[dahart]

Here’s one source, there are several other places Ole has talked about it: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parallel.git/tree/doc/cita...

I think the confusing issue here is that the notice is not a license requirement, it does not add additional licensing restrictions. It’s an honor-system agreement between the user and Ole, and does not involve the GPL. It does seem to be walking a very fine line, and it’s easy for users to not understand the distinction, but I believe the notice does adhere to the GPL’s rules, even if it doesn’t initially appear to for us non-lawyers.

[542458]

Yes, to me it looks like he’s adding an official license-like note, but then declaring that he’s still GPL compliant because although his note is easily confused with a license it’s not actually a license. He then gets cranky if people remove his not-a-license note or don’t act like it’s a license. Feels very much to me like he’d be better served with something other than the GPL if he doesn’t want people using his software in GPL-permitted ways.