But I think the broader point while admittedly weakened still stands - there is definitely at least some nuance here, even if once all nuances are considered, the conclusion is still the same - and it is disingenuous to imply that the CEO would have known he is obviously wrong if he just read enough of the license to realize it disallows all additional restrictions, period. Seems misleading to do that without first engaging with and acknowledging the nuance.
7. Additional Terms.
[...]
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:
[...]
b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or
[...]
All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10
(emphasis mine)
OpenOffice license includes:
Pursuant to Section 7(b) of the License you must retain the original Product logo when distributing the program.
So there is an actual subtle question here - does "original Product logo" count as "reasonable legal notices or author attributions" within the meaning of AGPL 7(b)? But hey, who wants to read when the accused others of no reading?!
To the landlord belongs the doorknobs.