Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it doesn't that's not how GPL (or any license) works. What happens is that it's a breach of contract (licenses are contracts) which lead to an termination that contract (1) (license) which grants the usage rights (copyright) for the software. Which leads a company to (roughly) following choices: - start complying with the license in time "before" the license gets invalidated - buy a proprietary license from the li…
In option 1, when does the license get invalidated? Is it invalidated in the first place because the offending software broke the license? Or is it invalidated after notification from OBS? Or even later, after some amount of time after notification and non-correction? If it's violated before notification, then option 1 is not possible, and option 2 is at the discretion of OBS, so option 3 is the only real legal outco…
> There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution of infringing work on altered terms. What copyright plaintiffs are entitled to, under the Act, are damages, injunctions to prevent infringing distribution, and--where appropriate--attorneys' fees. A defendant found to have wrongfully included GPL'd code in its own proprietary work can be mulcted in damages for the distribution that has already occurred, and prevented from distributing its product further. That's a sufficient disincentive to make wrongful use of GPL'd program code. And it is all that the Copyright Act permits.