Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc.

Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc.

Posted Jul 22, 2008 0:20 UTC (Tue) by gdt (subscriber, #6284)
In reply to: Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc. by syspig
Parent article: Today's SFLC/BusyBox target: Extreme Networks, Inc.

Not sure. But the complaint doesn't say that Extreme isn't currently complying. I read Sections 17 to 20 as saying that Extreme didn't comply with the GPLv2, had its license terminated, and now refuses to meet all the terms that SFLC have demanded for granting of another GPLv2 license. In particular, "Defendant refused to compensate Plaintiffs". Remember, once you breach the GPLv2 there is no automatic restoration of the license, even if you come back into compliance with the terms of the GPLv2.

Initially I wasn't pleased that an resolution seemed to have stalled because SFLC wasn't being paid (and I'll admit to a bit of reading between the lines here). But if all defendants take that attitude then it won't take long before there is no SFLC. So it does seem right that the SFLC insist on compensation.

---

to post comments

> "once you breach the GPLv2 there is no automatic restoration of the license" 
> What do you base that on? Clause 6 says you get a license each time the
> Program is distributed to you. All they would have to do is get a new
> copy and then not break the license from then on.

"Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will
automatically terminate your rights under this License."

 Or are you saying that if you download 3 times the software, you have 3 license so you can
break it twice and have still a license?
 You cannot "add" licenses, and anyway you have lost the right to use it.
IANAL of course.

The way i read it (iaverynal) is that when you break one of the conditions the entire license
is void (you also forfeit all rights). However, as soon as you comply again, you regain all
rights. There's indeed no multiple licenses, you just comply or you don't.

This is definitely one of the areas where the GPLv2 is ambiguous. I'm sure it would be an
interesting debate if it went to trial - I think you can argue either side pretty reasonably.

My vague recollection is that the general rule is that license ambiguities are supposed to be
decided to the licensee's benefit, but even that isn't clear, here, since the argument would
be over whether the licensee actually was a licensee...