License Hostage-Taking
License Hostage-Taking
Posted Sep 10, 2011 17:58 UTC (Sat) by kripkenstein (guest, #43281)In reply to: License Hostage-Taking by ewan
Parent article: FSF's Star Turn in the Android FUDathon (LinuxInsider)
If you get another copy, you get another license, but not being in compliance means you lose that one too. So you have no license as long as you are not in compliance.
The termination clause makes it perfectly clear that you immediately lose those rights. So any act of distribution of the code from that point on - until you get a license you can use, after you return to compliance - is necessarily copyright infringement. And you are legally liable for that.
If the termination clause were not in there, then in theory there could have been an argument about when the license goes in and out of effect, and other possible arguments about what it means to violate a license as opposed to a contract and so forth. Explicitly mentioning termination was meant to prevent all such confusion. Sadly, it has led to much worse confusion apparently (even though 2 clauses down it is clear that you get a new license with each download!).
Posted Sep 10, 2011 19:16 UTC (Sat)
by freemars (subscriber, #4235)
[Link] (1 responses)
If you get another copy, you get another license, but not being in compliance means you lose that one too. So you have no license as long as you are not in compliance.
If the case goes to court I suspect the judge is going to see a pattern of abuse -- maybe letting the first violation 'get off easy' and awarding maximum damages for the following violations. A good lawyer would -- I hope -- advise against this defense.
Posted Sep 10, 2011 19:28 UTC (Sat)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link]
"so you had your license terminated 5000 times and still didn't learn, sounds like time for punitive damages now"
License Hostage-Taking
License Hostage-Taking