These kinds of notices are broadly addressed in the GPL FAQ entry about export restrictions:
Some distributors of GPLed software require me in their umbrella EULAs or as part of their downloading process to “represent and warrant” that I am located in the US or that I intend to distribute the software in compliance with relevant export control laws. Why are they doing this and is it a violation of those distributors' obligations under GPL?
This is not a violation of the GPL. Those distributors (almost all of whom are commercial businesses selling free software distributions and related services) are trying to reduce their own legal risks, not to control your behavior. Export control law in the United States might make them liable if they knowingly export software into certain countries, or if they give software to parties they know will make such exports. By asking for these statements from their customers and others to whom they distribute software, they protect themselves in the event they are later asked by regulatory authorities what they knew about where software they distributed was going to wind up. They are not restricting what you can do with the software, only preventing themselves from being blamed with respect to anything you do. Because they are not placing additional restrictions on the software, they do not violate section 10 of GPLv3 or section 6 of GPLv2.
More specifically, this very issue came up in 2007 on the Fedora mailing list:
Correct me if I wrong - this statement seriously violates GPL - I read
it and find no mentions about Cuba and Iraq.
The final message in the thread links to a Fedora wiki page with a response from the FSF:
> > Fedora as a distribution is affected by export control regulations as
> > any software subjected to US laws from the legal perspective.
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Distribution/Download/ExportRegulations
> > Clause 8 in GPL mentions that such regulations are compatible with the
> > license but can you confirm FSF's viewpoints on this?
Section 8 of GPLv2 doesn't make the sort of sweeping policy statement
you're suggesting here. You'll note that we took this clause out of GPLv3
-- but you're not suddenly going to get into export restriction trouble
because of it.
The question to ask is: what requirement of the GPL does the law prevent
you from fulfilling? When it comes to export restrictions, the answer is
none. If you comply with local export restrictions, you will not run afoul
of any requirements in the GPL. Therefore, there's no conflict.
Export restrictions limit who you can give the software to. The GPL has no
problem with you being picky about who you give the software to: if you
want, you can decide that you'll only distribute to paying customers, or
people with blue hair. So the fact that you also decide not to distribute
to Iranians and Syrians is no problem as far as the license is concerned.
To summarize, it seems the FSF understands such an export-restriction notice as this as merely an informative statement about laws that may exist in your jurisdiction. Furthermore, the export restriction laws are not strictly in conflict with the GPL: you can follow both export law and the GPL simultaneously. Certainly, export laws narrow some of the rights you would otherwise have under the GPL, but the GPL can't ever give you meaningful permission to take actions that are outright illegal in your jurisdiction.
This seems right to me (not that my legal opinion counts for anything) since the language used at the top of the notice is:
Fedora software... may be subject to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations...
Such conditional language like "may" does not sound like language that actually imposes a restriction, but rather sounds like language that warns about a restriction that might exist elsewhere.