|
Authored by: Wol on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 02:10 PM EDT |
Actually, v2 is not clear on this. It's one of those "what exactly does the
law say here" things, and it could go either way in court.
That's why v3 makes it very clear that - if you sort yourself out - you get the
licence back unless the copyright holder explicitly terminates it.
The existence of v3 is a guide to the courts as to how v2 was meant to be
interpreted. Doesn't mean the courts will follow that guide.
Mind you, unless TwinPeaks backpedals VERY fast, I think even taking v3 as a
guide it's pretty clear they will lose their licence permanently.
Cheers,
Wol
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, September 14 2012 @ 04:03 PM EDT |
The GPL v2 is not clear on this. Some people assert that it is the case but
other people assert that you could reacquire a license by coming into compliance
or simply down loading the code (or a later version) again. I don't know of any
legal decision on this point.
A lot of people also seem to beleive that the GPL is a monolithic license and
being out of compliance with it for one piece of software terminates all GPL
licenses. I can't see how that is the case. The license applies to only one
piece of code by one author. Other code by other authors using the same license
would not be affected by it.
This is close to the drivers license analogy above where if you loose your
drivers license your can't drive any car. The GPL is not a drivers license.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|