Case law on invalidity/voidness of automatic ipso factum termination a la GPL/MPL

[Alexander Terekhov]

Back in 2002, Eben Moglen tested the automatic ipso factum termination
theory in court.

http://www.gnu.org/press/mysql-affidavit.html

"Whether intentional or not, any violation of the GPL results under §4
in a termination of the right to redistribute.

. . . .

Under GPL §4, I conclude, Progress Software Corp. lost the right to
distribute MySQL when it distributed NuSphere MySQL Advantage in a
fashion that violated GPL.

I declare under penalty of perjury and upon personal knowledge that
the foregoing is true and correct. "

He lost.

The court simply ignored automatic ipso factum termination provision
as invalid/void and ruled:

http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf

"Moreover, I am not persuaded based on this record that the release of
the Gemini
source code in July 2001 didn’t cure the breach."

So the claims like

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/podcast-media/gpl-compliance-slides/compliance.html

"Termination (35:47)(v2 § 4, v3 § 8)

v2 is automatic and permanent. (36:37)"

are verifiably false.

regards,
alexander.