@th Guess @fsf knows best, let’s see .. 🙃

@th I'm quite certain that they need to retroactively comply.

@LaF0rge ideas?

@th I assume they have to comply for the old software versions. They and you entered into the contract while they where shipping GPL-licensed software (otherwise you wouldn’t have found it). So that fact still stands and they have to comply. Removing the software only changes that with regards to the future. Sort of like driving slow now won’t negate an older speeding violation. (I am not a lawyer, but close to one)

@th for sure there is a meed for retroactive compliance. Distribution of a GPLv3 licensed work has happened, and every software/fifmware version must be compliant with copyright. However, you will need evidence (old firmware versions) to prove it, of course.

@th I’d expect anyone who received the original version (with the GPL3 code) should be able to ask for the GPL3 compliance (source, install instructions, etc) for 3 years from first obtaining the item (by the “offer good for 3 years” of source).

Anyone who only received the “no GPL3” version wouldn’t have that right, so proof of receipt of the earlier version might be necessary.

(Sounds a lot like they’ve decided to “avoid needing to comply” so may be hard to enforce.)

@th I don't think that there's a meaningful way to sue them into compliance.

Said paragraph is a legal obligation for redistribution by a third party. You can't apply it to the copyright holder itself. The situation could be seen as false advertising, but that doesn't look very promising to me.

Unless they based their software on other GPLv3 software. In that case, they broke the license.

#notlegaladvice

@th A question for @conservancy