acefaceZ

At least Liquibase isn’t masquerading under a well known open source license, unlike Neo4j’s infamous AGPL bait-and-switch.

Neo4j quietly slipped the Commons Clause into what looked like a standard AGPL license, complete with the FSF copyright and preamble, until a single person called them out.

Instead of owning up, Neo4j spent nearly a decade and tens of millions trying to crush one person. Not the best business minds over there…

Anyway - it sounds like Liquibase didn’t go to that extreme and fixed their messaging as soon as the community educated them.

Thank you. I did some more in depth research and it sounds like they just fixed their clustering mechanism to actually do some sharding like elasticsearch and TigerGraph.

Calling it Infinigraph is a much better marketing move than saying “We finally fixed our clustering implementation to properly shard and scale”.

It sounds interesting but based on their tendency to overhype everything - I am a little skeptical.

Have they finally managed to fix the scalability issues?

Neo4j performance is horrendous unless you have huge amounts of memory. I would wager that anyone who has used Neo4j for anything related to graphrag or used its vector features knows it’s not a great solution. Anyone can verify this quite easily.

Neo4j has been trying to scare agencies into paying for enterprise licenses. I bet many more are going to dump them moving forward because of this behavior and the fact that the costs don’t really support any meaningful ROI except for edge cases which are far and few between.

+1 for Kuzu

I would avoid Neo4j open source offerings (community edition, etc) like the plague until their court case is over. They are fighting to be able to use their interpretation of what GPL terms means - and from their past behavior - it’s probably going to be bad news for anyone who adopted it because it was open source.

Sounds about right. I don’t think their investors were too happy with their ‘open source’ activities.

Neo4j got to where they are on the backs of the open source community, which makes this situation that much more maddening.

Copied from other thread:

The case centers on who has the authority to interpret the terms of an open-source license:

1.The software developers who adopt licenses like GPLv3, MIT, or Apache 2.0 for their projects OR 2. The original authors of those licenses (FSF, Apache Foundation, etc)

If the appeal fails to overturn the flawed lower court ruling, it will set a precedent allowing legal cases to focus on how software developers themselves interpret the terms of licenses like GPLv3, MIT,Apache 2.0, etc. This is precisely what happened with Neo4j.

This issue is significant enough that two of the leading open-source foundations submitted amicus briefs in the case.

I think Neo4j knows it is wrong after this latest Amicus and they have the power to stop this in its tracks by simply settling the case before the ninth circuit makes a ruling which will be precedent.

Pretty crazy situation!

Exactly - the court system does not accept PDFs generated by most open source tools. Pretty crazy.

Adobe and Microsoft must love that.

If you are familiar with pacer or ACMS - it is an old antiquated system. You can’t submit PDFs for example generated from anything other than Adobe Acrobat or exported from Microsoft word.