4 ms·
Most important part of the Article imo: "It sets in stone that software licenses are contracts and can only be settled in contract law / contract courts." (in
by p410n3 6y ago
Most important part of the Article imo:
"It sets in stone that software licenses are contracts and can only be settled in contract law / contract courts." (in France that is)
So it's not that the GPL is useless in France, they were just suing for the wrong thing in the wrong court
- turbinerneiter 6y agoI think the key is that this means that the GPL in France now has no successfully history in court. One of the nice things about GPL in the US is that there is existing cases where it was successfully defended, and you can use this history as blueprint for your case. And the history is even used to inform the Judges decision. In France, GPL enforcement now has to start from scratch and can not re-use the enforcement strategies that worked in the US.
- maeln 6y agoActually, it is not that bad. Having this precedence now settled where does the GPL fit in the French system, which now make it much more simple to sue since you know which court and for what (breach of contract) to sue.
- turbinerneiter 6y agoThat's a good point. This case now _is_ the precedent that the others can build on. First step kind of.
- cheph 6y agoWhat other than contracts would they be?
- contravariant 6y agoWell in the absence of a contract using the software counts as a breach of copyright. Apparently the French court has ruled that if someone intends to use GPL licensed software and doesn't adhere to the terms they should be sued for breach of contract first and breach of copyright second. It could have been the other way around, that failing to adhere to the terms in the license means there is no contract in the first place.
- kazinator 6y agoBut the next time such a case arises, that stone will take seven years to find.