Cc-uk mailing list

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

On 13 Jul 2004, at 22:58, Andres Guadamuz wrote:

> If there are problems with the GPL in French law, then people should  
> adapt
> it to comply with their local legislation. Otherwise, there is always a
> chance that somebody will attack the licence and win because the  
> provisions
> do not accommodate local copyright law. I have read and spoken to  
> people who
> have concerns from Spain, France and Germany about the validity of the  
> GPL
> in those countries. If the choice is between using a possibly  
> unenforceable
> licence, and an enforceable one, then I think developers should choose  
> the
> one that works.
>
> However, I share your concern about creating many different versions  
> of the
> same licence. I agree with you, and I think that the solution is to  
> have
> general licences, such as CC and GPL, and use them until a local court  
> has
> ruled against them. But I also believe that developers are entitled to
> create different licences, under different names, that comply with  
> local
> legislation. Otherwise, local developers may be risking their own work  
> by
> using an unenforceable licence.

As I say, the important thing is to not introduce novel clauses that  
aren't in the original license or required by legislation. As for  
things like "no warranty", which is apparently unenforceable in France,  
the localised CC license can offset this as far as possible (like the  
new French Open Source license). I think French law is more different  
from American law than English/Welsh law. IANAL.

Here's a translation of the German iCommons license, and the US  
original:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent? 
url=http%3A%2F%2Fcreativecommons.org%2Flicenses%2Fby- 
sa%2F2.0%2Fde%2Flegalcode&lp=de_en

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode

You can get a sense of the differences, the amusing effect of machine  
translation aside.

> > > Personally I think even the CC variants are too much difference,
> everything should be GPL-equivalent (CC-SA),  although I know that's  
> not
> going to be a universally popular position. :-) <<
>
> I agree, and I think that the solution is to have a definition with  
> minimal
> standards that a licence should have.

I think CC is close to this with the "human readable" precis of the  
license and the baseline rights that you mention (which being able to  
set the duration of the license breaks!).

> > > The idea is to share, freedom of movement is an important Freedom.  
> > > :-) <<
>
> I thoroughly agree, but the freedom to draft your own licence should  
> also be
> an important freedom ;-)

LOL. Ok. :-)

> > > Microsoft et al manage to license their software to their own  
> > > satisfaction
> around the world. I don't see why Open Content shouldn't manage
> similarly...<<
>
> This is true, but Microsoft is an entirely different model. Their  
> typical
> EULA is very simple: you buy our software, you can sometimes use our
> software, you cannot do anything else with it, thank you very much.  
> Besides,
> they have a network of local firms around the world, and the resources  
> to
> use them. They have the power, and the money to implement their  
> licence. On
> the other hand, the licensing model for FLOSS, CC and open access in  
> general
> involves very complex legal relationships. Many concepts are new and  
> have
> not been tested in court, so getting the licence right is very  
> important. It
> is also important to think about locality, because we are generally  
> talking
> about individual creators and programmers who do not have the  
> resources to
> enforce their work around the world.

Microsoft EULAs are based on copyright and licensing law. So is CC (and  
all F/OS/S/C). CC does involve more parties, but it's still copyright  
(albeit ironised). Exercise for the non-lawyers on the list: have a  
flick through the license booklet that came with your operating system.  
:-)

We need an Open-WIPO. :-)

- Rob.