Riley Baird <bm-2cvqnduybau5do2dfjtrn7zbaj246s4...@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