Shaggy67 So really it depends on how the law actually works. Clause a of the first paragraph - "provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license" - does not apply, as Wolvereness has terminated the license, I assume. Clause b - "permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation." - also wouldn't apply, since he's been quite clear the whole time that he's enforcing his copyright. I don't think that anyone doubted that. So the 2nd paragraph would be the one it depends on - "Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.", more specifically that last clause... As I'm not a lawyer, I don't know for certain how it works. I'm not sure if Spigot "cured the violation" by removing their downloads. Personally I don't think it does count, as the violation is still there, it's just not accessible. If it does not count as curing the violation, then their license cannot be reinstated without Wolvereness' approval. If it does count as curing it, then I would assume their license is reinstated with or without his consent.