1-Suhy said that he’s unsure why the Free Software Foundation didn’t choose to intervene.
“They actually did not want me to appeal,” Suhy explained.
2-“I was willing to work with them. I want to make sure that we protect the license and make sure that there’s no dangerous precedent. And the only thing that they could come up with was not to appeal, which I couldn’t do.”
From the beginning of the article:
-“If the appellate court upholds that decision, which endorsed database maker Neo4j’s right to amend the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3, governing the use of its software with new binding terms, current assumptions about the enforceability of copyleft licenses will no longer apply.”
What that says to me is that FSF fears the 9th will use this case to expand corporate power, as they often have in the past, and the precedent thus set will have a much wider reach than a low court decision. This Suhy guy may burn the forest while trying to save his tree.
Okay, so just to be clear: the article did not actually say what you claimed it said, but rather you are conjecturing the basis of the FSF’s decision not to assist this person based on quotes describing this person’s own inferences from a conversation they had with the FSF rather than based on anything the FSF has actually said.
You may be right about this, but it is still conjecture.
I am unable to find that in this article. Could you quote the paragraph you are referring to?
I’m inferring from these two quotes:
1-Suhy said that he’s unsure why the Free Software Foundation didn’t choose to intervene. “They actually did not want me to appeal,” Suhy explained.
2-“I was willing to work with them. I want to make sure that we protect the license and make sure that there’s no dangerous precedent. And the only thing that they could come up with was not to appeal, which I couldn’t do.”
From the beginning of the article: -“If the appellate court upholds that decision, which endorsed database maker Neo4j’s right to amend the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3, governing the use of its software with new binding terms, current assumptions about the enforceability of copyleft licenses will no longer apply.”
What that says to me is that FSF fears the 9th will use this case to expand corporate power, as they often have in the past, and the precedent thus set will have a much wider reach than a low court decision. This Suhy guy may burn the forest while trying to save his tree.
But, IANAL, YMMV.
Okay, so just to be clear: the article did not actually say what you claimed it said, but rather you are conjecturing the basis of the FSF’s decision not to assist this person based on quotes describing this person’s own inferences from a conversation they had with the FSF rather than based on anything the FSF has actually said.
You may be right about this, but it is still conjecture.
I’ll edit my comment to clarify, you make a good point.