Very surprised by all the comments here critical of the OSI.
Even if Neo4j was correct by the court's interpretation (which I agree with), it seems clear that they were indeed "open-washing" as the article says.
It's changed now but it used to say on the Neo4j website "the Neo4j Enterprise Edition is dual licensed under Neo4j commercial license as well as under the free Affero General Public License (AGPL) v3" (neo4j.com/open-source-project on web.archive.org). Obviously this is misleading (because it is not in fact free).
I think this is a big problem. Advertising products as open-source can drive adoption, but it should not come at the cost of diluting the meaning of the term itself.
It's changed now but it used to say on the Neo4j website "the Neo4j Enterprise Edition is dual licensed under Neo4j commercial license as well as under the free Affero General Public License (AGPL) v3" (neo4j.com/open-source-project on web.archive.org). Obviously this is misleading (because it is not in fact free).
I think this is a big problem. Advertising products as open-source can drive adoption, but it should not come at the cost of diluting the meaning of the term itself.