Re: [gNewSense-users] gNS seems to be violating GPLv2

[Markus Laire]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 00:22:26 +0930 (CST)
"Karl Goetz" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Fri, May 9, 2008 18:17, Markus Laire wrote:
> > Of course appropriate notices needs to be added. In addition, should
> > the gNS-project make sure that the person(s) who did the
> > changes don't do any kernel-modifications for the project from now
> > on since they don't seem to have the right to do that anymore?
> 
> I dont think its a case of "no right anymore". Neither do i think we
> should stop the person(s) involved working on Linux anymore, because
> i'm fairly sure that would kill the project.

At least for me it's more important to follow the law than to continue
the project. So if project can't be continued legally, I'd be in favor
of killing the project.

IMO the language of section 4 seems to say that even small violations
will terminate the license, which IMO is maybe the worst thing in GPLv2
(fortunately that was fixed in GPLv3)

I'd like to ask this from address@hidden, but their answers seems to
take quite long at the moment. (I'm still waiting for an anwer to
a question I asked in February.)

> > ps. According to address@hidden, if your rights under GPLv2 have
> > been automatically terminated according to section 4 of GPLv2, "You
> > need to get in contact with the copyright holder(s) of the software
> > and ask for a formal restoration of the license." to get those
> > right back.
> 
> I'll take their word for it - i didnt realise it was that extreme.
> kk

My specific question (from last november) was:
: If I have violated GPLv2 for a certain program and my rights under
: GPLv2 have been automatically terminated (according to section 4),
: will I then get those rights back (according to section 6) if I
: download a new copy of the program?
and answer from address@hidden was:
: No. You need to get in contact with the copyright holder(s) of the
: software and ask for a formal restoration of the license.

Followup question and answer were:
:: Why would I need to ask for "a formal restoration of the license"
:: when section 6 clearly says that I automatically receive a license
:: from the original licensor when someone redistributes the Program
:: to me?  
:
: The effect of the license termination in section 4 is stronger than
: the license grant of section 6. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know
: about the legal details of this. All I can say is that this is the
: understanding that the lawyers have about the license.
:
: This is also the reason why GPL version 3 contains
: provisions for automatic license restoration under some circumstances.

-- 
Markus Laire