> You can legally use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).
Also, some types of additional terms are allowed by GNU GPL (and AGPL); see section 7 of GPL3. (Commons Clause is not one of the kind of terms which is allowed by the license, but it does allow restricting the use of trademarks.)
So, Neo4j could make the license terms they intended, but they would have to do it differently than what they do now; they have to use the procedure I quoted above to modify the license rather than what they did, which is not legal (it violates FSF's copyright and trademark on the license).
Some of the things are not entirely correct.
Quotation from GNU FAQ:
> You can legally use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).
Also, some types of additional terms are allowed by GNU GPL (and AGPL); see section 7 of GPL3. (Commons Clause is not one of the kind of terms which is allowed by the license, but it does allow restricting the use of trademarks.)
So, Neo4j could make the license terms they intended, but they would have to do it differently than what they do now; they have to use the procedure I quoted above to modify the license rather than what they did, which is not legal (it violates FSF's copyright and trademark on the license).