Single-window mode is handy if you also have other programs open (like many people do). It's a pain to start gimp, then realize that you should have switched to the next desktop because it will stuff so many windows on your screen once you open a dozen files that it needs its own desktop - then not be able to drag stuff into it because it's no longer on the same desktop as other applications.
For those who only use it to edit one picture at a time (and for those who are complaining but never actually USE it), it's no big deal, but the fact that you are complaining about an improvement that many want makes me wonder if you even have a dog in this debate.
You are thinking that the license applies to a particular instance of the software as if it were a physical thing. That is nonsense, and your theory would get laughed out of court.
The license applies to the work, in the abstract, not to any one particular copy of it. This is a principle of copyright law, but it is also made explicit in the GPL. Read section 0 a few times until that sinks in.
Try reading section 6 a few times until THAT sinks in. It supercedes section 0. Each copy grants the recipient a license.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor.
So, each copy comes with its' own license grant. And no, copyright law doesn't just apply to works in the abstract. It applies to the physical manifestation as well, whether it be a book, a photo, a television broadcast, a live performance, or bits on a disk. You don't receive copyright registrations for a "work in the abstract". For code, you supply a physical copy of the first 25 and last 25 pages of source code (or all if it's 50 pages or less). See also the note that if the program is on a CD-ROM, you must ordinarily send them the CD as well as the source.
No - they'd still have to get into compliance. Otherwise, the owners of the copyright could still demand that Tivos be seized for violating the terms of the license, and no new ones be sold until they conform to the terms of the license.
So they'd have to get into compliance, and "not be a dick". In the case of the TVs that had busybox, for example, they would make the new instance of the source available to all, after patching it so it's identical to the old copy, and apologize to everyone for their stupidity. This way, they are both in compliance with the terms of the new instance of the license, and have also complied with the terms of the old license.
At that point, who is going to complain if what they really wanted was compliance with the license and an apology? The only ones who would want to continue to make a hash of it are the opponents of the GPL, who would be going "see, it's a cancer!"
Simply downloading another copy and conforming with the terms of the license re-establishes your right to redistribute.
Your License to the Program is terminated. The License doesn't apply to you anymore, none of it.
Wrong - your license for the previous copy was terminated. This doesn't affect future license grants. EACH copy you receive comes with its' own license, as per section 6 of the GPLv2, and any attempt to impose further restrictions on THAT copy (eg: for violating a previous instance of the license with a previous copy) is prohibited.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
People using the GPLv2 license want people to conform to THAT license. Generating FUD about Android by saying that rights are permanently terminated when this is not the case, and that Linux should be relicensed as GPLv3 (which would kill Android dead, or at least force it to switch to BSD) is both stupid and almost impossible - you cannot use GPLv3 code in a "GPLv2-only" program such as linux., and with up to 10,000 contributors, it's not likely you'll get everyone's consent to switch (again, because it would kill using linux in commercial products dead dead dead).
Is GPLv3 compatible with GPLv2?
No. Some of the requirements in GPLv3, such as the requirement to provide Installation Information, do not exist in GPLv2. As a result, the licenses are not compatible: if you tried to combine code released under both these licenses, you would violate section 6 of GPLv2.
However, if code is released under GPL âoeversion 2 or later,â that is compatible with GPLv3 because GPLv3 is one of the options it permits.
Just look at the current instance as an example of why you should be skeptical. It sounds like it was written by a SCO or Microsoft mouth-piece - "GPLv3's approach has several advantages over GPLv2's. By having the license grant forgiveness by default, instead of terminating rights permanently,..."
Nowhere in the GPLv2 does it say that rights are terminated permanently. Get into compliance, get a new copy of the code (which under the GPLv2 section 6 automatically grants you a new license every time you receive a copy of the code), patch the new copy of the code so that it is identical to the old copy, and so long as you remain in compliance, you have the right to use and distribute copies of the newly patched new copy under it's instance of the license.
This isn't an "end run" around the GPL - it's the quickest and least painful way to ensure that people comply with the license provisions, and that FUD is stopped dead in its' tracks.
It is only the previous license that is terminated. The new license granted by the new copy requires that the person be in compliance with the license they are now granted with the new copy. Any attempt to link the previous license with the new instance is prohibited by section 6, which clearly states that any attempt to add further restrictions is not allowed.
So, if you inadvertently infringed, your license to the copy you have is invalid. You can correct the problem by downloading a new copy, and respecting the terms of the new license that was automatically granted by the new copy, patching it as necessary to make it the equivalent to the old copy, and abiding by the terms of the new copy's license. Since you are now in compliance, anyone who was harmed by your previous infringement can now get the code, which is the goal of compliance.
It really is that simple. You don't have to go around and "beg forgiveness from each and every copyright holder" - just conform to the license you automatically received when you got the new copy. It can only be terminated if you violate the license subsequent to getting the new copy and new instance of the license - not for a violation that occurred before you received the new copy and new license - because that would violate the "no other restrictions" of section 6.
The code you lost the rights to distribute is the same in the new version. You probably have the right to distribute whatever relatively independent bits where added, but you are in default on the code you fucked up with. "will automatically terminate your rights under this License", this license, not this instance of the license. This code under this license (GPLv2) is now off limits to you, at least technically.
Wrong - see Napster. Napster fell afoul of copyright laws in part because, rather than uploading the individual's copies of songs, they copied the song from another instance.
The license attaches to the copy you receive. Section 6 is VERY clear on that.
You receive a new instance of the license - NOT an extension of an existing license - with every copy of the code you receive. Section 6 is unequivocal about that.
Due to this, your interpretation is not only wrong, but it also falls afoul of the provision of section 6 that prohibits adding extra restrictions.
A previous violation terminates the license for the previous copy only. It cannot terminate future rights to a license granted afterwards.
I know what a "car" is, and it isn't a passenger vehicle. A "car" is something pulled by a locomotive.
However, people have been using it for decades as slang for a passenger vehicle, which proves my point that the meaning of a word is defined by how people use it. Hence, today's definition of a "smartphone" is not the same as the one 2 decades ago. Meanings change. Those earlier phones are no longer considered smartphones by people - they're at best "feature phones".
Think of it - if someone said they were gay 100 years ago, it meant something completely different. Meanings change.
A more recent example - the definition of marriage no longer means a union between a man and a woman, but between two people or either sex or gender (and some places recognize 3 or more people as well).
You have still been in violation of copyright law and could face $750-150.000 statutory damages for that,
Only if the copyright was previously registered with the US Copyright Office. Otherwise, you are only entitled to provable economic damages, and even that only starts the meter ticking after you notify the entity involved.
Proving actual economic damages on software you've licensed to others "for free" is a tough row to hoe... the real value of the GPL is its' moral aspect - that it is a "share-and-share-alike" license, and that people who violate it should be ashamed of themselves (and that a court might order infringing products to stop being sold, such as with busybox in big-screen TVs). But how much money did the authors of busybox actually lose because the TV manufacturers were in violation of the GPL? Nothing.
The GPL is a carrot-and-stick, with emphasis on the carrot.
No it isn't, you're saying what was a smartphone is now not a smartphone
Yes - just like what was once acceptable behaviour is now not considered acceptable behaviour, or what was once considered a passenger car is now considered a museum piece and not legal for the road, or what was once considered the center of the universe (the Earth) is now considered just a planet.
Things change.
so by what definition is a device a smartphone?
Technically, there is no such thing as a smartphone. Call me back when they have a phone that is controlled by an AI and we'll talk about "smart" phones.
What you or I think the definition of a smartphone to be is irrelevant. Neither of us is writing a dictionary, and no matter what either of us say, it doesn't change the reality that the definition of a smartphone is in flux, and it is the consumer's perception of "what is a smartphone" that defines it.
Technically, there is no such thing as a smart phone. Never has been. May well never be in the future, since phones won't be around in a generation or so. But just look back a generation - a phone - any type of phone - was a landline. Ask anyone then what their concept of a smart phone would be, and it might have had a video screen, something akin to what we today know as speed dial, something like an address book, and probably voice-activated dial-on-command. But it would have been a landline device, and big, and not portable or even handheld. Definitely not mobile, because "everyone knows it something that big would kill the car battery!"
50 years from now? "Mommy, what's a phone?" "A special device you carried around to talk to other people." "You had to carry a special device to talk to other people? No way!"
You're completely wrong. Section 6 makes it clear that EVERY time a person receives a copy, they automatically receive a license. You may have lost your rights for a previous copy for non-compliance, but you don't even need to "restore" those rights. Just get a new copy, and automatically receive a new license, and this time keep your nose clean.
You don't even have the right to say that "because they were previously out of compliance, they can not benefit from the license that comes with another copy" because attaching extra restrictions is also contrary to section 6.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
You simply cannot deny the right of someone to benefit from the license conveyed by the second copy based on a termination of a previous instance of the license conveyed by a previous copy. GPLv2 forbids it. So long as they continue to be in compliance, they are licensed.
The goal is to get people to conform to the license and share copies and improvements, not make it insurmountable to "get right", and GPLv2 licensing meets that goal.
The FSF is engaging in FUD to try to push linux to make a licensing change that would discourage linux adoption by business, rather than trying to do it "on the merits", or even realizing that linux is GPLv2 only and that changing the license is well-nigh impossible; this is something I would associate with Florian Mueller, Steve Ballmer, or Darl McBride.
The right to "copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute" are the only rights that the GPLv2 claims to govern (section 4).
Those rights are granted anew each time that the person receives a copy "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. "
(section 6)
The state of any previous license is irrelevant, since the person automatically receives the license anew. Not a "continuation of any existing license." Not a "provided your rights were not previously terminated under this license." They receive a valid license to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute, from the moment they receive the copy, valid for as long as they stay in compliance.
This will never be "decided in court" - we're not talking about volume or site licensing schemes, but a license that attaches to an individual copy of GPLv2 software that a person receives. Each copy grants the license anew. Thats why section 6 says "Each time you redistribute the program, the recipient automatically receives a license."
Brett Smithof the FSF was engaging in FUD when he tried to make it look like compliance with the GPLv2 license was like virginity - that once lost, the recipient is now "damaged goods" and almost beyond remediation, whereas downloading a fresh copy and complying with the license you automatically receive with it is all it takes.
Couldn't the Linux kernel maintainers, at least in theory, do what Wikipedia did and just change the licence anyway* without obtaining permission?
That would make future versions of the kernel untouchable and the maintainers would become pariahs.
Their employers would drop them immediately.
It's about being legal and maintaining trust - and changing the license without the copyright holders' permission is a violation of both.
*Historical note: Wikipedia claimed to use an "or later" provision, but at least in the early 2000s the edit pages just stated contributions were submitted under GFDLv2 and no mention of later licence versions was made. A lawyer once told me the real reason they could do it, is because for large collaborative works you can wrest the copyright out of the hands of individual contributors if they don't go along with the project as a whole.
1. The work must have been produced on a "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" (MMC), such as a public wiki for example.
2. If external content originally published on a MMC is present on the site, the work must have been licensed under Version 1.3 of the GNU FDL, or an earlier version but with the "or any later version" declaration, with no cover texts or invariant sections. If it was not originally published on an MMC, it can only be relicensed if it were added to an MMC before November 1, 2008.
To prevent the clause from being used as a general compatibility measure, the license itself only allowed the change to occur before August 1, 2009. At the release of version 1.3, the FSF stated that all content added before November 1, 2008 to Wikipedia as an example satisfied the conditions. The Wikimedia Foundation itself after a public referendum, invoked this process to dual-license content released under the GFDL under the CC-BY-SA license in June 2009, and adopted a foundation-wide attribution policy for the use of content from Wikimedia Foundation projects.
Wikipedia can continue to display text submitted under the older versions of the GFDL - the problem is whether the text can be exported (used elsewhere) and under what dconditions. See the note at the top of this page. That's a discussion for another time:-)
From Mensa International Click to start the quiz, then click Grade at the first question to avoid having to answer the questions. Scroll down about half-way and you'll see the questions in question (pardon the pun:-).
Our basic problem is that, by design of the FSF, GPL v2 and GPL v3 are incompatible licenses. This means that the kernel cannot be licensed part GPL v2 and part GPL v3. It must be either one or the other, necessitating the above described "big bang" approach to relicensing. If GPL v3 had been compatible with GPL v2, it would have been a simple matter of simply deciding only to accept patches under GPL v3 from some point in time on (and eventually the whole kernel would become GPL v3 licensed). At the present time, most of the kernel maintainers don't believe GPL v3 is sufficiently compelling to produce the unanimity required to undertake the process.
The specific issue highlighted in the post is not a general GPLv3/v2 incompatibility. Code which is licensed under the GPLv2 but no later version is incompatible with the GPLv3. There are a few significant examples of GPLv2-only code, including KDE as mentioned and also the Linux kernel, which cannot be linked to GPLv3 code.
So it's not going to happen. Not when you'd need the approval of between 3,500 and 10,000 contributors, and there's simply no need.
Violation of the license terminates your rights immediately and permanently.
You need to go further. Nowhere does it say permanently. Read section 6. EVERY copy of the software covered by the GPLv2 comes with a separate license. The article is pure FUD.
You don't need to "reinstate" any previous license - just download a new copy. It comes with its' own individual license, as per section 6.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
So, there's no need to do anything more than:
1. Download a new copy of the software in question, which grants you a new license
2. Comply with the terms of the license grant that accompanied the new copy.
Trying to say that a second copy doesn't come with its' own separate license is a contradiction of the first part of clause 6;
Also, trying to say that the person has no right to use the license granted by the second copy as long as they conform to it is an attempt to impose an additional restriction not in the license, which is also a violation of the part of clause 6 that reads ""You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein".
Further, your position, requiring them to contact the copyright holders, is a further restriction, and is nowhere stated. The license grant from the second copy, as long as they stay in compliance with it, is sufficient in and of itself.
It really is that simple. Brett Smith (the guy who wrote the original FSF article) needs to bone up on the GPLv2. He also needs to realize that Linux is not licensed as "gplv2 or later", and his call for people to push for a license change is both misinformed and enabling the FUDsters.
That he would leave the impression that licenses are terminated permanently, implying that there is no way to obtain a second license and distribute in conformity with that second license, is contradicted by a plain reading of clause 6. I would expect someone whose email address is licensing@fsf.org / licensing@gnu.org to know better than to use FUD - it really is a breach of trust.
And clause 6 says that EVERY COPY received grants the recipient a separate valid license. You can reinstate your rights simply by downloading a new copy and staying in compliance with the terms of the license that was granted with the new copy.
Here is the actual text:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
1. Every copy distributed comes with its' own separate license to redistribute.
2. Nobody may impose restrictions other than those found in the license itself.
So it is as simple as downloading a new copy, and staying in compliance with the license that new copy grants you. The old license is terminated, but who cares - you have a new license, granted by the new copy, and you are now in compliance and intend to stay that way, right?
Attempting to say "only one license per user, and if it's terminated, that's it" is FUD that is directly contradicted by clause 6. The FSF article is attempting to say otherwise, and it is clearly in the wrong.
there most certainly is a "lose your rights forever" clause in GPLv2, as others have pointed out.
No there isn't. They pointed to some FUD on the FSF site that claims that there is, and that the GPLv3 is better because it provides provisions for reinstatement.
The clause in question says that if you are not in compliance, your right to redistribute terminates. Nowhere does it say that such termination is permanent. Simply downloading another copy and conforming with the terms of the license re-establishes your right to redistribute. Any attempt to claim otherwise is a violation of clause 6 of the GPLv2, which doesn't allow the imposition of greater restrictions than those in the license itself (permanent termination would be one such restriction).
You're absolutely right - it simply isn't there, and attempting to impose such a "you lose your rights forever, even if you get back into compliance" on GPLv2 code is a violation of clause #6 - "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
One of the reasons I'm reverting my code back to GPLv2 ONLY as opposed to GPLv3 is because of FUD like this. The action of the GPLv2 is well-understood, and its friendly to businesses that want to use code to implement software-as-a-service without having all the hassles of making every variant of their server source available for 3 years to anyone who visited their site.
The whole idea behind open source is that even if 99% of the people who use your stuff never give back their improvements, the ones who do will benefit from it because their improvements will be eyeballed, tested in other environments, more likely become standards, more likely have other useful additions added to it that they can benefit from in return (virtuous circle), etc. A carrot, rather than a stick.
The GPLv3 is a bit like "sharing is good, so we're going to force you to even if you never actually distribute code - just implementing services is enough" rather than educating and letting implementers find their own comfort zones.
If this sort of malarkey keeps on, I'll just switch to a BSD-style license and be done with it. Some things just aren't worth the hassle.
If this wasn't the case, the GPLv2 itself would have no force, because any past violation could be pasted over by merely being granted a new license from some other sublicensor.
Or do the smart thing and download a new copy from the same licensor and comply with the license. Both the intent and the text of the GPLv2 are to encourage distribution in compliance with the license.
There is no language or mechanism in the GPLv2 for terminating rights in perpetuity. Get back into compliance, and you have, as per the license, the right to resume distribution. Attempting to impose an additional condition such as "you lose your right to distribute permanently" is contrary to clause 6 of the same license, which says that you may not impose additional conditions outside the license on any recipient.
The clause you cite does not say that you lose your rights to distribute forever. See clause 6 of the GPLv2, which is the license of the linux kernel. As long as anyone is in compliance, they can distribute. Saying that you lose your license forever is an attempt to impose further restrictions over and above those of the terms of the license, and as such, is itself a violation of the license.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
Please show where, in the terms of the license, it says that there is any additional requirement, over and above the actual terms of the license, to distribute, or that licenses are terminated in perpetuity, even if you come back into compliance.
The fact is, once you are in compliance again, you have the right to redistribute under the terms of the license. There is no such thing, anywhere in the license, that states you lose the right to redistribute forever.
What they were stating is that in order to regain your GPLv2 license you have to get approval from ALL copyright holders and in the case of something like the Linux kernel it would be nigh impossible to get this.
That's not what the GPLv2 says. It says very clearly what you must do to distribute.
As long as you comply, you can distribute. When you don't comply, you can't. There is nothing about any requirement to obtain the permission of the authors - which would be a violation of clause 6 of the GPLv2, as it would impose additional conditions beyond the license itself. Just complying with the license is sufficient.
Additionally, the recipients don't receive their license from the distributor, but from the original authors (clause #6). Even if the distributor is out of compliance, that does NOT affect recipients of the code.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
See that second bolded section - nobody can demand that someone who was once out of compliance, once they are back in compliance, seek the approval of ANY of the copyright holders before recommencing distribution. The article is pure FUD.
Before the FSF site went down temporarily, I read the original news article, (Android GPLv2 termination worries: one more reason to upgrade to GPLv3 and sure enough, the last line currently says "Companies that sell products that use Android can help out by encouraging the developers of Linux to make the switch to GPLv3."
Linux is licensed solely under GPLv2, not "GPLv2 or later", so switching is not a question of Linus deciding to change (which he wouldn't agree to anyway) - all the other contributors would have to agree as well.
I emailed Brett Smith (copy in my journal) to point this out, as well as point out that the GPLv2 allows for distribution as long as you are CURRENTLY in compliance. There is no "you lose your rights forever" clause in the GPLv2 license.
Lesson: Never assign your code to someone who says "trust me." Not even the FSF. And be wary of clauses that allow them to change the license at will to a future version that may not be to your liking, or that they may interpret to say something it doesn't say.
Slashdot Mirror
For those who only use it to edit one picture at a time (and for those who are complaining but never actually USE it), it's no big deal, but the fact that you are complaining about an improvement that many want makes me wonder if you even have a dog in this debate.
Try reading section 6 a few times until THAT sinks in. It supercedes section 0. Each copy grants the recipient a license.
So, each copy comes with its' own license grant. And no, copyright law doesn't just apply to works in the abstract. It applies to the physical manifestation as well, whether it be a book, a photo, a television broadcast, a live performance, or bits on a disk. You don't receive copyright registrations for a "work in the abstract". For code, you supply a physical copy of the first 25 and last 25 pages of source code (or all if it's 50 pages or less). See also the note that if the program is on a CD-ROM, you must ordinarily send them the CD as well as the source.
So they'd have to get into compliance, and "not be a dick". In the case of the TVs that had busybox, for example, they would make the new instance of the source available to all, after patching it so it's identical to the old copy, and apologize to everyone for their stupidity. This way, they are both in compliance with the terms of the new instance of the license, and have also complied with the terms of the old license.
At that point, who is going to complain if what they really wanted was compliance with the license and an apology? The only ones who would want to continue to make a hash of it are the opponents of the GPL, who would be going "see, it's a cancer!"
Wrong - your license for the previous copy was terminated. This doesn't affect future license grants. EACH copy you receive comes with its' own license, as per section 6 of the GPLv2, and any attempt to impose further restrictions on THAT copy (eg: for violating a previous instance of the license with a previous copy) is prohibited.
People using the GPLv2 license want people to conform to THAT license. Generating FUD about Android by saying that rights are permanently terminated when this is not the case, and that Linux should be relicensed as GPLv3 (which would kill Android dead, or at least force it to switch to BSD) is both stupid and almost impossible - you cannot use GPLv3 code in a "GPLv2-only" program such as linux., and with up to 10,000 contributors, it's not likely you'll get everyone's consent to switch (again, because it would kill using linux in commercial products dead dead dead).
Just look at the current instance as an example of why you should be skeptical. It sounds like it was written by a SCO or Microsoft mouth-piece - "GPLv3's approach has several advantages over GPLv2's. By having the license grant forgiveness by default, instead of terminating rights permanently, ..."
Nowhere in the GPLv2 does it say that rights are terminated permanently. Get into compliance, get a new copy of the code (which under the GPLv2 section 6 automatically grants you a new license every time you receive a copy of the code), patch the new copy of the code so that it is identical to the old copy, and so long as you remain in compliance, you have the right to use and distribute copies of the newly patched new copy under it's instance of the license.
This isn't an "end run" around the GPL - it's the quickest and least painful way to ensure that people comply with the license provisions, and that FUD is stopped dead in its' tracks.
It is only the previous license that is terminated. The new license granted by the new copy requires that the person be in compliance with the license they are now granted with the new copy. Any attempt to link the previous license with the new instance is prohibited by section 6, which clearly states that any attempt to add further restrictions is not allowed.
So, if you inadvertently infringed, your license to the copy you have is invalid. You can correct the problem by downloading a new copy, and respecting the terms of the new license that was automatically granted by the new copy, patching it as necessary to make it the equivalent to the old copy, and abiding by the terms of the new copy's license. Since you are now in compliance, anyone who was harmed by your previous infringement can now get the code, which is the goal of compliance.
It really is that simple. You don't have to go around and "beg forgiveness from each and every copyright holder" - just conform to the license you automatically received when you got the new copy. It can only be terminated if you violate the license subsequent to getting the new copy and new instance of the license - not for a violation that occurred before you received the new copy and new license - because that would violate the "no other restrictions" of section 6.
Wrong - see Napster. Napster fell afoul of copyright laws in part because, rather than uploading the individual's copies of songs, they copied the song from another instance.
The license attaches to the copy you receive. Section 6 is VERY clear on that.
You receive a new instance of the license - NOT an extension of an existing license - with every copy of the code you receive. Section 6 is unequivocal about that.
Due to this, your interpretation is not only wrong, but it also falls afoul of the provision of section 6 that prohibits adding extra restrictions.
A previous violation terminates the license for the previous copy only. It cannot terminate future rights to a license granted afterwards.
However, people have been using it for decades as slang for a passenger vehicle, which proves my point that the meaning of a word is defined by how people use it. Hence, today's definition of a "smartphone" is not the same as the one 2 decades ago. Meanings change. Those earlier phones are no longer considered smartphones by people - they're at best "feature phones".
how words change
more examples
more
Think of it - if someone said they were gay 100 years ago, it meant something completely different. Meanings change.
A more recent example - the definition of marriage no longer means a union between a man and a woman, but between two people or either sex or gender (and some places recognize 3 or more people as well).
Only if the copyright was previously registered with the US Copyright Office. Otherwise, you are only entitled to provable economic damages, and even that only starts the meter ticking after you notify the entity involved.
Proving actual economic damages on software you've licensed to others "for free" is a tough row to hoe ... the real value of the GPL is its' moral aspect - that it is a "share-and-share-alike" license, and that people who violate it should be ashamed of themselves (and that a court might order infringing products to stop being sold, such as with busybox in big-screen TVs). But how much money did the authors of busybox actually lose because the TV manufacturers were in violation of the GPL? Nothing.
The GPL is a carrot-and-stick, with emphasis on the carrot.
Yes - just like what was once acceptable behaviour is now not considered acceptable behaviour, or what was once considered a passenger car is now considered a museum piece and not legal for the road, or what was once considered the center of the universe (the Earth) is now considered just a planet.
Things change.
Technically, there is no such thing as a smartphone. Call me back when they have a phone that is controlled by an AI and we'll talk about "smart" phones.
What you or I think the definition of a smartphone to be is irrelevant. Neither of us is writing a dictionary, and no matter what either of us say, it doesn't change the reality that the definition of a smartphone is in flux, and it is the consumer's perception of "what is a smartphone" that defines it.
Technically, there is no such thing as a smart phone. Never has been. May well never be in the future, since phones won't be around in a generation or so. But just look back a generation - a phone - any type of phone - was a landline. Ask anyone then what their concept of a smart phone would be, and it might have had a video screen, something akin to what we today know as speed dial, something like an address book, and probably voice-activated dial-on-command. But it would have been a landline device, and big, and not portable or even handheld. Definitely not mobile, because "everyone knows it something that big would kill the car battery!"
50 years from now? "Mommy, what's a phone?" "A special device you carried around to talk to other people." "You had to carry a special device to talk to other people? No way!"
You're completely wrong. Section 6 makes it clear that EVERY time a person receives a copy, they automatically receive a license. You may have lost your rights for a previous copy for non-compliance, but you don't even need to "restore" those rights. Just get a new copy, and automatically receive a new license, and this time keep your nose clean.
You don't even have the right to say that "because they were previously out of compliance, they can not benefit from the license that comes with another copy" because attaching extra restrictions is also contrary to section 6.
You simply cannot deny the right of someone to benefit from the license conveyed by the second copy based on a termination of a previous instance of the license conveyed by a previous copy. GPLv2 forbids it. So long as they continue to be in compliance, they are licensed.
The goal is to get people to conform to the license and share copies and improvements, not make it insurmountable to "get right", and GPLv2 licensing meets that goal.
The FSF is engaging in FUD to try to push linux to make a licensing change that would discourage linux adoption by business, rather than trying to do it "on the merits", or even realizing that linux is GPLv2 only and that changing the license is well-nigh impossible; this is something I would associate with Florian Mueller, Steve Ballmer, or Darl McBride.
The right to "copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute" are the only rights that the GPLv2 claims to govern (section 4).
Those rights are granted anew each time that the person receives a copy "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. " (section 6)
The state of any previous license is irrelevant, since the person automatically receives the license anew. Not a "continuation of any existing license." Not a "provided your rights were not previously terminated under this license." They receive a valid license to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute, from the moment they receive the copy, valid for as long as they stay in compliance.
This will never be "decided in court" - we're not talking about volume or site licensing schemes, but a license that attaches to an individual copy of GPLv2 software that a person receives. Each copy grants the license anew. Thats why section 6 says "Each time you redistribute the program, the recipient automatically receives a license."
Brett Smithof the FSF was engaging in FUD when he tried to make it look like compliance with the GPLv2 license was like virginity - that once lost, the recipient is now "damaged goods" and almost beyond remediation, whereas downloading a fresh copy and complying with the license you automatically receive with it is all it takes.
That would make future versions of the kernel untouchable and the maintainers would become pariahs.
Their employers would drop them immediately.
It's about being legal and maintaining trust - and changing the license without the copyright holders' permission is a violation of both.
Changes were made to the GFDL in version 1.3 that allowed for relicensing of works under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (CC-BY-SA) license, provided that:
Wikipedia can continue to display text submitted under the older versions of the GFDL - the problem is whether the text can be exported (used elsewhere) and under what dconditions. See the note at the top of this page. That's a discussion for another time :-)
Smartphones are what people currently define as smartphones. That definition has evolved, and will continue to change.
From Mensa International Click to start the quiz, then click Grade at the first question to avoid having to answer the questions. Scroll down about half-way and you'll see the questions in question (pardon the pun :-).
So it's not going to happen. Not when you'd need the approval of between 3,500 and 10,000 contributors, and there's simply no need.
You need to go further. Nowhere does it say permanently. Read section 6. EVERY copy of the software covered by the GPLv2 comes with a separate license. The article is pure FUD.
You don't need to "reinstate" any previous license - just download a new copy. It comes with its' own individual license, as per section 6.
So, there's no need to do anything more than:
1. Download a new copy of the software in question, which grants you a new license
2. Comply with the terms of the license grant that accompanied the new copy.
Trying to say that a second copy doesn't come with its' own separate license is a contradiction of the first part of clause 6;
Also, trying to say that the person has no right to use the license granted by the second copy as long as they conform to it is an attempt to impose an additional restriction not in the license, which is also a violation of the part of clause 6 that reads ""You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein".
Further, your position, requiring them to contact the copyright holders, is a further restriction, and is nowhere stated. The license grant from the second copy, as long as they stay in compliance with it, is sufficient in and of itself.
It really is that simple. Brett Smith (the guy who wrote the original FSF article) needs to bone up on the GPLv2. He also needs to realize that Linux is not licensed as "gplv2 or later", and his call for people to push for a license change is both misinformed and enabling the FUDsters.
That he would leave the impression that licenses are terminated permanently, implying that there is no way to obtain a second license and distribute in conformity with that second license, is contradicted by a plain reading of clause 6. I would expect someone whose email address is licensing@fsf.org / licensing@gnu.org to know better than to use FUD - it really is a breach of trust.
Here is the actual text:
1. Every copy distributed comes with its' own separate license to redistribute.
2. Nobody may impose restrictions other than those found in the license itself.
So it is as simple as downloading a new copy, and staying in compliance with the license that new copy grants you. The old license is terminated, but who cares - you have a new license, granted by the new copy, and you are now in compliance and intend to stay that way, right?
Attempting to say "only one license per user, and if it's terminated, that's it" is FUD that is directly contradicted by clause 6. The FSF article is attempting to say otherwise, and it is clearly in the wrong.
No there isn't. They pointed to some FUD on the FSF site that claims that there is, and that the GPLv3 is better because it provides provisions for reinstatement.
However, nobody has pointed to any such clause in the actual text of the GPLv2.
The clause in question says that if you are not in compliance, your right to redistribute terminates. Nowhere does it say that such termination is permanent. Simply downloading another copy and conforming with the terms of the license re-establishes your right to redistribute. Any attempt to claim otherwise is a violation of clause 6 of the GPLv2, which doesn't allow the imposition of greater restrictions than those in the license itself (permanent termination would be one such restriction).
You're absolutely right - it simply isn't there, and attempting to impose such a "you lose your rights forever, even if you get back into compliance" on GPLv2 code is a violation of clause #6 - "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
One of the reasons I'm reverting my code back to GPLv2 ONLY as opposed to GPLv3 is because of FUD like this. The action of the GPLv2 is well-understood, and its friendly to businesses that want to use code to implement software-as-a-service without having all the hassles of making every variant of their server source available for 3 years to anyone who visited their site.
The whole idea behind open source is that even if 99% of the people who use your stuff never give back their improvements, the ones who do will benefit from it because their improvements will be eyeballed, tested in other environments, more likely become standards, more likely have other useful additions added to it that they can benefit from in return (virtuous circle), etc. A carrot, rather than a stick.
The GPLv3 is a bit like "sharing is good, so we're going to force you to even if you never actually distribute code - just implementing services is enough" rather than educating and letting implementers find their own comfort zones.
If this sort of malarkey keeps on, I'll just switch to a BSD-style license and be done with it. Some things just aren't worth the hassle.
Or do the smart thing and download a new copy from the same licensor and comply with the license. Both the intent and the text of the GPLv2 are to encourage distribution in compliance with the license.
There is no language or mechanism in the GPLv2 for terminating rights in perpetuity. Get back into compliance, and you have, as per the license, the right to resume distribution. Attempting to impose an additional condition such as "you lose your right to distribute permanently" is contrary to clause 6 of the same license, which says that you may not impose additional conditions outside the license on any recipient.
Please show where, in the terms of the license, it says that there is any additional requirement, over and above the actual terms of the license, to distribute, or that licenses are terminated in perpetuity, even if you come back into compliance.
The fact is, once you are in compliance again, you have the right to redistribute under the terms of the license. There is no such thing, anywhere in the license, that states you lose the right to redistribute forever.
That's not what the GPLv2 says. It says very clearly what you must do to distribute.
As long as you comply, you can distribute. When you don't comply, you can't. There is nothing about any requirement to obtain the permission of the authors - which would be a violation of clause 6 of the GPLv2, as it would impose additional conditions beyond the license itself. Just complying with the license is sufficient.
Additionally, the recipients don't receive their license from the distributor, but from the original authors (clause #6). Even if the distributor is out of compliance, that does NOT affect recipients of the code.
See that second bolded section - nobody can demand that someone who was once out of compliance, once they are back in compliance, seek the approval of ANY of the copyright holders before recommencing distribution. The article is pure FUD.
Before the FSF site went down temporarily, I read the original news article, (Android GPLv2 termination worries: one more reason to upgrade to GPLv3 and sure enough, the last line currently says "Companies that sell products that use Android can help out by encouraging the developers of Linux to make the switch to GPLv3."
Linux is licensed solely under GPLv2, not "GPLv2 or later", so switching is not a question of Linus deciding to change (which he wouldn't agree to anyway) - all the other contributors would have to agree as well.
I emailed Brett Smith (copy in my journal) to point this out, as well as point out that the GPLv2 allows for distribution as long as you are CURRENTLY in compliance. There is no "you lose your rights forever" clause in the GPLv2 license.
Lesson: Never assign your code to someone who says "trust me." Not even the FSF. And be wary of clauses that allow them to change the license at will to a future version that may not be to your liking, or that they may interpret to say something it doesn't say.