60 day violation window
From GPLv3 Wiki
A malicious manufactorer makes a router that runs Linux. They build the device, and distribute it to stores without the source code, thus violating the GPL. The stores agree to hold it for 60 days, and then put it on store shelves.
The manufacturer claims that they were going to distribute the source code with the product. However since they failed to do this 60 days ago, they are now immune as per the termination section. Therefore they do not have to distribute the source.
The stores might be in violation, since they can't distribute the source with the product. Since they do not have the source, perhaps this falls under the "Liberty or Death?" section, and they can't sell it at all? If that's the case, the manufactorer can't sell it so they have no incentive to set up this scheme, so maybe it doesn't matter. Or perhaps it falls under First Sale doctrine: stores don't accept the license, since they never use the software.
- I don't think that terminating the rights under the license makes them immune from legal action(disclaimer: the author of this text is not a lawyer, and is not giving legal advice). It is a license not a contract, so if the license is terminated, that does not retrospectively make any distribution legal.
- (disclaimer: the author of this text is not a lawyer, and is not giving legal advice) The malicious manufacturer is not allowed to distribute the software except under the terms of the License. If he tells the stores that the "60 day holding period" is due to their lack of license, the stores will probably reject the product. If he doesn't tell that reason to the stores, then that could be considered fraud and the stores are thus eigible for damages generated by that fraud.
