear my own name mentioned in court, as one of the objections was to an email I had sent to Vizio when we informed them they were violating the GPL. While not a problem for our case, it reminded me of the need to be extra careful, since anything we say to a company who violates the GPL can end up in court. But it also reminded me of why it is important we do this: if people feel scared to file lawsuits when companies fail to comply with the software freedom licenses they choose to use, then we at SFC must step up and use our resources and substantial experience to make sure the unfounded claims by companies of how they should be able to get away with violating are firmly rebuffed.

After Vizio's lawyer had finished, the judge turned to our lawyers for a response. Our lawyers presented an excellent litany of reasons why SFC's case is not preempted by copyright (for example, there is an extra element, provision of source code, that copyright remedies do not provide), and why we have rights as a third-party to the GPL contract between Vizio and the developers of the software that Vizio chose to use (as an example, the GPL itself clearly states, "You [Vizio] must make sure that they [third-party recipients such as SFC], too, receive or can get the source code").

Our lawyers finished with some examples of how contract law works, where if you agree to make some copies, but don't pay the money required in the contract, then that's a contract claim, not a copyright claim. In that case, a party has stiffed the beneficiary on the money. And in our case, as our lawyer so eloquently ended the hearing: "Vizio has stiffed us on the code".

We are extremely proud of our lawyers in this case, especially the two lawyers who argued in-person for us on Thursday: Naomi Jane Gray and Don Thompson, as well our General Counsel Rick Sanders. Whether companies are held accountable for following the software right to repair licenses they choose to use is immensely important - they need to give us the same rights they have, and we're incredibly happy that our legal team are so laser-focused on this.

We look forward to hearing the judge's decision on this motion when it comes out (in the meantime, you can read the hearing transcript if you like). Whatever the result, we will keep fighting for your software rights, everywhere software is used, using the legal mechanisms available (when required), to make sure everyone can control their technology.

[permalink]

Tags: conservancy, GPL, law, licensing

A Comprehensive Analysis of the GPL Issues With the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Business Model

by Bradley M. Kuhn on June 23, 2023

This article was originally published primarily as a response to IBM's Red Hat's change to no longer publish complete, corresponding source (CCS) for RHEL and the prior discontinuation of CentOS Linux (which are related events, as described below). We hope that this will serve as a comprehensive document that discusses the history of Red Hat's RHEL business model, the related source code provisioning, and the GPL compliance issues with RHEL.

For approximately twenty years, Red Hat (now a fully owned subsidiary of IBM) has experimented with building a business model for operating system deployment and distribution that looks, feels, and acts like a proprietary one, but nonetheless complies with the GPL and other standard copyleft terms. Software rights activists, including SFC, have spent decades talking to Red Hat and its attorneys about how the Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) business model courts disaster and is actively unfriendly to community-oriented Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). These pleadings, discussions, and encouragements have, as far as we can tell, been heard and seriously listened to by key members of Red Hat's legal and OSPO departments, and even by key C-level executives, but they have ultimately been rejected and ignored — sometimes even with a “fine, then sue us for GPL violations” attitude. Activists have found this discussion frustrating, but kept the nature and tenure of these discussions as an “open secret” until now because we all had hoped that Red Hat's behavior would improve. Recent events show that the behavior has simply gotten worse, and is likely to get even worse.

What Exactly Is the RHEL Business Model?

The most concise and pithy way to describe RHEL's business model is: “if you exercise your rights under the GPL, your money is no good here”. Specifically, IBM's Red Hat offers copies of RHEL to its customers, and each copy comes with a support and automatic-update subscription contract. As we understand it, this contract clearly states that the terms do not intend to contradict any rights to copy, modify, redistribute and/or reinstall the software as many times and as many places as the customer likes (see §1.4). Additionally, though, the contract indicates that if the customer engages in these activities, that Red Hat reserves the right to cancel that contract and make no further contracts with the customer for support and update services. In essence, Red Hat requires their customers to choose between (a) their software freedom and rights, and (b) remaining a Red Hat customer. In some versions of these contracts that we have reviewed, Red Hat even reserves the right to “Review” a customer (effectively a BSA-style audit) to examine how many copies of RHEL are actually installed (see §10) — presumably for the purpose of Red Hat getting the information they need to decide whether to “fire” the customer.

Red Hat's lawyers clearly take the position that this business model complies with the GPL (though we aren't so sure), on grounds that that nothing in the GPL agreements requires an entity keep a business relationship with any other entity. They have further argued that such business relationships can be terminated based on any behaviors — including exercising rights guaranteed by the GPL agreements. Whether that analysis is correct is a matter of intense debate, and likely only a court case that disputed this particular issue would yield a definitive answer on whether that disagreeable behavior is permitted (or not) under the GPL agreements. Debates continue, even today, in copyleft expert circles, whether this model itself violates GPL. There is, however, no doubt that this provision is not in the spirit of the GPL agreements. The RHEL business model is unfriendly, captious, capricious, and cringe-worthy.

Furthermore, this RHEL business model remains, to our knowledge, rather unique in the software industry. IBM's Red Hat definitely deserves credit for so carefully constructing their business model such that it has spent most of the last two decades in murky territory of “probably not violating the GPL”.

Does The RHEL Business Model Violate the GPL Agreements?

Perhaps the biggest problem with a murky business model that skirts the line of GPL compliance is that violations can and do happen — since even a minor deviation from the business model clearly violates the GPL agreements. Pre-IBM Red Hat deserves a certain amount of credit, as SFC is aware of only two documented incidents of GPL violations that have occurred since 2006 regarding the RHEL business model. We've decided to share some general details of these violations for the purpose of explaining where this business model can so easily cross the line.

In the first violation, a large Fortune 500 company (which we'll call Company A), who both used RHEL internally and also built public-facing Linux-based products, decided to create a consumer-facing product (which we'll call Product P) based primarily on CentOS Linux, but P included a few packages built from RHEL sources. Company A did not seek nor ask for support or update services for this separate Product P. Red Hat later became aware that Product P contained some part of RHEL, and Red Hat demanded royalty payments for Product P. Red Hat threatened to revoke the support and update services on Company A's internal RHEL servers if such royalties were not paid.

Since Company A was powerful and had good lawyers and savvy business development staff, they did not acquiesce. Company A ultimately continued (to our knowledge) on as a RHEL customer for their internal servers and continued selling Product P without royalty payments. Nevertheless, a demand for royalties for distribution is clearly a violation as that demand creates a “further restriction” on the permissions granted by GPL. As stated in GPLv3:

You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License.

Red Hat tried to impose a further restriction in this situation, and therefore violated the GPL. The violation was resolved since no royalty was paid and Company A faced no consequences. SFC learned of the incident later, and informed Red Hat that the past royalty demand was a violation. Red Hat did not dispute nor agree that it was a violation, and did informally agree such demands would not be made in future.

In another violation incident, we learned that Red Hat, in a specific non-USA country, was requiring that any customer who lowered the number of RHEL machines under service contract with Red Hat sign an additional agreement. This additional agreement promised that the customer had deleted every copy of RHEL in their entire organization other than the copies of RHEL that were currently contracted for service with Red Hat. Again, this is a “further restriction”. The GPL agreements give everyone the unfettered right to make and keep as many copies of the software as they like, and a distributor of GPL'd software may not require a user to attest that they've deleted these legitimate, licensed copies of third-party-licensed software under the GPL. SFC informed Red Hat's legal department of this violation, and we were assured that this additional agreement would no longer be presented to any Red Hat customers in the future.

In both these situations, we at SFC were worried they were merely a “tip of the proverbial iceberg”. For years, we have heard from Red Hat customers who are truly confused. It's common in the industry to talk about RHEL “seat licenses”, and many software acquisition specialists in the industry are not aware of the nuances of the RHEL business model and do not understand their rights. We remain very concerned that RHEL salespeople purposely confuse customers to sell more “seat licenses”. It's often led us to ask: “If a GPL violation happens in the woods, and everyone involved doesn't hear it, how does anyone know that software rights have indeed been trampled upon in those woods?”. As we do for as many GPL violation reports as we can, we zealously pursue RHEL-related GPL violations that are reported to us, and if you're aware of one, please do email us at <compliance@sfconservancy.org> immediately. We fear that be it through incompetence or malice, many RHEL salespeople and business development professionals may regularly violate GPL and no one knows about it. That said, the business model as described by IBM's Red Hat may well comply with the GPL — it's just so murky that any tweak to the model in any direction seems to definitely violate, in our experience.

Furthermore, Red Hat exploits the classic “caveat emptor” approach — popular in many a shady business deal throughout history. While, technically speaking, a careful reader of the GPL and the RHEL agreements understands the bargain they're making, we suspect most small businesses just don't have the FOSS licensing acumen and knowledge to truly understand that deal.

Why Was an Independent CentOS So Important?

Until Red Hat's “aquisition” of CentOS in early 2014, CentOS provided an excellent counterbalance to the problems with the RHEL business model. Specifically, CentOS was a community-driven project, with many volunteers, supported by some involvement from small businesses, to re-create RHEL releases using the CCS releases made for RHEL. Our pre-2014 view was that CentOS was the “canary in the murky coalmine” of the RHEL business. If CentOS seemed vibrant, usable, and a viable alternative to RHEL for those who didn't want to purchase Red Hat's updates and services, the community could rest easy. Even if there were GPL violations by Red Hat on RHEL, CentOS' vibrancy assured that such violations were having only a minor negative impact on the FOSS community around RHEL's codebase.

Red Hat, however, apparently knew that this vibrant community was cutting into their profits. Starting in 2013, Red Hat engaged in a series of actions that increased their grip. First, they “acquired” CentOS. This was initially couched as a cooperation agreement, but Red Hat systematically made job offers that key CentOS volunteers couldn't refuse, acquired the small businesses who might ultimately build CentOS into a product, and otherwise integrated CentOS into Red Hat's own operations.

After IBM acquired Red Hat, the situation got worse. Having gotten rights to the CentOS brand as part of the “aquisition”, Red Hat slowly began to change what CentOS was. CentOS Linux quickly ceased to be a check-and-balance on RHEL, and just became a testing ground for RHEL. Then, in 2020, when most of us were distracted by the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic, Red Hat unilaterally terminated all CentOS Linux development. Later (during the Delta variant portion of the pandemic in late 2021) Red Hat ended CentOS Linux entirely. IBM's Red Hat then used the name “CentOS Stream” to refer to experimental source packages related to RHEL. These were (and are) not actually the RHEL source releases — rather, they appear to be primarily a testing ground for what might appear in RHEL later.

Finally, Red Hat announced two days ago that RHEL CCS will no longer be publicly available in any way. Now, to be clear, the GPL agreements did not obligate Red Hat to make its CCS publicly available to everyone. This is a common misconception about GPL's requirements. While the details of CCS provisioning vary in the different versions of the GPL agreements, the general principle is that CCS need to be provided either (a) along with the binary distributions to those who receive, or (b) to those who request pursuant to a written offer for source. In a normal situation, with no mitigating factors, the fact that a company moved from distributing CCS publicly to everyone to only giving it to customers who received the binaries already would not raise concerns.

In this situation, however, this completes what appears to be a decade-long plan by Red Hat to maximize the level of difficulty of those in the community who wish to “trust but verify” that RHEL complies with the GPL agreements. Namely, Red Hat has badly thwarted efforts by entities such as Rocky Linux and Alma Linux. These entities are de-facto the intellectual successors to CentOS Linux project that Red Hat carefully dismantled over the last decade. These organizations sought to build Linux-based distributions that mirrored RHEL releases, and it is now unclear if they can do that effectively, since Red Hat will undoubtedly capriciously refuse to sell them exactly-one RHEL service and update “seat license” at a reasonable price. It appears that, as of this week, one must have at least that to get timely access to RHEL CCS.

What Should Those Who Care About Software Rights Do About RHEL?

Due to this ongoing bad behavior by IBM's Red Hat, the situation has become increasingly complex and difficult to face. No third party can effectively monitor RHEL compliance with the GPL agreements, since customers live in fear of losing their much-needed service contracts. Red Hat's legal department has systematically refused SFC's requests in recent years to set up some form of monitoring by SFC. (For example, we asked to review the training materials and documents that RHEL salespeople are given to convince customers to buy RHEL, and Red Hat has not been willing to share these materials with us.) Nevertheless, since SFC serves as the global watchdog for GPL compliance, we welcome reports of RHEL-related violations.

We finally express our sadness that this long road has led the FOSS community to such a disappointing place. I personally remember standing with Erik Troan in a Red Hat booth at a USENIX conference in the late 1990s, and meeting Bob Young around the same time. Both expressed how much they wanted to build a company that respected, collaborated with, engaged with, and most of all treated as equals the wide spectrum of individuals, hobbyists, and small businesses that make the plurality of the FOSS community. We hope that the modern Red Hat can find their way back to this mission under IBM's control.

[permalink]

Tags: conservancy, GPL, law

An Erroneous Preliminary Injunction Granted in Neo4j v. PureThink

by Bradley M. Kuhn on March 30, 2022

Update (2023-11-14): Unfortunately, the Court has made further bad decisions in this matter, and was not swayed by our expert report. If the SFC were the copyright holder of the text of the AGPLv3, or the trademark holder of the license's name, we would have intervened in this case to clarify these matters for the Court. Since the SFC did not create the AGPLv3 (our employees have been involved in GPLv3-related drafting, but not on behalf of SFC), filing the expert report was the only action that SFC could take to assist in this matter. However, going forward, we do encourage anyone facing a “further restrictions” issue with copyleft license to contact us for support — so that those who care about the future of copyleft can coordinate a response together. Note that the case has still not reached the appeal stage.

(Original blog post follows:)

Bad Early Court Decision for AGPLv3 Has Not Yet Been Appealed

We at Software Freedom Conservancy proudly and vigilantly watch out for your rights under copyleft licenses such as the Affero GPLv3. Toward this goal, we have studied the Neo4j, Inc. v. PureThink, LLC ongoing case in the Northern District of California , and the preliminary injunction appeal decision in the Ninth Circuit Court this month. The case is complicated, and we've seen much understandable confusion in the public discourse about the status of the case and the impact of the Ninth Circuit's decision to continue the trial court's preliminary injunction while the case continues. While it's true that part of the summary judgment decision in the lower court bodes badly for an important provision in AGPLv3§7¶4, the good news is that the case is not over, nor was the appeal (decided this month) even an actual appeal of the decision itself! This lawsuit is far from completion.

A Brief Summary of the Case So Far

The primary case in question is a dispute between Neo4j, a proprietary relicensing company, against a very small company called PureThink, run by an individual named John Mark Suhy. Studying the docket of the case, and a relevant related case, and other available public materials, we've come to understand some basic facts and events. To paraphrase LeVar Burton, we encourage all our readers to not take our word (or anyone else's) for it, but instead take the time to read the dockets and come to your own conclusions.

After canceling their formal, contractual partnership with Suhy, Neo4j alleged multiple claims in court against Suhy and his companies. Most of these claims centered around trademark rights regarding “Neo4j” and related marks. However, the claims central to our concern relate to a dispute between Suhy and Neo4j regarding Suhy's clarification in downstream licensing of the Enterprise version that Neo4j distributed.

Specifically, Neo4j attempted to license the codebase under something they (later, in their Court filings) dubbed the “Neo4j Sweden Software License” — which consists of a LICENSE.txt file containing the entire text of the Affero General Public License, version 3 (“AGPLv3”) (a license that I helped write), and the so-called “Commons Clause” — a toxic proprietary license. Neo4j admits that this license mash-up (if legitimate, which we at Software Freedom Conservancy and Suhy both dispute), is not an “open source license”.

There are many complex issues of trademark and breach of other contracts in this case; we agree that there are lots of interesting issues there. However, we focus on the matter of most interest to us and many FOSS activists: Suhy's permissions to remove the “Commons Clause”. Neo4j accuses Suhy of improperly removing the “Commons Clause” from the codebase (and subsequently redistributing the software under pure AGPLv3) in paragraph 77 of their third amended complaint. (Note that Suhy denied these allegations in court — asserting that his removal of the “Commons Clause” was legitimate and permitted.

Neo4j filed for summary judgment on all the issues, and throughout their summary judgment motion, Neo4j argued that the removal of the “Commons Clause” from the license information in the repository (and/or Suhy's suggestions to others that removal of the “Commons Clause” was legitimate) constituted behavior that the Court should enjoin or otherwise prohibit. The Court partially granted Neo4j's motion for summary judgment. Much of that ruling is not particularly related to FOSS licensing questions, but the section regarding licensing deeply concerns us. Specifically, to support the Court's order that temporarily prevents Suhy and others from saying that the Neo4j Enterprise edition that was released under the so-called “Neo4j Sweden Software License” is a “free and open source” version and/or alternative to proprietary-licensed Neo4j EE, the Court held that removal of the “Commons Clause” was not permitted. (BTW, the court confuses “commercial” and “proprietary” in that section — it seems they do not understand that FOSS can be commercial as well.)

In this instance, we're not as concerned with the names used for the software; as much as the copyleft licensing question — because it's the software's license, not its name, that either assures or prevents users to exercise their fundamental software rights. Notwithstanding our disinterest in the naming issue, we'd all likely agree that — if “AGPLv3 WITH Commons-Clause” were a legitimate form of licensing — such a license is not FOSS. The primary issue, therefore, is not about whether or not this software is FOSS, but whether or not the “Commons Clause” can be legitimately removed by downstream licensees when presented with a license of “AGPLv3 WITH Commons-Clause”. We believe the Court held incorrectly by concluding that Suhy was not permitted to remove the “Commons Clause”. Their order that enjoins Suhy from saying that such removal is permitted is problematic because the underlying holding (if later upheld on appeal) could seriously harm FOSS and copyleft.

The Confusion About the Appeal

Because this was an incomplete summary judgment and the case is ongoing, the injunction against Suhy's on making such statements is a preliminary injunction, and cannot be made permanent until the case actually completes in the trial court. The decision by the Ninth Circuit appeals court regarding this preliminary injunction has been widely reported by others as an “appeal decision” on the issue of what can be called “open source”. However, this is not an appeal of the entire summary judgment decision, and certainly not an appeal of the entire case (which cannot even been appealed until the case completes). The Ninth Circuit decision merely affirms that Suhy remains under the preliminary injunction (which prohibits him and his companies from taking certain actions and saying certain things publicly) while the case continues. In fact, the standard that an appeals Court uses when considering an appeal of a preliminary injunction differs from the standard for ordinary appeals. Generally speaking, appeals Courts are highly deferential to trial courts regarding preliminary injunctions, and appeals of actual decisions have a much more stringent standard.

The Affero GPL Right to Restriction Removal

In their partial summary judgment ruling, the lower Court erred because they rejected an important and (in our opinion) correct counter-argument made by Suhy's attorneys. Specifically, Suhy's attorneys argued that Neo4j's license expressly permitted the removal of the “Commons Clause” from the license. AGPLv3 was, in fact, drafted to permit such removal in this precise fact pattern.

Specifically, the AGPLv3 itself has the following provisions (found in AGPLv3§0 and AGPLv3§7¶4):

• “This License” refers to version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License.
• “The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each licensee is addressed as “you”.
• 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.

That last term was added to address a real-world, known problem with GPLv2. Frequently throughout the time when GPLv2 was the current version, original copyright holders and/or licensors would attempt to license work under the GPL with additional restrictions. The problem was rampant and caused much confusion among licensees. As an attempted solution, the FSF (the publisher of the various GPL's) loosened its restrictions on reuse of the text of the GPL — in hopes that would provide a route for reuse of some GPL text, while also avoiding confusion for licensees. Sadly, many licensors continued to take the confusing route of using the entire text a GPL license with an additional restriction — attached either before or after, or both. Their goals were obvious and nefarious: they wanted to confuse the public into “thinking” the software was under the GPL, but in fact restrict certain other activities (such as commercial redistribution). They combined this practice with proprietary relicensing (i.e., a sole licensor selling separate proprietary licenses while releasing a (seemingly FOSS) public version of the code as demoware for marketing). Their goal is to build on the popularity of the GPL, but in direct opposition to the GPL's policy goals; they manipulate the GPL to open-wash bad policies rather than give actual rights to users. This tactic even permitted bad actors to sell “gotcha” proprietary licenses to those who were legitimately confused. For example, a company would look for users operating commercially with the code in compliance with GPLv2, but hadn't noticed the company's code had the statement: “Licensed GPLv2, but not for commercial use”. The user had seen GPLv2, and knew from its brand reputation that it gave certain rights, but hadn't realized that the additional restriction outside of the GPLv2's text might actually be valid. The goal was to catch users in a sneaky trap.

Neo4j tried to use the AGPLv3 to set one of those traps. Neo4j, despite the permission in the FSF's GPL FAQ to “use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble”, left the entire AGPLv3 intact as the license of the software — adding only a note at the front and at the end. However, their users can escape the trap, because GPLv3 (and AGPLv3) added a clause (which doesn't exist in GPLv2) to defend users from this. Specifically, AGPLv3§7¶4 includes a key provision to help this situation.

Specifically, the clause was designed to give more rights to downstream recipients when bad actors attempt this nasty trick. Indeed, I recall from my direct participation in the A/GPLv3 drafting that this provision was specifically designed for the situation where the original, sole copyright holder/licensor⁰ added additional restrictions. And, I'm not the only one who recalls this. Richard Fontana (now a lawyer at IBM's Red Hat, but previously legal counsel to the FSF during the GPLv3 process), wrote on a mailing list¹ in response to the Neo4j preliminary injunction ruling:

For those who care about anecdotal drafting history … the whole point of the section 7 clause (“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.”) was to address the well known problem of an original GPL licensor tacking on non-GPL, non-FOSS, GPL-norm-violating restrictions, precisely like the use of the Commons Clause with the GPL. Around the time that this clause was added to the GPLv3 draft, there had been some recent examples of this phenomenon that had been picked up in the tech press.

Fontana also pointed us to the FSF's own words on the subject, written during their process of drafting this section of the license (emphasis ours):

Unlike additional permissions, additional requirements that are allowed under subsection 7b may not be removed. The revised section 7 makes clear that this condition does not apply to any other additional requirements, however, which are removable just like additional permissions. 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.

While the intent of the original drafter of a license text is not dispositive over the text as it actually appears in the license, all this information was available to Neo4j as they drafted their license. Many voices in the community had told them that provision in AGPLv3§7¶4 was added specifically to prevent what Neo4j was trying to do. The FSF, the copyright holder of the actual text of the AGPLv3, also publicly gave Neo4j permission to draft a new license, using any provisions they like from AGPLv3 and putting them together in a new way. But Neo4j made a conscious choice to not do that, but instead constructed their license in the exact manner that allowed Suhy's removal of the “Commons Clause”.

In addition, that provision in AGPLv3§7¶4 has little meaning if it's not intended to bind the original licensor! Many other provisions (such as AGPLv3§10¶3) protect the users against further restrictions imposed later in the distribution chain of licensees. This clause was targeted from its inception against the exact, specific bad behavior that Neo4j did here.

We don't dispute that copyright and contract law give Neo4j authority to license their work under any terms they wish — including terms that we consider unethical or immoral. In fact, we already pointed out above that Neo4j had permission to pick and choose only some text from AGPLv3. As long as they didn't use the name “Affero”, “GNU” or “General Public” or include any of the Preamble text in the name/body of their license — we'd readily agree that Neo4j could have put together a bunch of provisions from the AGPLv3, and/or the “Commons Clause”, and/or any other license that suited their fancy. They could have made an entirely new license. Lawyers commonly do share text of licenses and contracts to jump-start writing new ones. That's a practice we generally support (since it's sharing a true commons of ideas freely — even if the resulting license might not be FOSS).

But Neo4j consciously chose not to do that. Instead, they license their software “subject to the terms of the GNU AFFERO GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 3, with the Commons Clause”. (The name “Neo4j Sweden Software License” only exists in the later Court papers, BTW, not with “The Program” in question.) Neo4j defines “This License” to mean “version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License.”. Then, Neo4j tells all licensees that “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”. Yet, after all that, Neo4j had the audacity to claim to the Court that they didn't actually mean that last sentence, and the Court rubber-stamped that view.

Simply put, the Court erred when it said: “Neither of the two provisions in the form AGPLv3 that Defendants point to give licensees the right to remove the information at issue.”. The Court then used that error as a basis for its ruling to temporarily enjoin Suhy from stating that software with “Commons Clause” removed by downstream is “free and open source”, or tell others that he disagrees with the Court's (temporary) conclusion about removing the “Commons Clause” in this situation.

What Next?

The case isn't over. The lower Court still has various issues to consider — including a DMCA claim regarding Suhy's removal of the “Commons Clause”. We suspect that's why the Court only made a preliminary injunction against Suhy's words, and did not issue an injunction against the actual removal of the clause! The issue as to whether the clause can be removed is still pending, and the current summary judgment decision doesn't address the DMCA claim from Neo4j's complaint.

Sadly, the Court has temporarily enjoined Suhy from “representing that Neo4j Sweden AB’s addition of the Commons Clause to the license governing Neo4j Enterprise Edition violated the terms of AGPL or that removal of the Commons Clause is lawful, and similar statements”. But they haven't enjoined us, and our view on the matter is as follows:

Clearly, Neo4j gave explicit permission, pursuant to the AGPLv3, for anyone who would like to to remove the “Commons Clause” from their LICENSE.txt file in version 3.4 and other versions of their Enterprise edition where it appears. We believe that you have full permission, pursuant to AGPLv3, to distribute that software under the terms of the AGPLv3 as written. In saying that, we also point out that we're not a law firm, our lawyers are not your lawyers, and this is not legal advice. However, after our decades of work in copyleft licensing, we know well the reason and motivations of this policy in the license (described above), and given the error by the Court, it's our civic duty to inform the public that the licensing conclusions (upon which they based their temporary injunction) are incorrect.

Meanwhile, despite what you may have read last week, the key software licensing issues in this case have not been decided — even by the lower Court. For example, the DMCA issue is still before the trial court. Furthermore, if you do read the docket of this case, it will be obvious that neither party is perfect. We have not analyzed every action Suhy took, nor do we have any comment on any action by Suhy other than this: we believe that Suhy's removal of the “Commons Clause” was fully permitted by the terms of the AGPLv3, and that Neo4j gave him that permission in that license. Suhy also did a great service to the community by taking action that obviously risked litigation against him. Misappropriation and manipulation of the strongest and most freedom-protecting copyleft license ever written to bolster a proprietary relicensing business model is an affront to FOSS and its advancement. It's even worse when the Courts are on the side of the bad actor. Neo4j should not have done this.

Finally, we note that the Court was rather narrow on what it said regarding the question of “What Is Open Source?”. The Court ruled that one individual and his companies — when presented with ambiguous licensing information in one part of a document, who then finds another part of the document grants permission to repair and clarify the licensing information, and does so — is temporarily forbidden from telling others that the resulting software is, in fact, FOSS, after making such a change. The ruling does not set precedent, nor does it bind anyone other than the Defendants as to what they can or cannot say is FOSS, which is why we can say it is FOSS, because the AGPLv3 is an OSI-approved license and the AGPLv3 permits removal of the toxic “Commons Clause” in this situation.

We will continue to follow this case and write further when new events occur..

⁰ We were unable to find anywhere in the Court record that shows Neo4j used a Contributor Licensing Agreement (CLA) or Copyright Assignment Agreement (©AA) that sufficiently gave them exclusive rights as licensor of this software. We did however find evidence online that Neo4j accepted contributions from others. If Neo4j is, in fact, also a licensor of others' AGPLv3'd derivative works that have been incorporated into their upstream versions, then there are many other arguments (in addition to the one presented herein) that would permit removal of the “Commons Clause”. This issue remains an open question of fact in this case.

¹ Fontana made these statements on a mailing list governed by an odd confidentiality rule called CHR (which was originally designed for in-person meetings with a beginning and an end, not a mailing list). Nevertheless, Fontana explicitly waived CHR (in writing) to allow me to quote his words publicly.

[permalink]

Tags: conservancy, GPL, law