Possible GPLv3 license violation by COVIDSafe App? about opentrace-android

[mcccol]

I noticed this too. ISTR that you're not allowed to add restrictions on use of derivative works (like the language regarding how it's to be used in the purported license.)

Some dodges I'm expecting: 1. sovereign license (no, doesn't apply to software, 2. Singapore (being the putative copyright owner) granted them a different license (maybe, but did the version Oz used contain anything contributed by someone under GPL3?)

[konomikitten]

2. Singapore (being the putative copyright owner) granted them a different license

Some other people I talked to expect it to be this, but I'll leave this issue open until someone can say for sure?

[mcccol]

Well in that case it can be clean-roomed. Someone reads the .gov.au code, specs it for someone else who hasn't, who then rewrites it.

[sjlongland]

I've asked this of the ABC… it is possible the Australian Government has sought legal permission from the copyright holder(s) of OpenTrace to license COVIDSafe under a different license.

The question is, did they, and was that permission granted? If no, then I'd think that it's the GPLv3 that stands, not their license. diff-ing the two code branches, the changes look very superficial to me: some parts ripped out, but many of the core functions look the same.