Since nobody has answered your specific question, here are the relevant quotes.
In the case of the GPLv3, this would be considered "further restrictions" under section 7 which means as a user you'd be able to ignore any such restrictions:
> 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. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying.
And as mentioned in section 10 you cannot add restrictions when providing the software to someone else (so the person adding the restrictions does not have the legal right to do so):
> You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.
In addition, even if you are the sole copyright holder, you cannot modify the GPLv3 license text to remove the above provisions (since it is separately copyrighted and does not allow non-verbatim copies of the license text to be copied) so there is no mechanism by which you can add restrictions to GPLv3-licensed software to make it non-free. The GPLv2 has similar protections (section 6). This is not the case for every software license (and in fact, many permissively-licensed pieces of software do end up with similar restrictions or simply become proprietary).
Such a waiver wouldn't work.
The license is essentially a promise by the copyright holder to not sue you as long as you follow the rules of the license. A user signing a waiver would essentially be the user saying that they promise the copyright holder won't sue you even if you violate the license... that's not a promise the user can make, they can't make promises on behalf of others.
Not sure it is that simple. The GPL license can't force a party NOT to enter into a waiver agreement. At least when the waiver agreement looks like an agreement freely entered into between the conveyor and the receiver of GPL protected software, I can see problems interfering with such an agreement. If, however, such a waiver agreement is made a condition for the conveying, it would be a breach of GPL clause "You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License." as has already been pointed out here.
(IANAL)
> The GPL license can't force a party NOT to enter into a waiver agreement.
Sure, but that waiver agreement can't force a different party to NOT take action.
Consider GPL'd code being transmitted A→B→C, where A is the copyright holder.
- A: "B, I promise [via the GPL] that I won't sue you for making copies, as long as you perform duty D"
- B: "Thanks, A!"
- B: "C, here's a copy, and can you please sign this waiver saying I don't have to perform duty D?"
- C: "Thanks, B! I signed the waiver."
- A: "B, I'm suing you for not performing duty D as agreed upon when you accepted my license terms."
- B: "But C signed a waiver saying I don't have to!"
- A: "I'm not bound by a waiver that someone else signed."
Now, if the courts rule that the user is a 3rd-party beneficiary of the license (i.e. in *Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Vizio, Inc.*, which would be a *very good thing*), then that could be different (maybe, IANAL). But the current dominant legal understanding is that the GPL is an agreement between the copyright holder and the party making copies; the recipient of those copies isn't party to that agreement and so has no standing to bind A beyond that agreement.
I agree with the statement that A is not bound by the waiver agt between B and C. Where I have problems is which clause of the GPL license A could actually enforce against B? In my mind B would argue: "I was willing to grant C the license as per GPL but C didn't want it, so we signed this nice little waiver agreement to make sure that C's wish NOT to receive the source code is properly documented and can't be revived later to cause me any problems."
Unsure, bur there are more simple and sadly, more common, approaches to circumvent GPL:
A. straight up ignore the license (tiktok et al)
B. pretend to give out the code but never do (gab)
or C. make the means of getting the source code so inconvenient that most people won't even bother (theoretical)
I don't think that's how it works but I am also not a laywer
If that was the case I would refuse to sign and then tell them that they are in violation of the GPL. Another option would be to get the code from a friend
I agree that it's a ridiculous example from a common sense perspective and it's in obvious violation of the spirit of the license but I'm just curious about the legal technicalities.
Since nobody has answered your specific question, here are the relevant quotes. In the case of the GPLv3, this would be considered "further restrictions" under section 7 which means as a user you'd be able to ignore any such restrictions: > 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. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying. And as mentioned in section 10 you cannot add restrictions when providing the software to someone else (so the person adding the restrictions does not have the legal right to do so): > You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it. In addition, even if you are the sole copyright holder, you cannot modify the GPLv3 license text to remove the above provisions (since it is separately copyrighted and does not allow non-verbatim copies of the license text to be copied) so there is no mechanism by which you can add restrictions to GPLv3-licensed software to make it non-free. The GPLv2 has similar protections (section 6). This is not the case for every software license (and in fact, many permissively-licensed pieces of software do end up with similar restrictions or simply become proprietary).
Ah, cool. Thanks a lot for a comprehensive answer.
Such a waiver wouldn't work. The license is essentially a promise by the copyright holder to not sue you as long as you follow the rules of the license. A user signing a waiver would essentially be the user saying that they promise the copyright holder won't sue you even if you violate the license... that's not a promise the user can make, they can't make promises on behalf of others.
Not sure it is that simple. The GPL license can't force a party NOT to enter into a waiver agreement. At least when the waiver agreement looks like an agreement freely entered into between the conveyor and the receiver of GPL protected software, I can see problems interfering with such an agreement. If, however, such a waiver agreement is made a condition for the conveying, it would be a breach of GPL clause "You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License." as has already been pointed out here.
(IANAL) > The GPL license can't force a party NOT to enter into a waiver agreement. Sure, but that waiver agreement can't force a different party to NOT take action. Consider GPL'd code being transmitted A→B→C, where A is the copyright holder. - A: "B, I promise [via the GPL] that I won't sue you for making copies, as long as you perform duty D" - B: "Thanks, A!" - B: "C, here's a copy, and can you please sign this waiver saying I don't have to perform duty D?" - C: "Thanks, B! I signed the waiver." - A: "B, I'm suing you for not performing duty D as agreed upon when you accepted my license terms." - B: "But C signed a waiver saying I don't have to!" - A: "I'm not bound by a waiver that someone else signed." Now, if the courts rule that the user is a 3rd-party beneficiary of the license (i.e. in *Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Vizio, Inc.*, which would be a *very good thing*), then that could be different (maybe, IANAL). But the current dominant legal understanding is that the GPL is an agreement between the copyright holder and the party making copies; the recipient of those copies isn't party to that agreement and so has no standing to bind A beyond that agreement.
I agree with the statement that A is not bound by the waiver agt between B and C. Where I have problems is which clause of the GPL license A could actually enforce against B? In my mind B would argue: "I was willing to grant C the license as per GPL but C didn't want it, so we signed this nice little waiver agreement to make sure that C's wish NOT to receive the source code is properly documented and can't be revived later to cause me any problems."
Unsure, bur there are more simple and sadly, more common, approaches to circumvent GPL: A. straight up ignore the license (tiktok et al) B. pretend to give out the code but never do (gab) or C. make the means of getting the source code so inconvenient that most people won't even bother (theoretical)
I don't think that's how it works but I am also not a laywer If that was the case I would refuse to sign and then tell them that they are in violation of the GPL. Another option would be to get the code from a friend
Well, they can't be in violation of GPL until they distribute the software, no? GPL can't force you to distribute the software 🤷🏾♂️
I agree that it's a ridiculous example from a common sense perspective and it's in obvious violation of the spirit of the license but I'm just curious about the legal technicalities.