Raul Miller writes: >> > Then again, as an example of a copyright case where >> > contract law was held to be irrelevant, consider Huston v. La >> > Cinq Cass. civ. 1re (28 May 1991). > > On 5/17/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hm, so a French court could claim jurisdiction over a case where a >> modification is made to free software that the original software's >> author opposed and the modified work is distributed in France. > > Among other things, yes.
That seems rather non-free. >> Was your point that significant use of free software is untenable in >> continental Europe, or that droit d'auteur is distinct from the more >> economic parts of copyright (the parts the GPL addresses)? > > Let me put it to you this way: > > I claim that the GPL is not a contract. That ignores my question, but that is what I meant earlier by asking if you wanted the GPL to be a pure copyright license. Since France is a civil law country, many more things are treated as "contracts" -- which is not a great translation, as is sometimes pointed out on this list, since the English word "contract" has a connotation of the common law contract framework. French courts would probably treat the GPL as a "contract." > I don't believe I'm disputing any claim you've made when > I say this, because near as I can tell you have never > actually asserted that the GPL is a contract. The closest > you've come seems to be this: > > < I've engaged in an extended discussion with the person on the other > < end of [EMAIL PROTECTED], to whom Eben Moglen directed me, on both the > < "derivative work" and "GPL is a contract" points. IANAL, and neither > < is [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I raised many of the US legal precedents > < which I have previously cited on debian-legal. Suffice it to say that > < if the FSF has a leg to stand on, it's not visible through that > < mechanism of inquiry. > > Similarly, the specific claims you've proposed in your above > paragraph don't really correspond to anything that I'm saying. That was not me, but I have concerns similar to those. I am skeptical that a common law court would on its own establish a non-contract basis the kind of obligations the GPL imposes. Courts need a basis to determine the questions of law that follow from a claimed breach: In situation X, does action Y imply liability? If so, what are the possible remedies? Copyright law by itself does not establish a framework to evaluate claims of license violation. In the absense of some better framework, I think a common law court would treat the GPL as a contract. If you know of a better framework -- set in usable form by either statute or case law -- I am interested in hearing it. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
