Re: RES: What makes software copyrightable anyway?
> > 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 <mdpoole@troilus.org> 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.
> 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.
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 licensing@fsf.org, to whom Eben Moglen directed me, on both the
< "derivative work" and "GPL is a contract" points. IANAL, and neither
< is licensing@fsf.org, 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.
--
Raul
Reply to: