back to article False advertising to call software open source when it's not, says court

Last year, the Graph Foundation had to rethink how it develops and distributes its Open Native Graph Database (ONgDB) after it settled a trademark and copyright claim by database biz Neo4j. The Graph Foundation agreed [PDF] it would no longer claim specific versions of ONgDB, its Neo4j Enterprise Edition fork, are a "100 …

  1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    That was pretty bold

    Spouting Open Source claims all over your website when your license has nothing to do with Open Source.

    I'm glad somebody stood up to this nonsense.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: That was pretty bold

      It'd have been interesting if someone took their "open source" claim and forked the software themselves. That court case would've been interesting, especially the prosecutions arguments that their open source isn't open source, shooting themselves in the foot.

  2. FeepingCreature Bronze badge

    Subtle difference

    This is also why Elastic only describes Elasticsearch as "free and open", not open source.

    1. Will Godfrey Silver badge

      Re: Subtle difference

      Still smelly though

  3. Binraider Silver badge

    "OpenText Explorer", which is neither Open Source, built upon Open Source, or very good at exploring documents.

    I can think of others.

    1. heyrick Silver badge

      I think it's a bit of a leap to directly equate the word Open with Open Source.

      But in this case, extremely clearly Open Source wasn't.

      1. Binraider Silver badge

        I fail to see the difference with the name Open Native Graph DB and OpenText.

        Both imply things that they aren't.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          It's identical to me. It's how you use it and it is clearly riding the coat tails of "open source".

          “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” - Bill Clinton

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          It's not *the name* that was an issue, whether it contains Open or not is irrelevant,

          It was the claim, wholly separate from the naming, that their product was "open source", using both words together.

    2. FeepingCreature Bronze badge

      "Office Open XML", famously.

      1. Graham Dawson Silver badge

        There's no lie in the name. It's XML that you Open with Office. The fact that you read it as implying anything other than that is entirely your fault.

      2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        The specification is open. Though it was a fight to get it that far!

        1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

          ...and total nonsense unusable. It repeatedly referred to closed specification blobs... which were defined in Microsoft Word 6, for example.

          1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

            Bug reports are indeed managed in Word and Excel online and the specification isn't without its problems (it is very long, verbose and in parts contradictory and inaccurate) but makes it neither nonsense nor unusable.

            1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

              Some parts of the mock specification referred to binary blob data as stored by Microsoft Word or Excel. That's not an open specification, it's a joke. Likewise some parts of the specification stated "handle like Microsoft Word handles it", which is also not an open specification

    3. katrinab Silver badge
      Paris Hilton

      But "open" without source could just mean that it opens text files and explores them ...

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Blurred boundaries

    Let's not get into the plethora of 'reputable' closed source projects built ostensibly on open source libraries for all the tricksy stuff.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like