Yes, he wasn't "breaking" the GPL in the usual sense, since it's his code and he isn't depending on the GPL to get any rights. However, the comment contradicts a provision of the GPL, so to release the code supposedly under the GPL but with that comment in it doesn't make sense. The GPL itself states that you can't modify it (making a modified version of the text would violate the copyright on the GPL itself), and you can't impose additional restrictions. So if you try to release software under "the GPL except that you can't do the following", that's a contradiction in terms, since the GPL itself says that the "except you can't do the following" part is void.
Yeah, practically speaking this little comment was no big deal, but I'm discussing a principle here: the GPL is a take it or leave it deal. If it's not restrictive enough for you, you need to start with some other license entirely, not make a modified GPL.
|
|