On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn(a)ebb.org> wrote:
My point, simply: I think copyleft-next will have to chose between
naming
a specific number of days, or be effectively unenforcable.
I agree that this is the likely practical outcome. I generally favor a
short period, but there is one corner case that concerns me. Imagine
Company X has failed to comply with copyleft-next and loses its rights
to incorporate Some Software Package in its product. After six months,
the board of directors decided the legal and PR exposure of such a
stance (yes, we're deep into the hypothetical woods at this point) is
unacceptable and sacks the executives. The new executives immediately
move to come into compliance with copyleft-next. However, by this
point the reinstatement period has passed so Company X still cannot
use Some Software Package. (Presumably, a new release of SSP would
give Company X the chance to prove their commitment to copyleft, but
maybe by that time SSP is no longer under development.)
To put it in more general terms: if the circumstances that cause an
actor to be a bad actor change such that the actor is now a good
actor, it may be too late. This strikes me as being punitive and not
in line with what I imagine the ideals behind copyleft to be (this
ties back in to the "platonic ideals" thread). While I definitely
agree that people who violate the license should lose their rights
under the license, I also think we should be willing to accept
atonement, however delayed it might be. Now how to do that in a
practical and legal manner such that it doesn't result in licensors
getting walked all over...well, I haven't a clue.
--
Ben Cotton