Any platform hosting user-uploaded content should just tag everything as AI-generated by default. Then, include a disclaimer along the lines of: âoeAny content you see here could be AI-generated, AI-assisted, or even created by an AI using another AI. Rather than trying to sort it all out (and risk fines), weâ(TM)re just tagging everything as AI-generated. Enjoy!â Then tag the statement as âoeAI Generatedâ.

If FSF sued Neo4j - they could get a huge amount (disgorgment of profits). Double to triple digit millions $$. FSF could use that money for their mission - but I wouldn't hold your breath on that happening. Also FSF just filed amicus brief. https://storage.courtlistener....

FYI - FSF just got involved and filed amicus brief. https://storage.courtlistener....

If this case is not overturned, one of many outcomes is that courts may defer to the interpretations of software developers who adopt an open-source license, rather than the organizations that originally created these licenses, such as the Free Software Foundation. This approach could lead to varying legal interpretations, as lawyers often find creative ways to argue contractual terms. This is precisely what happened in the Neo4j case, where the court accepted Neo4j's interpretation of the license terms rather than deferring to the Free Software Foundation, which authored the license. Amicus brief goes into it. Lawyers are pretty creative - you would never be able to trust that an open source license is what the creator of the license says again. Software developers could say: "When I say rights, I only mean my rights not yours." Get how bad this is now?

This is very bad open source. If you do not understand what is going on , as it seems many do not, then you may want to read the following article and SFC amicus brief links below. The same confusion I see in the community is what happened in the courts to cause these crazy and wrong rulings. If the 9th circuit does not overturn this - it provides a mechanism for every open source license to be the base of a bait and switch - exactly what Neo4j did to the community that made them who they are. https://forums.theregister.com... https://storage.courtlistener....

This is the article you want to read - Neo4j tried to sneak commons clause into the AGPLv3 license complete with FSF copyright and preamble. They got called out and tried to quiet the guy - but he stood up to them. https://www.theregister.com/20...

You should read the article and the comments. Many people have no idea what is going on and its a case that you should not guess about. https://www.theregister.com/20...

The open-source community is finally realizing that Neo4j v. PureThink could set a dangerous legal precedent, allowing companies to impose new restrictions on open-source licenses. If the Ninth Circuit upholds the lower courtâ(TM)s ruling, it wonâ(TM)t just threaten the GPL, it could undermine all open-source licenses, undoing years of work to protect software freedom. With one developer fighting this battle pro se, the stakes couldnâ(TM)t be higher! There may not be anything to do but wait and see at this point.

The issue is, Neo4j added restrictions but kept the AGPL license name, FSF preamble, and FSF copyright notices, effectively tricking people who thought it was still open source. Had Neo4j done the right thing and renamed the license and not made it look like an official open source license , then that would have been the end of it. Hopefully that explains why this is such a mess. Do you see he issue now?

Not clickbait - I posted this to make the community aware about how bad this could be. My fault for the weak subject and summary - I did not expect slashdot to pick it up or I would have written it better. I am not part of the SFC either.

Imagine this: a large organization builds its core infrastructure around GPL-licensed open-source software, investing in staff training and becoming fully dependent on it. Then, the licensor imposes a per-minute fee, demanding massive payments to continue using the very software they thought was protected under open-source principles. If the court upholds this ruling, nothing would stop licensors from pulling this bait-and-switch type move. If this ruling is upheld, future disputes could reference it to justify imposing additional, unintended restrictions on other open-source licenses, even those outside the GPL family. It might not directly rewrite existing licenses like MIT or Apache, but it could set a legal precedent that: - Gives licensors more room to argue that modifying permissive licenses with restrictive add-ons is valid. - Encourages courts to allow ambiguity and contradictory clauses to favor licensors, rather than maintaining open-source principles. -Weakens the enforceability of "no additional restrictions" clauses across multiple licenses. This case is an important battleground for maintaining the integrity of all open-source licensing, not just GPLv3.

See my comment below - this could affect all open source licenses not just GPLv3. That should have probably been more clearly communicated.