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