[hotsalad]

If I'm reading the (L)GPL correctly (but I'm not a lawyer), this notice should be completely ignored:

Section 7 says: All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.

Section 10 says: You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License.

[Buttons840]

The copyright holder isn't bound by their own license though.

Although, if there are many contributors to the project, there may not be a clear copyright holder.

[kelnos]

Of course, the copyright holder can license as they wish. But the quoted terms of the GPL are in the license that the author is distributing with the software, so we can also follow the terms of the GPL and remove the extra restriction they just added. The author is trying to do contradictory things: add extra restrictions, but release under the terms of a license that allow us to remove those extra restrictions.

If they want to add that restriction, they cannot release it under the GPL; they need to pick another license, or modify the GPL to their liking and then call it something else (assuming the copyright terms of the GPL allow you to make a derived work of the license itself).

[c3d]

No, I am not ignoring the GPLv3. This is not a license, but a legal notice that residents of these states, by applying the GPL and freely running software that may violate local laws, are the ones that may have to deal with the consequences.

I clarified in a recently updated version of the text, and I refer the readers to this discussion. https://github.com/c3d/db48x/blob/dev/LEGAL-NOTICE.md

[Buttons840]

If I have a license that says "you may use this, you may not use this", then can people use it? Honest question, I don't know how self-contradictory licenses work. Do people get to pick and choose what they want to follow, or does the whole thing become invalid?

[direwolf20]

If you have a license that says "You may not use this. The preceding sentence is null and void. You may use this." then you may use it.

You may also use software without a license, if you don't get caught.

[hotsalad]

Wouldn't they still need to switch to a license outside the GPL family in order to add those restrictions, even if they're the sole copyright holder? Otherwise it seems that upon receiving a copy of the software, the user can just remove the additional restrictions, as specified by Section 7.

[shakna]

The LGPL has:

> This version of the GNU Lesser General Public License incorporates the terms and conditions of version 3 of the GNU General Public License, supplemented by the additional permissions listed below.

Which points you over to this in GPL, Sections 7, Additional Terms:

> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:

> ...

> f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on those licensors and authors.

This is a condition being imposed by a new law (if/when it passes). Its an attempt at indemnification that is compatible with the law. It seems to pass the reasonableness check.