MPL use of the term "condition" to masquerade "Responsibilities"

[Alexander Terekhov]

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Romain Berrendonner
<romain at berrendonner.org> wrote:
> Le 02/12/2010 15:32, Alexander Terekhov a écrit :
>>
>> I guess we could say that FAILURE to perform the MPL's
>> "Responsibilities" is a condition subsequent, which gives the MPL
>> licensor the choice of whether to avail himself of the opportunity to
>> terminate the contract.
>
> That's indeed what I meant.
>
>> AFAIK in the copyright licensing context under US copyright laws the
>> termination/rescission of licensing contracts is never "automatic":
>
> It's not necessarily an issue: if the other party is of good faith, you can
> probably discuss with them and have them cure the default; if they are of
> bad faith, they won't cure and some more determined action may be needed.
> Then, you'd be able to ask a judge to terminate the contract.

I agree.

BTW, even assuming successful rescission/termination with affirmative
steps on the licensor part, what prevents the former licensee from
entering into licensing relationship anew?

The situation is no different when Microsoft would terminate my
Windows 7 EULA and I just go and buy another copy and create another
EULA relationship instead of terminated one.

So just take a license, breach it, wait for termination, take another
license, breach it, wait for termination... Rinse lather repeat.

To prevent that, I would suggest that the MPL and all other public
licenses specify a real condition precedent regarding previously
terminated licenses and condition the new grant on successfull
resolution of the previous breach dispute.

regards,
alexander.