The fact that the addictional terms are basically designed to defeat the original licence should make it clear to anyone that it isn't a "reasonable legal notice".

IMO this is a great illustration of how the word "reasonable" stops the entire legal system collapsing.

▲

u1hcw9nx 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Contract law uses Contra proferentem ("interpretation against the draftsman") principle: Ambiguous or confusing contract is interpreted against the party that provided the wording. It's amazing principle that makes things reasonable. Trying to be intentionally sneaky and confusing backfires.

Contra proferentem is most important with "contracts of adhesion" like OSS licences that are pre-written contracts which are strict take-it or leave-it, leaving no opportunity for a party to bargain over specific contractual terms. Because the party does not have an opportunity to negotiate they may reasonably interpret a term in a different manner than the contract offeror intended.

The court would likely rule that the more comprehensive document takes precedence (exactly what the AGPLv3 intended.) Less likely outcome is that the court decides there was no valid license at all. This would technically be copyright infringement, but they almost certainly wouldn't issue sanctions because of the innocent infringer principle. Sneaky Company, Inc. messed the license writing and that makes copyright infringement understandable.

▲

thisislife2 3 hours ago | parent [-]

But the key question is will the court accept it as an AGP License or accept the argument that it shouldn't be considered an AGPL licence but a derivative one with extra terms (because it has been modified)? If it is the latter, then everyone using their code would need to comply, in my opinion.

	▲	u1hcw9nx 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's not the question. There is an AGPL there and extra terms so that would not be under dispute either side. It would be derivative one from the start. The court would have to decide the rules of construction in the contract and what to do with conflicting clauses. They would verify what Section 7 says. They would ask "Did the Sneaky Company lead the users to believe they had a license with AGPLv3 terms", was there room for confusion? Was the license ambiguity given that it was take-or-leave it style unfair to users? The court would probably see evidence from company web site, and public communication to see how they advertised the software. If the company mentions AGPL and is vague about extra terms, it would be bad for the Sneaky Company.

▲

gdwatson 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I feel like I am missing too much background here. If there is only one licensor, why add terms to defeat the license it chose rather than choose a license which does not need defeating?