4 ms·

Read section 8 of the text. It says that once an infringer has been notified, they have 30 days to fix the problem or else their license is terminated. https:/

by not2b 5y ago

Read section 8 of the text. It says that once an infringer has been notified, they have 30 days to fix the problem or else their license is terminated. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html edit: ninja'd.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
Sigh. I know AGPL license better than most people: my company develops software licensed under AGPL and I was the one who made the choice of license. The point is, license can't be "permanently terminated", only until the user ceases license violation.
- adrr 5y ago
  It will remedied by courts if the license isn’t satisfied and copyright infringement is still happening. Copyright holder can get an permanent injection against the offender against distributing the copyrighted work . This beyond the scope of the license though. This has happened to multiple companies violating GPL in the past. https://www.networkworld.com/article/2231532/gpl-has-some-bite-behind-it.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/2231532/gpl-has-some-bi...
- Hamuko 5y ago
  >However, 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. It sounds a lot like that the copyright holder has the power to permanently terminate a license even if the violation ceases.
- sparkie 5y ago
  That isn't true. The GPL licenses can be fully revoked if the license violator does not comply with the license after 30 days of being informed by the copyright holder of their violation. There is no "automatic renewal" unless the copyright holder does not respond. You can be permanently blocked from renewing the license if the copyright holder decides so. The FSF have used this clause in the past to bribe license violators to release other, non-violating pieces of code under a FOSS license in order to reinstate their license on code that was previously violating.
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    >The FSF have used this clause in the past to bribe license violators to release other, non-violating pieces of code under a FOSS license in order to reinstate their license on code that was previously violating. Is there more on this somewhere?
    - sparkie 5y ago
      I mistook the details above. The other works they were bribed into releasing code for were still violating licenses, but from different license holders. > "The SFC will grant a new license, but on one condition - not only must you provide the source code to Busybox, you must provide the source code to all other works on the device that require source distribution." > "The outcome of this is that we've gained access to large bodies of source code that would otherwise have been kept by companies. The SFC have successfully used Busybox to force the source release of many vendor kernels, ensuring that users have the freedoms that the copyright holders granted to them" https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/10437.html https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/10437.html
      - not2b 5y ago
        "bribed" is the wrong word for this. The license terms says that an infringer loses the license, and the copyright holder can ask, in exchange for re-instating it, that the infringer fix all violations (in this case, not just for Busybox but for everything). That saves time, other violated copyright holders don't have to sue one by one, and no money exchanges hands (and even if money does change hands, recovering legal costs as part of a settlement is standard).

by not2b 5y ago

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

Sigh. I know AGPL license better than most people: my company develops software licensed under AGPL and I was the one who made the choice of license. The point is, license can't be "permanently terminated", only until the user ceases license violation.

adrr 5y ago
It will remedied by courts if the license isn’t satisfied and copyright infringement is still happening. Copyright holder can get an permanent injection against the offender against distributing the copyrighted work . This beyond the scope of the license though. This has happened to multiple companies violating GPL in the past. https://www.networkworld.com/article/2231532/gpl-has-some-bite-behind-it.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/2231532/gpl-has-some-bi...
Hamuko 5y ago
>However, 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. It sounds a lot like that the copyright holder has the power to permanently terminate a license even if the violation ceases.
sparkie 5y ago
That isn't true. The GPL licenses can be fully revoked if the license violator does not comply with the license after 30 days of being informed by the copyright holder of their violation. There is no "automatic renewal" unless the copyright holder does not respond. You can be permanently blocked from renewing the license if the copyright holder decides so. The FSF have used this clause in the past to bribe license violators to release other, non-violating pieces of code under a FOSS license in order to reinstate their license on code that was previously violating.
- Hamuko 5y ago
  >The FSF have used this clause in the past to bribe license violators to release other, non-violating pieces of code under a FOSS license in order to reinstate their license on code that was previously violating. Is there more on this somewhere?
  - sparkie 5y ago
    I mistook the details above. The other works they were bribed into releasing code for were still violating licenses, but from different license holders. > "The SFC will grant a new license, but on one condition - not only must you provide the source code to Busybox, you must provide the source code to all other works on the device that require source distribution." > "The outcome of this is that we've gained access to large bodies of source code that would otherwise have been kept by companies. The SFC have successfully used Busybox to force the source release of many vendor kernels, ensuring that users have the freedoms that the copyright holders granted to them" https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/10437.html https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/10437.html
    - not2b 5y ago
      "bribed" is the wrong word for this. The license terms says that an infringer loses the license, and the copyright holder can ask, in exchange for re-instating it, that the infringer fix all violations (in this case, not just for Busybox but for everything). That saves time, other violated copyright holders don't have to sue one by one, and no money exchanges hands (and even if money does change hands, recovering legal costs as part of a settlement is standard).