Except that GPLv2 doesn't work like that. Once the license is violated you perma... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

		warp on Sept 17, 2012 \| parent \| context \| favorite \| on: Red Hat's new patent counterclaim: GPL violation Except that GPLv2 doesn't work like that. Once the license is violated you permanently lose the rights granted by the license. So even if Twin Peaks fixes their stuff and comes back into compliance, they do not get their rights back automatically -- the copyright holders have to explicitly give them back these rights. This is one of the important differences between GPLv2 and GPLv3.

morsch on Sept 17, 2012 | [–]

Wait, so when you're dealing with GPLv3 stuff, you do get the license for redistribution back automatically?

warp on Sept 17, 2012 | | [–]

Yes. See [1] and [2].

[1] http://www.fsf.org/news/android-termination-upgrade-gplv3 [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section8

huhtenberg on Sept 17, 2012 | [–]

Where's this stated exactly in the license?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact