Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] New Generic and ports

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Brink <peter.brink AT brinkdata.se>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] New Generic and ports
  • Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 00:08:58 +0200

Henri Sivonen skrev:
On Oct 7, 2006, at 16:25, Peter Brink wrote:

There are several reasons why "localized" licenses is a must:

1) There may be formal requirements for copyright contracts (or indeed
contracts as such) in certain jurisdictions (both France and Germany for
example has such rules IRRC) that must be met or else the license fails
to come into force.

Don't France and Germany have Freedom of Agreement? If the prospective licensee claims that the license is not valid, the joke is on him, because he doesn't get to exercise any rights under the license.

Of course they have freedom of contract. But freedom of contract is really an illusion, there are several limitations to this right. Mandatory legal rules always overrides conflicting clauses in a contract. Unfair terms can be adjusted. Formal errors can make the contract void. In Germany for example one cannot enter a form-less contract about copyright matters, in Finland you can. In Europe the freedom of contract has been circumvented in order to protect parties which are typically weak (such as consumers and employees) from being abused by stronger parties (like traders and employers).

3) Creators will feel safer when using a license written in their own
language.

What about licensees? How do I know what the terms for a photo licensed under e.g. a Dutch license are if the license is a port and not a mere translation?

You are free to use any compatible license. Besides the copyright laws of Europe are becoming more and more harmonized so this is not that much of an issue.

4) It's necessary to be able to assure creators that the license is
enforceable.

That hasn't been a real problem with Free Software.

No - but I think creators of other kinds of works are more particular.


In fact the entire Open Source is based on the illusion that the GPL
would work the same way in the U.S. and (for example Sweden) - it won't.

It has worked in Germany. It might not work in *exactly* the same way as in the U.S., but don't you have Freedom of Agreement in Sweden (as in Finland--usually Finnish legal concepts are inherited from Sweden anyway)? With Freedom of Agreement, the form (including the language) of the agreement is not a problem if the parties agree to it, and you have to accept the form of the GPL in order to be licensed to exercise the rights granted by the GPL.

Sorry but this is not correct. The joke is on the party who wrote a contract that is partly unlawful, invalid or unfair. It is that party who will find himself being bound by terms he has never agreed to.

/Peter Brink




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page