legal: review repeat and willful violation reinstatement for rc4

[zackees]

Note

Preliminary license-policy review for open-source counsel. This issue does not provide legal advice or approve a final license.

Context

PR #29 publishes FastLED Reciprocal License 1.0-rc3. Section 5.1 currently provides:

• first, non-willful noncompliance: provisional reinstatement on cure;
• ongoing reinstatement after 60 days without Contributor notice, or when a noticed first violation is cured within 30 days;
• repeat violation after notice or any willful violation: rights remain terminated until the affected Contributor expressly reinstates them in writing; and
• reinstatement is prospective and does not release remedies for earlier unlicensed acts.

The final branch text is pinned at 8a92a8739f337c5a47e2ca8409b602d41c8c3d6e.

The repeat/willful rule is materially harsher than the baseline MPL 2.0 and GPLv3 cure models. It can create indefinite debarment when a Contributor is unreachable, refuses to respond, or disputes an undefined willful standard. In a multi-Contributor work, reinstatement may also fragment by Contributor.

Proposal

Review Section 5.1 for rc4 and choose a proportionate reinstatement model. The recommended starting point is the MPL 2.0/GPLv3 structure: cure restores rights provisionally, lack of timely notice converts that status to ongoing, and first-notice cure receives a protected automatic path. Repeat misconduct may give an affected Contributor a right to terminate finally, but should not create accidental permanent limbo solely because no one answers a request.

The review should distinguish prospective permission from historical liability. A fairer cure rule does not need to release damages or other remedies for acts committed while rights were terminated.

Acceptance criteria

• Compare exact rc3 Section 5.1 language with MPL 2.0 Section 5.1 and GPLv3/AGPLv3 Section 8 using primary license text.
• Model first, repeat, disputed, inadvertent, and willful violations; cure before notice; cure after notice; no notice; unreachable Contributor; multiple Contributors; and continued conduct after cure.
• Define or remove willful, define what counts as a repeat violation, and state whose notice controls.
• Decide whether repeat violations receive provisional reinstatement, whether and when it becomes ongoing, and what affirmative act produces final termination.
• Prevent indefinite permission limbo caused only by Contributor silence or disappearance.
• Preserve the rule that reinstatement is prospective and does not automatically release accrued claims.
• Analyze condition/covenant, waiver, equitable-remedy, and contract-formation consequences in likely defendant forums.
• Record counsel's recommendation in LEGAL-REVIEW.md and update the canonical termination/cure matter memo and authority links.
• If rc4 changes the clause, add a focused regression assertion that fails on rc3's selected harsh wording and passes on the approved rc4 state, then update identifiers, notices, hashes, and immutable provenance.

Decisions

• Treat this as an rc4 blocker because termination controls whether a cured user can safely resume development and distribution.
• Keep rc3 immutable and perform any policy change in rc4, preserving a reviewable version history.
• Start from established MPL/GPL cure mechanics because they address the same operational problem and reduce bespoke ambiguity; counsel may recommend a narrower departure with written justification.
• Keep past-liability treatment separate from prospective reinstatement so proportional cure does not silently waive accrued claims.

Open questions

• Should a repeat violation be provisionally reinstated on cure unless a Contributor affirmatively terminates within a defined period?
• Is enhanced treatment needed for fraud or deliberate concealment, and if so, what objective facts replace the undefined willful label?
• Should one Contributor's final termination affect only that Contributor's grants or the entire multi-Contributor work?

Related issues

• Research: judicial remedies for AGPL-style source noncompliance (no license decision) #15 ? remedies, cure, and the distinction between source performance and historical liability
• META: AI first-pass legal review of FastLED Reciprocal License 1.0 RC — triage, findings & prior-art survey #8 ? attorney-review meta issue and earlier termination/cure concerns
• PR feat: publish monetization-triggered reciprocal license rc3 #29 ? rc3 implementation under review