They would need to use the AGPL if they want folks that self-host to release their changes.

I don't know if the page changed, but it says that it is using AGPL

They did https://github.com/heyform/heyform/commits/main/LICENSE

Yeah, it looks wrong to me too. It claims to be GPLv3 and the "use cases" explainer looks like it's trying to clarify what GPLv3 means, but the requirements described under the use cases are not part of GPLv3.

The 1st one is fine. The 2nd one says you would need to open source your modifications, but that would only be true if you also distributed your version rather than just using it on the server side. The 3rd adds three conditions. The first and third are again only true if you are redistributing the software. The second is an attribution clause that is not part of GPLv3, and the page to me definitely reads like it's explaining the license but not actually a license itself. GPLv3 does allow adding in similar conditions, but probably not those: I'm not sure requiring a link to the original project is ok.

AGPLv3 would be a much closer match to what the author appears to intend. It allows adding the attribution requirements that the author wants; see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html section 7: "You may...supplement the terms...: (b) Requiring preservation of...author attribution..."

(IANAL, and every time I claim anything about licenses I get at least one detail wrong.)

There's nothing problematic about this, except that it's GPL plus conditions. AFAICT, only the second condition would be in addition to the GPL, but I didn't spend much time thinking about it.

> it's GPL plus conditions

Not in a uniform way - the license distributed with the code on github doesn’t have the extra conditions.

At this point I’d nuke the repo and force push with AGPL license instead, that seems a better fit.

GPL does not permit additional conditions, it actually states that additional conditions may be removed by the licensee.

In this case, I don’t see the actual license containing additional conditions, simply that the FAQ guidance on the page is misleading.

But it needs attribution and he can say what attribution is valid, no? IANAL so can't say for sure but does GPLv3 have same issue as early CC? https://doctorow.medium.com/a-bug-in-early-creative-commons-...

Yes and no. While the author can specify an attribution notice, the GPL limits it to being relayed amongst “appropriate legal notices” - these typically appear in an EULA or About screen. Otherwise an “inappropriate” attribution requirement could be misused to prevent modification of certain parts of the work.

As for the issue with CC, GPLv3 gives a 30 day grace period for rectifying violations which obviates many potential troll issues.

Thank you.