On 07/30/2012 07:35 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
Richard Fontana wrote:
> One of the more significant changes is a substantial simplification of
> the termination section. .... I've replaced it with one cure period and
> I just refer to a "reasonable time period" .. I'm not convinced that
> it's better not to have a fixed time period for cure, though I am
> convinced that a 30-day and a 60-day provision are not both needed.
And thus master branch of copyleft-next now reads:
>> However, if You cure such failure within a reasonable time period after
>> becoming aware of such noncompliance, then Your rights are reinstated.
I strongly believe this will make copyleft-next de-facto unenforceable.
We'd have to litigate it all the way to the bitter end to get a ruling
that "reasonable time period" is less than the average life cycle of most
electronics and software products.
In my experience, nearly all copyleft violators believe it's reasonable to come
into compliance only after a product is off the market. And most would
happily say "see you in Court" if a copyright holder says otherwise.
Even those violators who make vague, half-hearted attempts to come into
compliance still believe heavily protracted schedules are reasonable. For
example, I've got compliance actions open today that were first opened last
fall, and I'm sure the lawyers would argue, that they're still "within a
reasonable time period" and tell me to sue them if I disagreed (of course,
I already do disagree). As everyone knows, because I know the community
prefers that we avoid lawsuits, I desperately avoid them until there is
just no other choice, but violators' lawyers now know this too, of course,
and play chicken.
My point, simply: I think copyleft-next will have to chose between
naming a specific number of days, or be effectively unenforcable.
This is precisely the reason (well, one reason) why I hoped you might
post to this list, since there are very few people in the world other
than you who have dealt with the practical issues surrounding GPL
enforcement (on the licensor/copyright holder side, of course).
Do you have views on what fixed period is 'default reasonable'? 60
days? As I've said, I don't want a 30-day and 60-day dual scheme,
since I can't see how the added complexity is justified. Review of the
history of GPLv3 drafting shows that the FSF started out with just the
60-day repose idea. I will check into any public archives relating to
MPL 2.0 drafting to see why Mozilla decided to adapt the 30/60 day
dual approach for MPL 2.0 (or if Luis is reading this he may be able
to explain or point to something :).