> The intention of the GPLv2 termination clause was indeed that a violator needed their rights explicitly reinstated.
That's just not true. The original license grant does not require a signature and makes it clear it is available to *all*. Not only that, if you are a licensee and distribute, you must also license your work to *everyone* with the GPLv2 license. The first anyone ever heard of "explicit reinstatement" was when they were drafting the GPLv3. If you read that contemporaneously with the Welte vs. Sitecom decision, you can see that the "explicit reinstatement" was *purely* a marketing ploy.
Every judge who has ever mentioned anything about re-licensing has validated that the GPLv2 death penalty is bullshit. I maintain that it was *intentionally* made up by Eben and the FSF as propaganda to promote the GPLv3.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: FSF, SFC, and the SFLC
Date: 2017-11-14 09:31 pm (UTC)That's just not true. The original license grant does not require a signature and makes it clear it is available to *all*. Not only that, if you are a licensee and distribute, you must also license your work to *everyone* with the GPLv2 license. The first anyone ever heard of "explicit reinstatement" was when they were drafting the GPLv3. If you read that contemporaneously with the Welte vs. Sitecom decision, you can see that the "explicit reinstatement" was *purely* a marketing ploy.
Every judge who has ever mentioned anything about re-licensing has validated that the GPLv2 death penalty is bullshit. I maintain that it was *intentionally* made up by Eben and the FSF as propaganda to promote the GPLv3.