On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 04:11:14PM +0300, Pavel Nikulin wrote:
> The people signing there effectively say: "we, to big extend, limit
> our options to call for expedient permanent license revocation" - the
> only thing that will ever tickle a commercial entity.
This makes no sense. If a commercial entity is permanently in
violation, then the license stays revoked. The whole *point* of
ethical copyright enforcement is that if the commercial entity comes
into compliance, that they can also have a way to have their ability
to use the GPL'ed code in question be also restored.
> When I first heard news of this and had a glancing look on the
> document, it looked to me almost as if it is a change to terms made on
> behalf of the "community," only after I read the document through few
> times over, I got an understanding of the semantics there.
So you're not a lawyer and have not consulted a lawyer, and yet you
feel comfortable making pronouncements about legal implications? Just
trying to be clear...
- Ted
