On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Richard Fontana
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
>> 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
> 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 :).
We saw no reason to deviate from what GPL v3 was doing in this regard;
it seemed reasonable/workable and GPL compatibility was a significant
goal for us at the time.
The two-stage approach is also reasonable, I think, because
licensee-notice+cure is different from self-awareness+cure. I can
understand why you'd want to slim it down to a single period, though.