| 翻譯：莊表偉

|?編輯：管媛野

| 設計：宋傳琪

| 責編：劉雪潔

翻譯來源：https://writing.kemitchell.com/2022/03/17/OSI-Neo4j-PureThink.html

everywhere?it looks, OSI sees itself, and in triumph

無論在哪里，OSI 都能看到自己，并取得勝利

The Open Source Initiative’s blog post on the Neo4j appeal is self-serving, misleading, and wrong. Again.

開放源碼促進會關于 Neo4j 上訴的博文是為自己服務的，誤導性的，而且是錯誤的。咱們再來仔細看看。

OSI claims:

OSI 聲稱：

The court only confirmed what we already know — that “open source” is a term of art for software that has been licensed under a specific type of license, and whether a license is an OSI-approved license is a critically important factor in user adoption of the software.

法院只是證實了我們已經知道的事實 – “開放源代碼”是一個術語，指的是在特定類型的許可證下獲得許可的軟件，而許可證是否是 OSI 批準的許可證是用戶采用軟件的一個至關重要的因素。

?No it didn’t.

不，它沒有。

The court didn’t legally decide anything about the meaning of “open source”. It didn’t define any new terms of art legal-system-wide. It didn’t even make precedent. The first page of its decision says “NOT FOR PUBLICATION” at the top and “This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3” at the bottom.

法院沒有從法律上決定任何關于“開源”的含義。它并沒有在整個法律系統中定義任何新的藝術術語。它甚至沒有創造先例。其裁決的第一頁頂部寫著“不供發表”，底部寫著“除第九巡回法庭規則 36-3 規定的情況外，本處理意見不適合發表，也不是先例”。

But even if the appeals court had made precedent, there’s nothing in its decision about OSI. Here’s the appellate court disposition. Here’s the trial court order. Search them for “Open Source Initiative”. You won’t find it. Neither trial court nor appeals court even mentioned OSI, OSI approval, any license list, or any trademark on the term.

但即使上訴法院做出了先例，其裁決中也沒有關于 OSI 的內容。這是上訴法院的處理意見。這里是審判法庭的命令。在其中搜索“OSI”。你不會找到它。無論是初審法院還是上訴法院，甚至都沒有提到 OSI、OSI 的批準、任何許可清單，或任何關于這個詞的商標。

The relevant bit from the appeals court is here:

上訴法院的相關內容在此：

Defendants’ representation that ONgDB is a “free and open-source” version of Neo4j(R) EE was literally false, because Section 7 of the Sweden Software License only permits a downstream licensee to remove “further restrictions” added by an upstream licensee to the original work.?

被告聲稱 ONgDB 是 Neo4j(R)EE 的“免費和開源”版本，這在字面上是錯誤的，因為瑞典軟件許可證第 7 條只允許下游被許可人刪除上游被許可人對原始作品添加的“進一步限制”。

If that seems like a strange way to decide if something’s free and open source, that’s because it is. But it’s the way that matters in this lawsuit, because it’s the way the lawyers agreed to argue the point. The trial court judge followed their lead:

如果這看起來像一個奇怪的方式來決定一個東西是否是自由和開源的，那是因為它就是這樣的。但在這場訴訟中，這是最重要的方式，因為這是律師們同意爭論的方式。初審法院的法官跟隨他們的思路：

…Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ representations that ONgDB is “free and open source” is false because “the Neo4j Sweden Software License did not permit Defendants to remove the commercial restrictions imposed by the Commons Clause.”?

原告認為，被告關于 ONgDB 是“自由和開源”的陳述是錯誤的，因為“Neo4j 瑞典軟件許可證不允許被告刪除共享條款所施加的商業限制。”

The parties agree that the truth or falsity of Defendants’ statements hinge on “the interpretation of Section 7 [of the Neo4j Sweden Software License], and GFI’s right to remove the Commons Clause from the Neo4j Sweden Software License.”?

雙方同意，被告陳述的真實性或虛假性取決于“對【Neo4j 瑞典軟件許可證】第 7 條的解釋，以及 GFI 從 Neo4j 瑞典軟件許可證中刪除共享條款的權利。”?

Cross-Motion at 30; see also Plaintiff’s Reply at 18 (“Defendants do not dispute that their marketing of ONgDB as ‘free and open source’ Neo4j(R) EE is primarily based on their (mis)interpretation of the Neo4j Sweden Software License and the form AGPLE upon which it was based.”)?

反方動議，第 30 頁；另見原告第 18 頁的答復 (“被告對他們將 ONgDB 推銷為’免費和開源’的 Neo4j(R) EE 主要是基于他們對 Neo4j 瑞典軟件許可的（錯誤）解釋以及作為其基礎的 AGPLE 形式沒有異議。”）

The actually interesting part of this whole kerfuffle is that the trial court decided PureThink could not rip Commons Clause out of the LICENSE file:

這場風波中真正有趣的部分是，審判法庭決定 PureThink 不能從 LICENSE 文件中刪除 Commons 條款：

Defendants argue that there is a reasonable interpretation of the Neo4j Sweden Software License that permits licensees, like GFI or Defendants, to remove the Commons Clause and redistribute the software under the standardized AGPL license. Cross-Motion at 27–30. The court disagrees.?

被告認為，對 Neo4j 瑞典軟件許可證有一個合理的解釋，即允許被許可人，如 GFI 或被告，刪除 Commons 條款，并根據標準化的 AGPL 許可證重新發布軟件。反方動議在 27-30 頁。法院不同意。?

Since “could or couldn’t remove Commons Clause” is how the parties agreed to argue whether the “free and open source” claims were true or false, and the court decided PureThink couldn’t remove the Commons Clause, which it did, the claims about ONgDB were false. In the context of this lawsuit, ONgDB wasn’t “free and open source” because PureThink removed Commons Clause from AGPL. Think about that. Check the “False Statement” section, starting on page 23.

由于“能否刪除 Commons 條款”是雙方同意爭論“自由和開放源碼”的說法是真的還是假的，而法院裁定 PureThink 不能刪除 Commons 條款，而它確實這樣做了，所以關于 ONgDB 的說法是假的。在這起訴訟中，ONgDB 不是“自由和開放源碼”，因為 PureThink 從 AGPL 中刪除了 Commons 條款。想想這個問題。請看第 23 頁開始的“虛假聲明”部分。

OSI’s blog post gets this exactly wrong. They want to see a court holding that Neo4j’s release wasn’t open source because they added Commons Clause to AGPL. What they got is a court saying that taking Commons Clause away from AGPL made claims about being open source false claims. But OSI sees what it wants to see:

OSI 的博文完全搞錯了這一點。他們希望看到法院認定 Neo4j 的發布不是開源的，因為他們在 AGPL 中加入了 Commons 條款。他們得到的是一個法院說，從 AGPL 中拿走 Commons 條款使得關于開源的說法成為虛假的說法。但 OSI 看到了它想看到的東西：

But adding the non-free Commons Clause created a different license such that the software could not be characterized as “open source” and doing so in these circumstances was unlawful false advertising.?

但是，加入非自由共享條款就形成了一種不同的許可，使該軟件不能被定性為“開放源碼”，在這種情況下這樣做是非法的虛假宣傳。

When we actually look at the way the trial court understood “open source”, it’s the opposite. The court took the original Neo4j release as open source “meaning that the source code was available to the public on GitHub pursuant to the GNU General Public License version 3”. Later on, Neo4j added Commons Clause. But that was still “open source” as the court saw it:

當我們實際看一下初審法院對“開放源代碼”的理解時，情況正好相反。法院將最初的 Neo4j 版本視為開源，“意味著根據 GNU 通用公共許可證第三版，源代碼在 GitHub 上向公眾提供”。后來，Neo4j 增加了 Commons 條款。但在法院看來，這仍然是“開放源代碼”。

In May 2018, Plaintiffs released Neo4j EE version 3.4, which they continued to offer under an open source license; however, they replaced the AGPL with a stricter license, which included the terms from the AGPLv3 and additional restrictions provided by the Commons Clause.?

2018 年 5 月，原告發布了 Neo4j EE 3.4 版本，他們繼續以開源許可的方式提供；但是，他們用更嚴格的許可取代了 AGPL，其中包括 AGPLv3 的條款和 Commons 條款提供的額外限制。?

It’s only when Neo4j went to a commercial license exclusively that the court marks the end of open source release:

只是當 Neo4j 完全轉為商業許可時，法院才標志著開源發布的結束。

In November 2018, Plaintiffs released Neo4j EE version 3.5 under a commercial license only. From that point on, Plaintiffs were no longer providing Neo4j EE on an open source basis.?

2018 年 11 月，原告僅在商業許可下發布了 Neo4j EE 3.5 版本。從那時起，原告不再以開放源代碼的方式提供 Neo4j EE。?

Is the real headline here “Federal Court Holds AGPL Plus Commons Clause is Open Source”? Hell, no. The court’s language isn’t deciding anything about what “open source” means globally. It’s just reciting the framing of facts accepted by parties to this lawsuit. Within that framing, Neo4j under AGPLv3 plus Commons Clause was open source. It was removing the Commons Clause that made the problem, because that’s how lawyers on both sides argued it. Maybe that’s incongruous with the wider, parallel debate ongoing in industry. That debate didn’t factor in court.

這里真正的標題是“聯邦法院認為 AGPL 加上共享條款是開放源碼”嗎？見鬼，不是。法院的語言并沒有對“開源”在全球范圍內的含義做出任何決定。它只是回顧了這起訴訟中各方所接受的事實框架。在這個框架內，AGPLv3 和 Commons 條款下的 Neo4j 是開源的。移除共享條款才是問題所在，因為雙方的律師都是這樣爭論的。也許這與工業界正在進行的更廣泛的、平行的辯論不相協調。那場辯論在法庭上并不存在。

Trial courts don’t care, of themselves, what “open source” means. They don’t care about how you or I or OSI people feel about it. They won’t waste scarce time they do not have entertaining definitional politics. They won’t blow a well scoped lawsuit out into a sprawling debate about a marketing bauble. It’s not their job to settle our mailing list scores.

審判法庭本身并不關心“開源”意味著什么。他們并不關心你、我或 OSI 的人對它的感受。他們不會浪費稀缺的時間來處理定義的政治問題。他們不會把一個范圍很廣的訴訟吹成一個關于營銷小玩意的漫無邊際的辯論。他們的工作不是解決我們的郵件列表的問題。

Trial courts deal with just as much detail as they need to get lawsuits resolved. Here, that meant grappling with the rather narrow question of whether AGPLv3 section 7, which allows removal of “additional restrictions”, lets downstreamers remove Commons Clause. The trial court found that it does not. The appeals court didn’t overturn that finding. This is a legal decision that could potential apply outside the specific context. And a pretty interesting one at that. On GPL interpretation. Not on what counts as “open source”.

審判法庭在解決訴訟時需要處理盡可能多的細節。在這里，這意味著要處理一個相當狹窄的問題，即 AGPLv3 第 7 條允許刪除“額外限制”，是否允許下游者刪除 Commons 條款。初審法院認為它不允許。上訴法院并沒有推翻這一結論。這是一個有可能在特定背景之外適用的法律決定。而且是一個相當有趣的決定。關于 GPL 的解釋。而不是關于什么是“開放源碼”。

Why, why, why does all this need to be said?

為什么，為什么，為什么需要說這一切呢？

Despite contrary evidence, hackers still take OSI as it presents itself—as a technocratic, dispassionate source of authoritative legal guidance “for the community”. In their defense, that’s how I took it, too, until I studied law and paid attention. “Activists” drive OSI. They hold the bullhorn. Lawyers—my colleagues—don’t post things like this. They read court opinions carefully.

盡管有相反的證據，黑客們仍然認為 OSI 是一個技術官僚的、冷靜的、“為社區”提供權威法律指導的來源。在他們的辯護中，我也是這樣認為的，直到我學習法律并注意到。“積極分子”推動 OSI。他們拿著牛角號。律師–我的同事–不會發布這樣的東西。他們仔細閱讀法庭意見。

All of this takes me back to 2017. The ICO plague was rampant. Coin Center, the main booster mouthpiece, was hocking all manner of dubious posts on how securities regulations somehow did not apply to blockchain. They did apply, and lawyers said so. But people saw what they wanted to see, repeated what they wanted to hear, invoked the “magic words” they were told would protect them — “utility token!” — and got themselves and others into a lot of unnecessary trouble.

所有這些都讓我回到了 2017 年。ICO 的瘟疫很猖獗。幣安中心，這個主要的助推器喉舌，正在兜售各種可疑的帖子，說證券法規如何在某種程度上不適用于區塊鏈。他們確實適用，律師也這么說。但人們看到了他們想看到的東西，重復了他們想聽到的東西，引用了他們被告知會保護他們的“神奇詞匯”–“實用代幣！”–并使自己和其他人陷入了許多不必要的麻煩。

The boosters got what they wanted.

There was a cost, but they didn’t pay it.

Reader, beware.

推動者們得到了他們想要的東西。

這是有代價的，但他們沒有付出代價。

讀者們，請注意！

相關閱讀 | Related Reading

程序員匠性的喚醒和維護

Nginx不接受俄羅斯的貢獻，違背開源協議和定義嗎？我們冤枉F5了嗎？

開源先鋒啟示｜有愛的開源

開源社簡介

開源社成立于 2014 年，是由志愿貢獻于開源事業的個人成員，依 “貢獻、共識、共治” 原則所組成，始終維持廠商中立、公益、非營利的特點，是最早以 “開源治理、國際接軌、社區發展、開源項目” 為使命的開源社區聯合體。開源社積極與支持開源的社區、企業以及政府相關單位緊密合作，以 “立足中國、貢獻全球” 為愿景，旨在共創健康可持續發展的開源生態，推動中國開源社區成為全球開源體系的積極參與及貢獻者。

2017 年，開源社轉型為完全由個人成員組成，參照 ASF 等國際頂級開源基金會的治理模式運作。近七年來，鏈接了數萬名開源人，集聚了上千名社區成員及志愿者、海內外數百位講師，合作了近百家贊助、媒體、社區伙伴。

總結

以上是生活随笔為你收集整理的【翻译】开源促进会没有赢得 Neo4j 诉 PureThink 案的胜利的全部內容，希望文章能夠幫你解決所遇到的問題。

如果覺得生活随笔網站內容還不錯，歡迎將生活随笔推薦給好友。