Hi, I'm currently struggling because I want to make an MIT open source medical research project with neo4j, was accepted to neo4j startup program, but can't actually use neo4j because of the GPLv3 viral nonsense.
Not sure what happens when my MIT licensed project connects via Apache 2.0 licensed driver to the GPLv3 virus we call Neo4j, but I'm assuming it means, SaaS startups can't use Neo4j right now. Aura has no ability to pause or autoscale the servers, and you pay $65 for 0.2 CPUs to run 24/7, which seems like a literal joke. Guess I should just use postgres, faunadb, mongodb, or arangodb. Just really like Cypher and feel frustrated with license issues. Also, it's not clear what happens after the startup program ends, because there is no information published about enterprise pricing for neo4j, but I heard it was like $35,000 per server, which is truly insane and impossible for a startup to afford. You claim to love open source, but you use this viral GPLv3 license. You claim to love startups but leave us wondering what happens after the program ends...do we switch databases at that point? Sorry to vent frustration here, but I thought I could just pick up Neo4j and use Cypher queries, but it's all stress about licenses, managing servers, guessing about hidden pricing ... not fun! Bion On Sunday, February 5, 2012 at 8:39:14 AM UTC-5, Peter Neubauer wrote: > > Harald, > Thanks for the research! Will bring it up with Emil etc and get back. We > don't want you to be hampered by the community license in your oss work. > > Send from a device with crappy keyboard and autocorrection. > > /peter > On Feb 5, 2012 12:45 PM, "Harald Wellmann" <hwell...@googlemail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> After careful reading of the material quoted so far, I'm afraid I have to >> reopen this thread. >> >> The usage of "compatibility" in the FSF documents is rather misleading. >> In plain English, I take "compatibility" to be a symmetric relation, and >> [1] seems to support this view at first sight. >> >> However, [2] is clearly asymmetric. "ASL is compatible with GPLv3" means >> you can combine ASL and GPLv3 components in a larger work - but ONLY IF you >> license the larger work under GPL. >> >> Peter said earlier in this thread you can "use Neo4j Community as you >> would MySQL". >> >> I don't think this is true, at least there is a substantial difference in >> the licenses. >> >> The MySQL JDBC driver is licensed under GPLv2 but with a FOSS exception >> [4], which states explicitly that you may use the GPLed library in a larger >> work licensed under one of the listed FOSS licenses (including ASL). >> >> If this were permitted by default, the exception would not be necessary. >> >> So IMHO all of this implies that I cannot use Neo4J Community (or any >> other GPLv3 library) in a work of my own and distribute the combined work >> (including the GPLv3 libs) under ASL. >> >> A weaker variant of this: My component uses Neo4J APIs, I distribute my >> component (source and binaries) under ASL, NOT including the Neo4j libs. >> (This is what SpringSource does with spring-data-neo4j (SDN).) To run my >> component, users need to obtain Neo4j on their own. >> >> This use case is permitted by section 4 (Combined Works) of the LGPLv3. >> It is not mentioned very clearly in the GPLv3, and my interpretation is >> that it is NOT PERMITTED, otherwise there would be no point in creating >> LGPLv3 as a weaker variant of GPLv3 specifically permitting this case. >> >> Therefore, I believe that SDN violates the GPLv3 license of Neo4j. >> >> Now I don't really care about potential legal problems of other parties, >> but I do care about my own work. >> >> I do have some unpublished source code which uses Neo4j and which I'd >> like to publish. It is my own policy and the policy of OSS communities I >> normally work with to publish source code (and binaries) under ASL. >> >> So it seems there are only two options: Publish my code under GPLv3 >> (outside of an ASL-bound community), or keep it private. >> >> As things stand, I think I'll publish the work I've done so far under >> GPL, against my own preference, and then stop using Neo4j in OSS contexts >> because its copyleft restricts my freedom. >> >> If Neo Technology wants to promote the use of Neo4j in OSS projects and >> to remove all legal uncertainty, then I think the minimum you should do is >> adding an OSS exception to the Neo4j Community license, but LGPLv3 or ASLv2 >> would really be the preferred solution from that perspective. >> >> [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean >> [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs >> [3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html, New >> Compatible Licenses >> [4] http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/ >> >> Best regards, >> Harald >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Neo4j" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to neo4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/neo4j/35295e22-f2f8-4b59-b81e-e8a644dc3f9f%40googlegroups.com.
