I interpreted the conflict clause differently (explicit clause vs no clause = a conflict), but I can understand this interpretation as well.
If I understand correctly, the derived work would be distributed under the Combined License (say, GPLv3). How can these additional obligations be enforced if they are not part of the license the combined work is distributed under?
In other words, I believe that when it says GPLv3 on the tin, I am meant to comply with the GPLv3, not some additional obligations enforced by a different license. But perhaps the situation is more nuanced than that?
like I wouldn't even rely on the "no further restrictions" clause being valid/legally binding and due to how it works pretty much any previous case trying to enforce it I'm aware of failed (but on a technicality _not_ applying here). (As an example for a invalid clause, the automatic contract voiding on violation clause is not valid in some(all?) EU countries!)
and then the definition of derived work, especially in the EU and with GPLv2, is much less ... clear ... then what the FSF likes to claim.
so I think you really would need to ask a lawyer in any situations where it does matter
If I understand correctly, the derived work would be distributed under the Combined License (say, GPLv3). How can these additional obligations be enforced if they are not part of the license the combined work is distributed under?
In other words, I believe that when it says GPLv3 on the tin, I am meant to comply with the GPLv3, not some additional obligations enforced by a different license. But perhaps the situation is more nuanced than that?