3 ms·
re 4) That’s not quite true. The GPLv3 does foresee the possibility of a permanent termination of the license by copyright holders in case of a violation. Sect
by pentacent_hq 5y ago
re 4)
That’s not quite true. The GPLv3 does foresee the possibility of a permanent termination of the license by copyright holders in case of a violation.
Section 8 of the GPLv3 [1]:
> if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.
[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
- sillysaurusx 5y agoThe paragraph after seems to nullify that: > Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.
- papercrane 5y agoThe implication is that this clause doesn't apply. Maybe it took more than 30 days to cure the violation, or this wasn't the first GPL violation.
- mikeryan 5y agoNo it doesn’t. This is just the standard remedy method but doesn’t nullify the preceding which explicitly carves out the exception.