They could still download a new copy, but they would not have the right to modify, reproduce and distribute that copy.
I can't even see how you would come to the conclusion you did, given it says "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. "
IE it very specifically says they get the rights you claim they don't.
You are reading who is giving who a license wrong.
Redhat, or whoever they download from, is the "you" there. Not the person who license was terminated.
So let's fill in the blanks:
6. Each time Redhat redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the company who violated the license automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions.
All i did was replace the word "you" and "recipient" with the right people. This is clear and unambiguous. You may not like the result. I actually don't like the result. It does not change the legal meaning, or whether you'd win.
But you don't have to take my word for it, ask another open source lawyer, they'll tell you the same thing i just did.
The only lawyers I find who agree with your position (and, BTW, they agree with it for completely different reasons than you state, and I suspect they wouldn't agree with your reading of v2 Section 6) are a few lawyers in Germany.
I thus find myself in the odd situation of having to defend your trolling a bit, because Till Jaeger, Christoph's lawyer in the VMware case, has indeed stated publicly that he believes you can regain a license under GPLv2 by coming into compliance and redownloading in Germany. However, this is likely specific to Germany because no other legal expert I've ever met who has studied this issue has argued it works anywhere else in the world.
This point is therefore salient insofar as this thread is discussing a copyright case in Germany. But, as I wrote in the copyleft.org footnote I referred to earlier, the issue is just an esoteric legal detail except in the case of proprietary relicensing business models. Community-oriented GPL Enforcement Organizations always restore rights anyway once the violator achieves compliance, so the final impact of both interpretations ends up the same in most enforcement actions, unless of course your goal is to abhorrently use strict termination to extort gobs of money, in which case, this detail matters a lot.
It looks like a shitty, evidence free insinuation of dishonesty used as a rhetorical tactic, but that's a big assumption to make.