I don't understand the reasoning that called this ruling “erroneous." Whoever crafted the AGPLv3 license is not a party in the contract. AGPLv3 + modifier fro

I don't understand the reasoning that called this ruling “erroneous." Whoever crafted the AGPLv3 license is not a party in the contract. AGPLv3 + modifier from the original licensor conveys the intention from the licensor more accurately than what AGPLv3 alone. Any contradictions between intent of the AGPLv3 and AGPLv3 + modifier must be resolved that in mind. Whatever FSF intended in the AGPLv3 or how it is interpreted in courts alone is meaningful only when there is no contradiction with AGPLv3 + modifier. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think this is pretty well established general principle. Added modifications override the original text without the need to alter the original.