> By violating the GPL after that time, creates an obligation not to distribute the covered work.
A license that requires no signatures is *always* on offer to everyone unless it explicitly says otherwise. It doesn't ... and, in fact, the text reinforces the view that it is always on offer by the use of the word "all" in section 2b as well as almost every aspect of Section 6. You can accept that offer as long as you are not currently violating it. This was a clear ruling in Germany (2004; Welte vs. Sitecom) and was implied in the US (2000; MySQL vs. Progress) when the judge ruled to not force Progress to stop distributing since they had likely cured their breach and could now accept the license again.
Do you have any contrary rulings? Do you have any actual law to site?
> Even if you consider and new license to be offered upon every distribution, there is nothing in the GPL that would free anyone of prior existing obligation to the copyright holder.
To be clear, even if they came back into compliance and were able to continue distributing, they would still be guilty of violating copyright during the period of non-compliance. This was also the substance of the Welte vs. Sitecom decision ... which the FSF hailed while simultaneously ignoring the fact that the decision was contrary to their "GPLv2 Death Penalty."
Re: FSF, SFC, and the SFLC
A license that requires no signatures is *always* on offer to everyone unless it explicitly says otherwise. It doesn't ... and, in fact, the text reinforces the view that it is always on offer by the use of the word "all" in section 2b as well as almost every aspect of Section 6. You can accept that offer as long as you are not currently violating it. This was a clear ruling in Germany (2004; Welte vs. Sitecom) and was implied in the US (2000; MySQL vs. Progress) when the judge ruled to not force Progress to stop distributing since they had likely cured their breach and could now accept the license again.
Do you have any contrary rulings? Do you have any actual law to site?
> Even if you consider and new license to be offered upon every distribution, there is nothing in the GPL that would free anyone of prior existing obligation to the copyright holder.
To be clear, even if they came back into compliance and were able to continue distributing, they would still be guilty of violating copyright during the period of non-compliance. This was also the substance of the Welte vs. Sitecom decision ... which the FSF hailed while simultaneously ignoring the fact that the decision was contrary to their "GPLv2 Death Penalty."