Hallo zusammen,
heute ist mir auf http://dot.kde.org ein Artikel aufgefallen, dessen
Fragestellung äußerst interessant ist: Die als Public Domain verfügbaren KDE
1.x-Icons wurden in einer Fernsehsendung gezeigt. Wären die Icons GPL
gewesen, würde dann die Fernsehsendung auch unter die GPL fallen?
Viel Spaß beim Grübeln. Vielleicht ist das Stoff für die NJW. :-)
Grüße,
Christian
Hi Leute,
Richard Stallman wird scheinbar am Sonntag nach Frankfurt kommen und
braucht Hilfe, da er sich seinen Arm gebrochen hat.
Falls jemand in der Nähe ist und helfen kann wäre das eine gute Sache.
Gruß,
Georg
--
Georg C. F. Greve <greve(a)fsfeurope.org>
Free Software Foundation Europe (http://fsfeurope.org)
GNU Business Network (http://mailman.gnubiz.org)
Brave GNU World (http://brave-gnu-world.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
hallo,
ich habe eine einfache frage:
ich möchte ein python-modul benutzen, was unter folgender lizenz
steht:
Python Software Foundation License
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/PythonSoftFoundation.html
das modul ist verändert. meine frage: kann ich dieses modul mit meiner
software ausliefern und wie muss/kann ich die benutzer darauf
hinweisen, dass der Quelltext verändert wurde?
mein programm ist unter gpl, alle quellen (auch die des moduls)
sind/wären bestandteil der distribution.
danke,
joerg maier
- --
GnuPG Key and Fingerprint : http://www.shove-it.de/meinweb/joergpubkey03
GnuPG Key : gpg --keyserver www.keyserver.net --recv-key 76ECD5A7
Hi
I am a signature virus.
Please copy me to your .signature file to help me spread.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/mBLETYj8eXbs1acRAmSZAJ48hLeSrC1aEM/UCCLUy4ZgTvAtaQCdFgmV
m9Dfi5bLZwv7aJbGKziFsS0=
=TYve
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Diese Meldung aus dem heise online-Newsticker wurde Ihnen
von "germany(a)fsfeurope.org" gesandt.
Wir weisen darauf hin, dass die Absenderangabe nicht verifiziert
ist. Sollten Sie Zweifel an der Authentizität des Absenders haben,
ignorieren Sie diese E-Mail bitte.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
FYI.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bücherkauf bei Bookzilla.de fördert Freie Software
Ein gutes Buch bestellen und damit auch noch etwas zur Förderung freier
Software tun: Rechtzeitig vor Beginn des Weihnachtsgeschäftes ist das jetzt
möglich. Die Verkaufsprovision für jedes über www.bookzilla.de[1] verkaufte
Buch fließt zu 100 Prozent als Spende an die Free Software Foundation
Europe (FSF Europe[2]). Als Buchsortimenter hinter bookzilla arbeitet
libri.de.
Das Portal basiert auf einem Open-Source-Projekt, das die Hamburger
Software-Firma freiheit.com technologies im Jahr 2003 für einen Kunden
realisiert hatte. "Da wir intensiv Freie Software in kommerziellen
unternehmenskritischen Bereichen einsetzen, kam uns nach Abschluss des
Projektes der Gedanke, über die Provisionen eines eigenen Affiliates --
Bookzilla.de -- Freie Software langfristig durch Spenden zu unterstützen",
sagt Stefan Richter, Geschäftsführer von freiheit.com.
Die FSF wurde 1985 gegründet, der europäische Ableger Ende des Jahres
2000[3]. Die Organisation und verseht sich als weltweit erste gemeinnützige
Organisation zur Förderung Freier Software. Von ihr stammt die für Freie
Software meistverwandte Lizenz, die GNU General Public License (GPL[4]),
unter der der Großteil des GNU/Linux-Systems vertrieben wird.
"Die Diskussionen um SCO[5] und Software-Patente haben vielen Unternehmen
drastisch die Bedeutung unserer langfristigen Arbeit vor Augen geführt",
erläutert Georg Greve, Präsident der FSF Europe. "Daher freuen wir uns sehr
über die wachsende Unterstützung, mit der es uns möglich gemacht wird, auch
in Zukunft dafür zu sorgen, dass Freie Software den Menschen zur Verfügung
steht." (tol[6]/c't)
URL dieses Artikels:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/tol-23.10.03-002/
Links in diesem Artikel:
[1] http://www.bookzilla.de
[2] http://www.germany.fsfeurope.org
[3] http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/vza-24.11.00-000/
[4] http://www.fsf.org/licenses/licenses.html#GPL
[5] http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/cp-18.10.03-004/
[6] mailto:tol@ct.heise.de
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003 by Heise Zeitschriften Verlag
Kontrolle ist besser
http://www.taz.de/pt/2003/10/10/a0227.nf/text
Le Monde diplomatique Nr. 7178 vom 10.10.2003, Seite 1,6, 147 Zeilen
(Dokumentation), IGNACIO RAMONET
Berichtet darüber, dass die Konsolidierung im Medienbereich
und die neuen Technologien dafür gesorgt haben,
dass die Presse ihre langjährige demokratische Kontrollfunktion
nicht mehr in gleichem Masse ausführt.
Das ist aus Sicht der Freien Software spannend, weil
wir einmal davon betroffen sind, dass gerade im Bereich Software
die Berichterstattung nicht mit genügend kritischem Verstand durchzogen ist.
Das passt gut dazu, dass nicht differenziert über Freie Software
und deren Hintergründe berichtet wird.
Zum andere ist Software das wichtigste Werkzeug,
um Informationen zu sammeln und zu verbreiten.
Eine Kontrolle der größeren Medienunternehmen ist nur möglich,
wenn wir auch die Werkzeug und deren Mechanismen verstehen.
Darauf läßt sich argumentieren, dass Programmieren doch
eine ähnliche große Bedeutung für eine demokratische Gesellschaft
wie Lesen und Schreiben bekommen wird.
Denn jeder muß einmal die Erfahrung gemacht haben,
mit einer Schleife eine Aufgabe in Sekunden zu erledigen,
für welche er von Hand eine Lebenszeit gebraucht hätte.
Die Freiheit der Software ist für demokratische Kontrolle von Wichtigkeit.
******************************************************************************
*"Weltgipfel zur Informationsgesellschaft" Genf 20003 - Tunis 2005:
*
*-------GEMEINSAME VISION IN WEITER FERNE---------------
*
* Tagung
* der Heinrich Böll Stiftung in Zusammenarbeit mit
* dem zivilgesellschaftlichen WSIS-Koordinierungskreis
* 1. November, 14.00-22.00 Uhr auf der Galerie
* der Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung,
* Rosenthaler Strasse 40/41,
* Hackesche Höfe I,
* 5. Etage, Berlin-Mitte
*
* Anmeldung:
* medien(a)boell.de,
* Anmeldeschluss: 25.10.03
* www.worldsummit2003.de
*
* Informationen:
* Olga Drossou
* Fon: +49/ 30 - 285.34-183
*
******************************************************************************
Eine gemeinsame Vision von der Informationsgesellschaft zu formulieren ist der Auftrag der UN-Generalversammlung an den "Weltgipfel zur Informationsgesellschaft" (WSIS). Der inklusive, optimistische Anspruch der Generalversammlung wird auch darin deutlich, dass Zivilgesellschaft und Wirtschaft erstmalig in der Geschichte der UN-Weltgipfel aufgerufen wurden, sich am Diskussionsprozeß aktiv zu beteiligen.
Doch kurz vor der ersten Gipfelkonferenz in Genf im Dezember diesen Jahres ist der Prozess ins Stocken geraten. Nach dem Ende der dritten Vorbereitungskonferenz (PrepCom 3) im vergangenen September erscheint ein Konsens in weiter Ferne. So mußte sich die Prepcom 3 an ihrem letzten Tag kurzfristig auf eine erneute Zusammenkunft Mitte November vertagen, um in einen letzen Versuch ein Scheitern zu verhindern. Angesichts der starken Interessensgegensätze - in erster Linie zwischen den Regierungen der Industrieländer und der Entwicklungsländer - erscheint ein Durchbruch schwierig. Wird WSIS ein neues Cancún?
In der Veranstaltung werden wir die Hintergründe, (fehlende) Visionen und Konflikte beleuchten:
- Wieso werden die Menschenrechte nicht mehr vorbehaltlos von allen Staaten (wieder) anerkannt und warum sind "Kommunikationsrechte" so umstritten?
- Was für Konflikte verbergen sich hinter der Forderung nach "freiem Zugang zu Wissen und Information" und warum geben sich die Entwicklungsländer mit dem "Schutz des indigenen Wissens" zufrieden, ohne das sie bezwingende Copyright- und Patentsystem offensiv zu hinterfragen?
- Ist eine gemeinsame Vision der Regierungen dieser Welt überhaupt noch denkbar?
"Die Visionen haben wir." Das ist die Überzeugung der "dritten Säule" des Gipfels, der Zivilgesellschaft. Sie tritt selbstbewußt und immer koheränter und organisierter auf die Bühne des Weltgipfels. Durch Expertise und visionärer Kraft verschafft sie sich Respekt und manchmal auch Gehör. Ihr Einfluss bleibt jedoch weit hinter ihren Erwartungen zurück.
In Deutschland haben zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen dem WSIS einen hohen Stellenwert beigemessen. Frühzeitig wurde ein zivilgesellschaftlicher Koordinationskreis gegründet, der den WSIS-Prozess verfolgt und mit eigenen Konzepten interveniert. Als Ergebnis eines breit angelegten Diskussionsprozesses wurde z.B. die "Charta der Bürgerrechte für eine nachhaltige Wissensgesellschaft" erarbeitet und in die Gipfeldiskussionen hineingetragen. Plattform für die Vernetzung der deutschen mit der internationalen Zivilgesellschaft ist die zweisprachige Website www.worldsummit2003.de.
- Wie verwirklicht sich der Partizipationsanspruch im Gipfelprozeß? Wie wird er auf nationaler/regionaler Ebene realisiert? Erfahrungen und Erwartungen von VertreterInnen der Bundesregierung, der Zivilgesellschaft und der Wirtschaft werden auf einem Podium gegenübergestellt.
Programm
------------------
14.00 Uhr: Eröffnung
Ralf Fücks, Vorstand der Heinrich-Böll Stiftung
14.15 Uhr: Einschätzungen eines unvollendeten Vorbereitungsprozesses
Heike Jensen, Deutscher Zivilgesellschaftlicher WSIS-Koordinierungskreis, Terre des Femmes
Raoul Weiler, Club of Rome
14. 45 Uhr: Europa auf dem Weg zu einer nachhaltigen Wissensgesellschaft?
Reinhard Bütikofer, Vorsitzender von Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (angefr.)
15.00 Uhr: Menschen- und Bürgerrechte: Konfliktlinien im WSIS
Rikke Frank Joergensen , Human Rights Institut, Kopenhagen
Christin Maier, Auswärtiges Amt (angefr.)
Christoph Bruch, Humanistische Union
Moderation: Alvar Freude, WSIS-Zivilgesellschaftlicher Koordinierungskreis
16.30 Uhr: Pause
17.00 Uhr: Freier Zugang zu Wissen: Grundlagen für eine nachhaltige Wissenspolitik
Georg Greve, Präsident Free Software Foundation Europe
Werner Kannenberg, Bundesministerium der Justiz (angefr.)
Rainer Kuhlen, Nethics, Universität Konstanz
Moderation: Christine Wenzel, WSIS-Zivilgesellschaftlicher Koordinierungskreis
18.30 Uhr: Imbiss
19.30 Uhr: Podiumsdiskussion: Kann der WSIS noch ein Erfolg werden?
Jeanette Hofmann, Vertreterin der Zivilgesellschaft in der deutschen
Regierungsdelegetion zum WSIS
Annette Mühlberg, Verdi Bundesvorstand
Karl-Georg Schon, Auswärtiges Amt, Deutsche Regierungsdelegation
NN, D21/ Wirtschaft
Moderation: Monika Ermert, freie Journalistin
21.30: Ende der Tagung
_______________________________________________
Wsis Mailingliste
JPBerlin - Mailbox und Politischer Provider
Wsis(a)ilpostino.jpberlin.de
http://listi.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/wsis
Auf
http://www.ffs.or.at/artikel/
befindet sich eine Stellungnahme des
Verein zur Förderung Freier Software (FFS)
Positionspapier zum gegenwärtigen Stand
der Diskussion um Logik- und Ideenpatente
von Georg Jakob
http://www.ffs.or.at/artikel/position_swp.pdf
Der Autor würde sich über Mithilfe
bei einer Übersetzung in Englische freuen.
Hallo,
die Stellungnahme von ifross zu der Studie von Prof. Dr. Spindler,
Göttingen, für den VSI unter
http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/home2_2003.html#ARTIKEL28
liegt jetzt in einer englischen Übersetzung vor, die auf www.ifross.de
abrufbar ist. Sie wird unten zitiert.
Grüße,
Jürgen.
Dispute on Legal Issues Surrounding Free Software Intensifies (04.07.2003)
By Dr. Axel Metzger and Dr. Till Jaeger
The controversy over legal problems surrounding Free Software has been
stirred further by two new statements. Within a few day's time both a
legal opinion by Professor of Law Gerald Spindler of German University
of Goettingen for the German Software Association "Verband der
Softwareindustrie Deutschlands e. V.", or VSI, as well as a paper
written by Paris Professor of Law Christophe Caron in the most
important French law journal Dalloz (Dalloz 2003, issue no. 23,
p. 1556) have been published. Mr Spindler's study is to be found at
the center of interest, accompanied by widespread press coverage.
VSI's press release bears the title "Studie belegt
Rechtsunsicherheiten", or "Study Confirms Legal Risks". It cuts Mr
Spindler's paper short on statements critical on Linux. This is not
surprising bearing in mind that VSI in the first place represents the
interest of proprietary software industry. On the contrary, the paper
in fact is much more incisive and minute. So we would be jumping to
conclusions altogether wrong in stigmatising the author as an outright
opponent of Free Software. The legal problems the author draws his
attention to are already well known. Mr Spindler generally agrees to
opinions published priorly by others, dissenting on only a few
issues. On the whole he agrees to what is generally accepted by his
fellow scholars in the field. As far as he dissents, his opinion is
disputable. In particular, we have found some misunderstandings as
well as a number of wrong interpretations of the meaning of software
licences. We exemplify this by exploring some stipulations of the GNU
General Public Licence, or GPL. A more complete analysis of
Mr. Spindler's study is still to be completed. For this, we have to
wait for the dissertation theses by Koglin and Schulz as well as a new
edition of Jaeger & Metzger's "Open Source Software -- Rechtliche
Rahmenbedingungen der Freien Software" which will discuss problems
involved in detail.
First of all, it is irritating that the terms "freeware" and "Free
Software" seem to be used as synonyms in the paper (p. 18). Software
programs distributed as freeware in most cases do not conform to the
Free Software Foundation's or the Open Source Initative's definition
of Free Software. In the case of freeware the user is generally not
allowed to modify the program code. Mr. Spindler's use of vocabulary
is misleading and does not conform to common technical usage.
The study deals with complex projects in which a large number of
software developers participate, working together simultaneously, or
subsequently on writing software. We do welcome that the author
propounds that each member of the project may bring an action for
injunction based on copyright law against any violator, thus acting
for each member of the project without having to name all of them
personally (p. 26). This result is most important for the question how
to seek legal protection for copyright law infringements. It conforms,
however, to conventional wisdom. It is important, and
"Linux-friendly", too, that according to the author he will lose
copyright who infringes the obligations imposed by the GPL. This
issaid in GPL's section four. According to German law this is to be
seen as an "auflösende Bedingung", or a "dissolving condition" cf. §
158 sec. 2 BGB (p. 31).
It is, however, midleading that Mr Spindler's paper in a number of
cases addresses a so-called "Pflicht zur unentgeltlichen Weitergabe
der Open Source Software", or an "obligation to redistribute Open
Source software for free". There is no such obligation whatsoever to
redistribute, or to share software contained in the GPL. The GPL does
impose certain obligations if a licensee redistributes software
voluntarily, or if he obliges himself to redistribute software. The
point is, that there is no such thing as an obligation to publish, or
to republish software. On the other hand, according to section one
subsection 2 of the GPL it is allowed to redistribute software for a
charge provided that it is not meant to be a licence
fee. Unfortunately the paper does not address the matter how to draw
the distincion between a simple charge and a licence fee. So this
issue remains to be dealt with in future research.
The author treats the matter of how to include Open Source lincences
in contracts (under German contract law) with users. This discussion
is to be found at the center of the paper. It is of pivotal
importance, and the matter is dealt with in a rather problematic
way. The author argues that shrink-wrap licences generally are void
contracts provided that German law is applicable. This is a benefit of
his paper. However, in addition to that the author elaborates on the
difference between both phenomena, the 'classical' shrink-wrap licence
as well as Open Source licences. With the former kind of licence
consumer's rights are reduced to merely using the software, while Open
Source licences provide for rights going far beyond that. With a
shrink-wrap licence a consumer generally purchases the right to make
use of a program that is reduced later at home when he learns of
limitations to his rights from reading the licence. As opposed to
that, such problems do not exist at all with GNU/Linux & Co. In this
respect the paper is worked out rather carefully although it is easy
to see that the author does not evade parallels to conventional
software licences. The paper holds that Free Software licences become
part of a contract by including a redistributed copy of the software
purchased by the user. This is incorrect, however, as these licences
are independent from the contract. Both the purchasing the
software---no matter whether this is achieved by download, or by way
of a distribution on CD, or on DVD---as well as acquiring rights from
the licence form two seperate contracts which are altogether
independent of one another. Regularly, there is no more contract as a
typical user will not modify, copy, or redistribute the software at
all. In this case according to German law an express consent on using
the software is not at all required according to § 69d sec. 1
UrhG. This is why including free software licences in contracts has to
be seperated from the mere purchase of software. Bearing this in mind,
contrary to Mr Spindler's point of view considerably fewer problems
arise with free software licences. ftware at all. In this case
according to German law an express consent on using the software is
not at all required according to § 69d sec. 1 UrhG. This is why
including free software licences in contracts has to be seperated from
the mere purchase of software. Bearing this in mind, contrary to Mr
Spindler's point of view considerably fewer problems arise with free
software licences.
According to the paper, including free software licences in purchase
contracts does not fail due to the question discussed above, but
rather due to a, say, lingual matter. A German-speaking consumer
cannot be expected to understand an English-language licence. We doubt
whether this opinion will prevail, particularly in German courts. For
it would be a contradiction in terms if a consumer on the one hand
would argue on the basis of an Open Source licence, whereas on the
other hand obligations from the very licence were not to be seen as
legally binding because they were written in a foreign language. It is
altogether out of the way to argue that a consumer is not entitled at
all to rights arising from a free software licence as he cannot read
and understand it. We think, however, that the Free Software community
should become more professional. It would be helpful indeed to bring
about multilateral licence politics drawing on the specific problems
of the law of consumer protection in Europe, bringing about licences
in more than one language.
As to the range of the rights a user is entitled to by a Free Software
licence the author pursues an approach altogether contrary to what
generally is held in jurisprudence so far. Mr Spindler argues that the
right to make software available publicly which is necessary for
redistributing Free Software over the internet is not part of the GPL
itself (p. 61). Furthermore he argues that the GPL does not comprise
online, or cyber-law as due to international treaties that became
legally binding in the U. S. in 1997 we have to distinguish between
physical distribution of software, and the 'making available' of
software (p. 44). However, this is not in line with the conventional
rules of interpretation in jurisprudence. The Linux kernel has been
published under the GPL mostly. So developers should have known about
redistrubuting code over public networks even in 1991 when GPL version
2 was drafted (cf. Torvald's autobiography "Just For Fun").
Result:
VSI's announcement about the legal risks in developing and using Free
Software was premature. This is why in the meantime it has provoked
harsh criticism by Free Software lobbyists (cf. the FSF Europe's
statement as well as LIVE's press release, both in German). The new
study contains mostly long-known findings. It does not doubt that the
Open Source model basically works. Of course, we may discuss problems
already known, but this does not lead to the result proposed by
VSI. Anyway the question is whether VSI has done its members a favour
at all in publishing the paper, initiating that much
publicity. "Proprietary" software companies, too, make use of Free
Software more and more. So they also need legal standards to rely
on. Propagating doubts concerning legal risks in the field will not
reverse economic development. The software industry will have to deal
with Free Software as another model rather than trying to push it out
of the market.
English translation by Juergen Fenn.
Hallo,
die Stellungnahme von ifross zu der Studie von Prof. Dr. Spindler,
Göttingen, für den VSI unter
http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/home2_2003.html#ARTIKEL28
liegt jetzt in einer englischen Übersetzung vor, die auf www.ifross.de
abrufbar ist. Sie wird unten zitiert.
Grüße,
Jürgen.
Dispute on Legal Issues Surrounding Free Software Intensifies (04.07.2003)
By Dr. Axel Metzger and Dr. Till Jaeger
The controversy over legal problems surrounding Free Software has been
stirred further by two new statements. Within a few day's time both a
legal opinion by Professor of Law Gerald Spindler of German University
of Goettingen for the German Software Association "Verband der
Softwareindustrie Deutschlands e. V.", or VSI, as well as a paper
written by Paris Professor of Law Christophe Caron in the most
important French law journal Dalloz (Dalloz 2003, issue no. 23,
p. 1556) have been published. Mr Spindler's study is to be found at
the center of interest, accompanied by widespread press coverage.
VSI's press release bears the title "Studie belegt
Rechtsunsicherheiten", or "Study Confirms Legal Risks". It cuts Mr
Spindler's paper short on statements critical on Linux. This is not
surprising bearing in mind that VSI in the first place represents the
interest of proprietary software industry. On the contrary, the paper
in fact is much more incisive and minute. So we would be jumping to
conclusions altogether wrong in stigmatising the author as an outright
opponent of Free Software. The legal problems the author draws his
attention to are already well known. Mr Spindler generally agrees to
opinions published priorly by others, dissenting on only a few
issues. On the whole he agrees to what is generally accepted by his
fellow scholars in the field. As far as he dissents, his opinion is
disputable. In particular, we have found some misunderstandings as
well as a number of wrong interpretations of the meaning of software
licences. We exemplify this by exploring some stipulations of the GNU
General Public Licence, or GPL. A more complete analysis of
Mr. Spindler's study is still to be completed. For this, we have to
wait for the dissertation theses by Koglin and Schulz as well as a new
edition of Jaeger & Metzger's "Open Source Software -- Rechtliche
Rahmenbedingungen der Freien Software" which will discuss problems
involved in detail.
First of all, it is irritating that the terms "freeware" and "Free
Software" seem to be used as synonyms in the paper (p. 18). Software
programs distributed as freeware in most cases do not conform to the
Free Software Foundation's or the Open Source Initative's definition
of Free Software. In the case of freeware the user is generally not
allowed to modify the program code. Mr. Spindler's use of vocabulary
is misleading and does not conform to common technical usage.
The study deals with complex projects in which a large number of
software developers participate, working together simultaneously, or
subsequently on writing software. We do welcome that the author
propounds that each member of the project may bring an action for
injunction based on copyright law against any violator, thus acting
for each member of the project without having to name all of them
personally (p. 26). This result is most important for the question how
to seek legal protection for copyright law infringements. It conforms,
however, to conventional wisdom. It is important, and
"Linux-friendly", too, that according to the author he will lose
copyright who infringes the obligations imposed by the GPL. This
issaid in GPL's section four. According to German law this is to be
seen as an "auflösende Bedingung", or a "dissolving condition" cf. §
158 sec. 2 BGB (p. 31).
It is, however, midleading that Mr Spindler's paper in a number of
cases addresses a so-called "Pflicht zur unentgeltlichen Weitergabe
der Open Source Software", or an "obligation to redistribute Open
Source software for free". There is no such obligation whatsoever to
redistribute, or to share software contained in the GPL. The GPL does
impose certain obligations if a licensee redistributes software
voluntarily, or if he obliges himself to redistribute software. The
point is, that there is no such thing as an obligation to publish, or
to republish software. On the other hand, according to section one
subsection 2 of the GPL it is allowed to redistribute software for a
charge provided that it is not meant to be a licence
fee. Unfortunately the paper does not address the matter how to draw
the distincion between a simple charge and a licence fee. So this
issue remains to be dealt with in future research.
The author treats the matter of how to include Open Source lincences
in contracts (under German contract law) with users. This discussion
is to be found at the center of the paper. It is of pivotal
importance, and the matter is dealt with in a rather problematic
way. The author argues that shrink-wrap licences generally are void
contracts provided that German law is applicable. This is a benefit of
his paper. However, in addition to that the author elaborates on the
difference between both phenomena, the 'classical' shrink-wrap licence
as well as Open Source licences. With the former kind of licence
consumer's rights are reduced to merely using the software, while Open
Source licences provide for rights going far beyond that. With a
shrink-wrap licence a consumer generally purchases the right to make
use of a program that is reduced later at home when he learns of
limitations to his rights from reading the licence. As opposed to
that, such problems do not exist at all with GNU/Linux & Co. In this
respect the paper is worked out rather carefully although it is easy
to see that the author does not evade parallels to conventional
software licences. The paper holds that Free Software licences become
part of a contract by including a redistributed copy of the software
purchased by the user. This is incorrect, however, as these licences
are independent from the contract. Both the purchasing the
software---no matter whether this is achieved by download, or by way
of a distribution on CD, or on DVD---as well as acquiring rights from
the licence form two seperate contracts which are altogether
independent of one another. Regularly, there is no more contract as a
typical user will not modify, copy, or redistribute the software at
all. In this case according to German law an express consent on using
the software is not at all required according to § 69d sec. 1
UrhG. This is why including free software licences in contracts has to
be seperated from the mere purchase of software. Bearing this in mind,
contrary to Mr Spindler's point of view considerably fewer problems
arise with free software licences. ftware at all. In this case
according to German law an express consent on using the software is
not at all required according to § 69d sec. 1 UrhG. This is why
including free software licences in contracts has to be seperated from
the mere purchase of software. Bearing this in mind, contrary to Mr
Spindler's point of view considerably fewer problems arise with free
software licences.
According to the paper, including free software licences in purchase
contracts does not fail due to the question discussed above, but
rather due to a, say, lingual matter. A German-speaking consumer
cannot be expected to understand an English-language licence. We doubt
whether this opinion will prevail, particularly in German courts. For
it would be a contradiction in terms if a consumer on the one hand
would argue on the basis of an Open Source licence, whereas on the
other hand obligations from the very licence were not to be seen as
legally binding because they were written in a foreign language. It is
altogether out of the way to argue that a consumer is not entitled at
all to rights arising from a free software licence as he cannot read
and understand it. We think, however, that the Free Software community
should become more professional. It would be helpful indeed to bring
about multilateral licence politics drawing on the specific problems
of the law of consumer protection in Europe, bringing about licences
in more than one language.
As to the range of the rights a user is entitled to by a Free Software
licence the author pursues an approach altogether contrary to what
generally is held in jurisprudence so far. Mr Spindler argues that the
right to make software available publicly which is necessary for
redistributing Free Software over the internet is not part of the GPL
itself (p. 61). Furthermore he argues that the GPL does not comprise
online, or cyber-law as due to international treaties that became
legally binding in the U. S. in 1997 we have to distinguish between
physical distribution of software, and the 'making available' of
software (p. 44). However, this is not in line with the conventional
rules of interpretation in jurisprudence. The Linux kernel has been
published under the GPL mostly. So developers should have known about
redistrubuting code over public networks even in 1991 when GPL version
2 was drafted (cf. Torvald's autobiography "Just For Fun").
Result:
VSI's announcement about the legal risks in developing and using Free
Software was premature. This is why in the meantime it has provoked
harsh criticism by Free Software lobbyists (cf. the FSF Europe's
statement as well as LIVE's press release, both in German). The new
study contains mostly long-known findings. It does not doubt that the
Open Source model basically works. Of course, we may discuss problems
already known, but this does not lead to the result proposed by
VSI. Anyway the question is whether VSI has done its members a favour
at all in publishing the paper, initiating that much
publicity. "Proprietary" software companies, too, make use of Free
Software more and more. So they also need legal standards to rely
on. Propagating doubts concerning legal risks in the field will not
reverse economic development. The software industry will have to deal
with Free Software as another model rather than trying to push it out
of the market.
English translation by Juergen Fenn.