Hi all,
first off - congrats on forming FSFEurope. I'm qutie interested to see what this evolves to.
But I got a question: Just the other day I found out that in Germany, there is no such thing as a "Copyright" - the "Copyright" is an american thing. The closest thing in Germany would be the "Urheberrecht", IIRC.
Now my question is, if there is no equivalent to the US-Copyright, does the GNU GPL hold in Europe?
Of course, IANAL, so I'd be interested in some responses from people with a clue, who are able to explain things in laymens terms.
-Jan
P.S.: Of course I also offer my help on various tasks for the FSF. <cheap plug> See my webpage for stuff I did and can do ;-) </cheap plug>
Il giorno 16:01, luned� 27 novembre 2000, Jan Schaumann ha scritto:
But I got a question: Just the other day I found out that in Germany, there is no such thing as a "Copyright" - the "Copyright" is an american thing. The closest thing in Germany would be the "Urheberrecht", IIRC.
<evil grin tag>
If Microsoft can sell in Europe, some kind of patent must hold.
</evil grin tab>
Now my question is, if there is no equivalent to the US-Copyright, does the GNU GPL hold in Europe?
The copyright does hold. In Italy, like everywhere it exhists. Names are different, some terms differ, but the core meaning is the same...
Best Regards,
Dr. Giorgio Zarrelli
|| On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 16:12:32 +0100 || Giorgio Zarrelli zarrelli@linux.it wrote:
gz> Il giorno 16:01, lunedì 27 novembre 2000, Jan Schaumann ha scritto:
Just the other day I found out that in Germany, there is no such thing as a "Copyright" - the "Copyright" is an american thing. The closest thing in Germany would be the "Urheberrecht", IIRC.
Which is essentially equal to the U.S. copyright. This concept exists anywhere in Europe and at least in Japan, too, afaik.
gz> <evil grin tag> gz> If Microsoft can sell in Europe, some kind of patent must hold. gz> </evil grin tab>
We might want to reduce such statements as a lot of people tend to confuse patents and copyright to begin with. They are two entirely different concepts.
Now my question is, if there is no equivalent to the US-Copyright, does the GNU GPL hold in Europe?
gz> The copyright does hold. In Italy, like everywhere it gz> exhists. Names are different, some terms differ, but the core gz> meaning is the same...
There is a study by some German lawyers that I once spoke about in the Brave GNU World and I happen to have been at some seminar they gave a few weeks ago - so I should be able to answer this.
The GNU General Public License holds _very_ well under German law. The only problem so far is that the "no warranty" clause does not become active as it is illegal as far as German law is considered. This means that the more general terms are applied.
This is bad in so far as better terms than the general ones are possible but aren't used by the GPL so far. This is something that the people doing that study and I are seeking to change... how it would be done isn't clear so far, though.
Later, Georg
Il giorno 16:47, lunedì 27 novembre 2000, Georg C. F. Greve ha scritto:
gz> <evil grin tag> gz> If Microsoft can sell in Europe, some kind of patent must hold. gz> </evil grin tab>
The GNU General Public License holds _very_ well under German law. The We might want to reduce such statements as a lot of people tend to confuse patents and copyright to begin with. They are two entirely different concepts.
You are right. I didn't user the correct word. The meaning of my sentence is that anyway there must be some kind copyright.
The GNU General Public License holds _very_ well under German law. The only problem so far is that the "no warranty" clause does not become active as it is illegal as far as German law is considered. This means that the more general terms are applied.
Uhm...
Giorgio Zarrelli
"Georg C. F. Greve" a écrit :
Now my question is, if there is no equivalent to the US-Copyright, does the GNU GPL hold in Europe?
gz> The copyright does hold. In Italy, like everywhere it gz> exhists. Names are different, some terms differ, but the core gz> meaning is the same...
There is a study by some German lawyers that I once spoke about in the Brave GNU World and I happen to have been at some seminar they gave a few weeks ago - so I should be able to answer this.
I would also point out a study (in french, if you can understand it) about the GPL which explains some of these issues with respect to french law, which should be fairly similar to german law (I assume, since these two countries are long time European Union members, but maybe I'm totally wrong) : http://crao.net/gpl
The GNU General Public License holds _very_ well under German law. The only problem so far is that the "no warranty" clause does not become active as it is illegal as far as German law is considered. This means that the more general terms are applied.
Exactly the same for the french law.
This is bad in so far as better terms than the general ones are possible but aren't used by the GPL so far. This is something that the people doing that study and I are seeking to change... how it would be done isn't clear so far, though.
This is indeed a tough problem, but as far as I know, you can usually find such "no warranty" claims in the proprietary licenses too, wich may not help either, but is still something to refer to in case of problems : the GPL is not the only one being illegal in this way :( ... ;)
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Giorgio Zarrelli wrote:
<evil grin tag>
If Microsoft can sell in Europe, some kind of patent must hold.
</evil grin tab>
:) We have a long discussion in this topic. IMHO, in Hungary, the Mic$'s EULA is not allowable (maybe against the Hungarian laws), but i am not a lawyer.
-Tomka Gergely Ákos-TGTG of GT-tomka@interlinks.hu-
Jan Schaumann a écrit :
Just the other day I found out that in Germany, there is no such thing as a "Copyright" - the "Copyright" is an american thing. The closest thing in Germany would be the "Urheberrecht", IIRC.
Neither in in France ;)
Now my question is, if there is no equivalent to the US-Copyright, does the GNU GPL hold in Europe?
I think that nothing refers in the GPL directly to any precise american copyright law. Instead, the GPL grants the user some right, and prevents others to prevent this (in french, in '68 they had a moto : "Il est interdit d'interdire" ;)... and this has not really anything to do with copyright, as it is a licence contract that both parts (or I should say many parts) agree on in using and distributing the software.
So, the absence of copyright notion in the European law systems is not a restriction preventing us to use the GPL. Many other issues though could diminish the GPL's efficience here, but it's another question ;)
Of course, IANAL, so I'd be interested in some responses from people with a clue, who are able to explain things in laymens terms.
Hmm... these are only my understandings and I'm no law professionnal, just a free software user and programmer... so correct me if I'm wrong.
Olivier Berger oberger@april.org wrote:
Jan Schaumann a écrit :
Now my question is, if there is no equivalent to the US-Copyright, does the GNU GPL hold in Europe?
I think that nothing refers in the GPL directly to any precise american copyright law.
+------------ GPL ---------------- | | GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE | TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION | | 0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains | a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed | under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, | refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" | means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law | +----------------------------------
I think it's safe to assume that the term "under copyright law" refers to the US american copyright law.
Instead, the GPL grants the user some right, and prevents others to prevent this (in french, in '68 they had a moto : "Il est interdit d'interdire" ;)... and this has not really anything to do with copyright, as it is a licence contract that both parts (or I should say many parts) agree on in using and distributing the software.
Ack. However, it is related to copyright in so far as that they often speak about the "original copyright-holder". I'm sure it's obvious that the appropriate equivalent in other countries should take the place of "copyright" in this context, but who know what lawyers could make out of this...
So, the absence of copyright notion in the European law systems is not a restriction preventing us to use the GPL.
Certainly not from using the GPL, but it might render the GPL somewhat more vulnerable in some states, depending on the local copy-right (to distinguish from the american "copyright") laws.
Of course, IANAL, so I'd be interested in some responses from people with a clue, who are able to explain things in laymens terms.
Hmm... these are only my understandings and I'm no law professionnal, just a free software user and programmer... so correct me if I'm wrong.
I always wondered why there is the acronym "IANAL" - this should be implied; insted there should be an acronym "I_A_AL", but then again it's not as amusing to some people. Whatever, sorry, I rambling ;-)
Cheers,
-Jan