4 ms·
That has nothing to do with licence termination, however, which is an entirely separate part from violation.
by Blikkentrekker 6y ago
That has nothing to do with licence termination, however, which is an entirely separate part from violation.
- dec0dedab0de 6y agoOnce the license is terminated you are in violation.
- Blikkentrekker 6y agoNo, in reverse, once one violates, the licence is terminated. That has nothing to do with copyright per sē, and is simply a provision of the GPL, and thus has nothing to do with the Superbowl. The GPLv2 rightsholder can independent of that elect to sue and seek damages for the duration of the copyright violation, but once one come into compliance again, one can re-use it, and the GPLv2 rightsholder cannot stop that.
- dec0dedab0de 6y agoThe GPLv2 rightsholder can independent of that elect to sue and seek damages for the duration of the copyright violation, but once one come into compliance again, one can re-use it, and the GPLv2 rightsholder cannot stop that. We might be arguing semantics here. I am trying to convey the idea that the rights holder can sue for damages after the duration of the violation, even if they can only sue for damages that took place during the violation. That is, once you are in compliance with the license you don't retroactively have a license for the time it was revoked.
- Blikkentrekker 6y agoYes, but that is not what the GPLv2 death penalty is. The principle if true means that one can never obtain a new licence when coming in compliance except by gaining permission from every single rightsholder which for large projects can be thousands. — this is theoretically true by the letter of the GPLv2, but the common legal opinion is that this provision is not legally enforceable. The GPLv3 fixed this unintentional problem, as the GPLv2 was never written with the idea of thousands of rightsholders in mind.