That's what I understood the court said yes, which I think makes sense. The original licensor is the one who dictates the rules of use, even to enhancers. But t

That's what I understood the court said yes, which I think makes sense. The original licensor is the one who dictates the rules of use, even to enhancers. But the OSI article implied this wasn't the intent of the FSF when they wrote the license, and that apparently the clause in the AGPL was intended to dictate the terms of the original licensor, somehow in that they couldn't add more terms to it.