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

Josh jgay at fsf.org
Tue Jul 31 02:53:51 UTC 2012


I too have witnessed potential violators claiming that 180+ days is reasonable amount of time to come into compliance. 

"Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn at 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).
>
>   -- bkuhn
>_______________________________________________
>copyleft-next mailing list
>copyleft-next at lists.fedorahosted.org
>https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/copyleft-next


More information about the copyleft-next mailing list