[copyleft-next] "reasonable time period" Termination enforceability (was Re: Update)

Stephen Michael Kellat skellat at fastmail.net
Tue Jul 31 01:01:09 UTC 2012


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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.
>
> 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).
>
> -- bkuhn
> _______________________________________________
> copyleft-next mailing list
> copyleft-next at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/copyleft-next

At this point I am inclined to agree with Mr. Kuhn and favor a time
period being included to ensure enforcement.  A tight timetable is
preferred especially in today's environment where stock markets can
swing wildly day by day due to the release of any news.  There must be
an incentive for compliance whether it be a carrot or a stick.

Stephen Michael Kellat


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQFy5OAAoJELIjEH03v6UxMBgH/AyABtMrD2lz/8yE4A0Kfr54
jNl+b47SogGtGzidC/5k3Ku+VNWM39t0yKU+ToOGj7u58NJ1y6J+IcQXXY2JnC3P
mJVKa7ENcQ6u3b7U32zH8taa4aJAcID7uuXYxyTobyD4QqUq4/Vhg76HnEGLMUxF
WXvX9hIrB6i26WJQC0qoo8UZhJOmjLuiDpfFaqg5Ys/9o+v6hVEh2fNFYA9w+qPb
0A5H5dJyQt8t0bGrgaNFyNbBkrOlQPwsMy45Y+9lSIFEiOXkvG8Cc/j9lM4RFlre
VAIsURhI7s76KWN0vmTXo1P2nkDG7SvUNi3IyMYmclv5D1UZKTkUTdchxTYeIkg=
=xibW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the copyleft-next mailing list