Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Andrew Rens <andrewrens AT gmail.com>]

On 26 August 2012 13:16, Anthony <osm AT inbox.org> wrote:

[quote]
Termination
Treatment in 4.0d2: Remains unchanged, with automatic termination
still applying in the event license conditions are violated. However,
this remains an open item for discussion between d2 and d3, as we
explore more concertedly the inclusion of a cure period or similar
provision more in line with those found in the MPL 2.0 and Gnu GPL
3.0.
[/quote]

Are there any arguments against the inclusion of a cure period or
similar provision?  I think this is important.

Questions

(1) Is there any empirical indication or anecdote that the automatic termination has adversely affected an innocent infringer?

(2) Is there an indication that a licensor has refused permission to use a work to someone who has infringed but cured her infringement?

(3) What are the risks to licensors of cure periods or automatic reinstatement of licence if infringement is ended?

In particular will licensors who have already incurred costs to compel compliance with the license be able to recover those costs.

CCing the Wikimedia mailing list, as automatic termination upon a
minor breach would likely have a large impact on Wikimedia projects.
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community

-- 
Andrew Rens

ex africa semper aliquid novi (http://aliquidnovi.org)