3 ms·
Yes because the license was terminated when the violating party violated the license and then also ignored the notice asking them to come into compliance. So th
by sfifs 5y ago
Yes because the license was terminated when the violating party violated the license and then also ignored the notice asking them to come into compliance. So the right judgement is to cause GPL code to be removed from the product.
- endgame 5y agoThis is one of the things that GPLv3 fixes - there's a "self-healing" clause added. From section 8 of GPLv3 ("Termination"): > 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.
- jkaplowitz 5y agoThe new court ruling is already about the GPLv3 - the self-healing clause still allows a copyright holder to terminate the license of a violator if they choose to exercise part (a) of your quote after a notification of violation which meets the requirements to avoid part (b). I assume that the copyright holder chose this path because their notice requesting compliance was ignored.