The following is a Harvey Birdman Rule conversation disclosure.
At LinuxCon, Fontana and I were discussing his change in: commit 5823daf41d2bbb757e49b87b8e697fd793317019 Author: Richard Fontana fontana2012@gmail.com Date: 2012-07-05 18:44:45 -0400
Wherein he removes the acceptance clause entirely from copyleft-next. I argued briefly that perhaps the acceptance clause was useful, because it allowed a contract claim to more easily be brought when copyright infringement has occurred (basically as a secondary cause of action and/or legal claim, which could be argued in the alternative of copyright infringement).
Ultimately, I agreed with Fontana that perhaps the acceptance provision isn't terribly useful from an enforcement perspective, because copyright law gives us all the tools we need, and we don't get specifically an additional enforcement claim simply because the entity engaged in activities governed by copyright law is reminded of their obligations and that they have no other license.
However, this question probably deserves more study, as if there is some additional benefit that GPLv2 and GPLv3 families of licenses are getting from having an acceptance clause, then one should also be present in copyleft-next.
In particular, Fontana notes that it might be possible that the acceptance clause is doing something different entirely unrelated to bringing forth a contract claim.
Link to the removal in question:
https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/commit/5823daf41d2bbb757e4...
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bkuhn@ebb.org wrote:
In particular, Fontana notes that it might be possible that the acceptance clause is doing something different entirely unrelated to bringing forth a contract claim.
Is the question to the list basically "is there anything else it is doing" then?
I think there is some value to it for non-lawyers; i.e., helping them understand that this is how they get the right to use the material. But that's the only thing I can think of, and it's a stretch.
Luis
Luis Villa wrote on 1 September:
Link to the removal in question: https://gitorious.org/copyleft-next/copyleft-next/commit/5823daf41d2bbb757e4...
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bkuhn@ebb.org wrote:
Fontana notes that it might be possible that the acceptance clause is doing something different entirely unrelated to bringing forth a contract claim.
Is the question to the list basically "is there anything else it is doing" then?
I don't think I meant to ask a question: I was focused on making sure Fontana and I had properly obeyed HBR. :)
But, it's a good question nonetheless. Does an acceptance clause give us the contractual claim "magically"? If not, what's it doing there? Just reminding people they have no other license other than the copyleft one? And, if the latter, then since the goal of copyleft-next is to be short, reminders are clearly "right out".
But I'd really really love to see someone who is supportive of copyleft to dive deeply into case law about acceptance clauses and post a summary here.
I think there is some value to it for non-lawyers; i.e., helping them understand that this is how they get the right to use the material. But that's the only thing I can think of, and it's a stretch.
Indeed, and it's therefore truly informational and belongs in an FAQ, not in the license, given Fontana's goal of brevity.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thank you for the disclosure of an ex parte discussion. This bit of background does help in understanding discussion. As noted separately by Luis, we need to ensure usability by non-lawyers of the license that we develop.
I also thank everyone for the excellent decorum here. The Creative Commons discussions over Non-Commercial and No-Derivatives have been full of heat but no light thus far.
Stephen Michael Kellat Head Writer, Erie Looking Productions http://erielookingproductions.info alpacaherder@identi.ca
On 08/31/2012 08:02 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
The following is a Harvey Birdman Rule conversation disclosure.
At LinuxCon, Fontana and I were discussing his change in: commit 5823daf41d2bbb757e49b87b8e697fd793317019 Author: Richard Fontana fontana2012@gmail.com Date: 2012-07-05 18:44:45 -0400
Wherein he removes the acceptance clause entirely from copyleft-next. I argued briefly that perhaps the acceptance clause was useful, because it allowed a contract claim to more easily be brought when copyright infringement has occurred (basically as a secondary cause of action and/or legal claim, which could be argued in the alternative of copyright infringement).
Ultimately, I agreed with Fontana that perhaps the acceptance provision isn't terribly useful from an enforcement perspective, because copyright law gives us all the tools we need, and we don't get specifically an additional enforcement claim simply because the entity engaged in activities governed by copyright law is reminded of their obligations and that they have no other license.
However, this question probably deserves more study, as if there is some additional benefit that GPLv2 and GPLv3 families of licenses are getting from having an acceptance clause, then one should also be present in copyleft-next.
In particular, Fontana notes that it might be possible that the acceptance clause is doing something different entirely unrelated to bringing forth a contract claim.
copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org
-
Bradley M. Kuhn -
Luis Villa -
Stephen Michael Kellat