Hacker News Reader

This is related to a long ongoing court battle between Neo4j and Graph Found (ONgDB). Basically the latter forked the former but removed some clauses from the license they weren't supposed to remove, and this tangential ruling is basically stating that they can't call it open source in their advertising because of that. Related reading: https://casetext.com/case/neo4j-inc-v-graph-found-inc

View on HN

I understand it a bit differently. They could not remove the clause (as they do not dictate the license), so the clause stays. The software is thus licensed the same way as the original repo and neither can be called open source.

Whoever sued these folks for false advertising should sue Neo4j as well.

But isn't Neo4j suing Graph Found? Why would Neo4j sue themselves?

I suppose it should be a regulator representing the public then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com