Re: Are these copyright notices compatible with GPLv2+?

[Walter Landry <wlandry@caltech.edu>]

Riley Baird <BM-2cVqnDuYbAU5do2DfJTrN7ZbAJ246S4XiX@bitmessage.ch> wrote:
>> > //3. Users agree to obey all government restrictions governing
>> > //redistribution or export of the software.
>> 
>> This is an additional restriction on top of what is allowed by GPLv2+.
>> That, unfortunately, makes it incompatible.
> 
> That sounds sensible, but are you sure?. Red Hat includes such a notice
> with Fedora, so I'm tempted to think that we're interpreting this
> wrongly.
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Export

I read that as requiring you to acknowledge that the law exists.  It
does not feel like Fedora would have an independent claim against you
for breaking the law.

> Regardless, the below clause is a non-commercial clause, which isn't
> compatible with the GPLv2:
>> //1. The users agree not to charge for the model owner code itself but may
>> //charge for additions, extensions, or support.

I do not think this is not a problem in practice.  If you add a
trivial addition to the code, then you are allowed to charge for the
code.

Cheers,
Walter Landry