I too have witnessed potential violators claiming that 180+ days is reasonable amount of
time to come into compliance.
"Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn(a)ebb.org> 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.
Since most of my compliance work is GPLv2, it means such violators are
(of course) dead to rights. Think about it: even with GPLv2's termination
clause, which everyone agrees very strict (from a policy perspective), most
violators take nearly the entire product lifecycle to come into compliance,
even when they know they've gotta beg for their rights back at the end of it
or face continued copyright infrigement even when *in* compliance on all
other non-termination points. If the termination clause says "reasonable
time", what incentive will be left to get them into compliance, ever?
My point, simply: I think copyleft-next will have to chose between naming
a specific number of days, or be effectively unenforcable. Also, realize that
*whatever* time frame you pick will be the minimum time by which we get code
from companies gaming the system with delayed releases (which is already common,
even with GPLv2).
copyleft-next mailing list