4 ms·

Should've gotten some Canadian lawyers involved in GPL. Due to the combined heritage of English and French (Quebec) Canada has both Civil law (French) and Commo

by jlos 5y ago

Should've gotten some Canadian lawyers involved in GPL. Due to the combined heritage of English and French (Quebec) Canada has both Civil law (French) and Common Law (English).

elliekelly 5y ago
I believe Louisiana uses a combination of civil and common law as well for the same reason.
jibcage 5y ago
As I understand it, Louisiana is a civil law state as well: https://www.bloomlegal.com/blog/what-is-unique-about-louisiana-law/ https://www.bloomlegal.com/blog/what-is-unique-about-louisia...
retrac 5y ago
While this is a true factoid, civil law in Canada is restricted to Quebec, and is ultimately subordinate to the constitution, which is interpreted in a nearly identical manner to American law, in the common law style. The civil law influence is mostly restricted to Quebec in areas of provincial jurisdiction (family law, small claims, etc.) The Copyright Act is federal and would get the common law handling. (Approximately the same situation is true in the USA with Louisiana, whose state laws also have a form inherited or at least strongly influenced by the Napoleonic code, ultimately, but since harmonized to fit into a common law system.)
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > and is ultimately subordinate to the constitution, Didn't like, a third or more of the population just didn't sign it?
  - retrac 5y ago
    Quebec never signed off on the 1982 constitutional reform, which created a mechanism for amending the constitution and finally fully separated Canada from the UK government. Until that point, the constitution of Canada was technically part of UK law. Not entirely unlike the devolved Parliament of Scotland today. The UK Parliament could amend it, in theory unilaterally. (It was long-standing convention not to do so except when requested, by the 20th century.) So Quebec's signature was not required, legally, for the current constitution to be imposed upon them. (Long ago, Quebec's elected delegates did approve of the original Constitution Act in 1867.) Per the amendment formula, each province including Quebec has veto power over any further amendment that requires unanimous consent (affecting distribution of government powers, etc.) Which is now something of a stand-off. Getting an amendment that triggers that clause passed, seems all but impossible in contemporary Canada politically.
    - 908B64B197 5y ago
      > So Quebec's signature was not required, legally, for the current constitution to be imposed upon them. That sounds completely alien.
      - colejohnson66 5y ago
        If you’re familiar with the US Constitutional Amendment process, not all states have to sign onto the amendment for it to go into affect. And when it does, even the non-signers are bound by it.
        908B64B197 5y ago
        Correct... Except the process itself is described in the constitution, which every state signed.
        colejohnson66 5y ago
        That is true. I forgot about that part.
        int_19h 5y ago
        US Constitution had to be ratified by a minimum of 9 states (out of 13 total) before it went into effect. In practice, the Continental Congress made it operable with 11 signatures; the remaining 2 happened after that.
  - ameixaseca 5y ago
    It was a single province, which at the time had around a third of the population indeed. Their signature was not required for the constitution to enter in effect. It was desired (it still is) but since the refusal was (and still is) mostly political, it is not regarded as a major impediment. Keep in mind two-thirds is a qualified majority.
    - 908B64B197 5y ago
      > Their signature was not required for the constitution to enter in effect. That's... weird. I mean, I couldn't really imagine one of the 13 colonies not signing the declaration or constitution. > but since the refusal was (and still is) mostly political I mean, it's a political document... anything having to do with it will be political!
      - jcranmer 5y ago
        > That's... weird. I mean, I couldn't really imagine one of the 13 colonies not signing the declaration or constitution. The US Constitution went into effect on ratification of 9 of 13 states. Virginia and New York were numbers 10 and 11, but ratified it before a government under the new constitution was elected. North Carolina waited about a year later to ratify it, and Rhode Island even several months after that (it ratified it only after the United States threatened to embargo them), and consequently were not part of the first government under the new constitution.
        908B64B197 5y ago
        At a time where interstate travel could take several months, That doesn't surprise me. But they did end-up all signing in a relatively short timeframe.
      - retrac 5y ago
        > I couldn't really imagine one of the 13 colonies not signing the declaration or constitution. Canada never declared independence from the UK. That's probably the difference in thinking. The constitution was not revolutionary. It was a reorganization, and that reorganization was carried out according to UK law (which was equivalent to Canadian law as a UK colony) at the time. The law did not require the consent of the provinces to amend the constitution at that time. In fact, the law allowed the UK parliament to simply rewrite Canada's constitution unilaterally. So they did, upon the request of the Canadian federal government after years of consultations in Canada to propose the amendments the UK rubber-stamped, when they renounced all further claim to that in 1982. If you want an analogy, some US states rejected the prohibition amendment, but they were bound by it anyway. Established constitutional law allowed it to be imposed on those states.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Canada has both Civil law (French) and Common Law (English). So does the US; Louisiana is America’s Quebec.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  Not just legally, culinary too...
mcguire 5y ago
Why do you assume that they don't know what they are doing? https://fsffrance.org/news/article2009-09-22.en.html https://fsffrance.org/news/article2009-09-22.en.html https://www.pillsburylaw.com/images/content/1/6/v2/1655/A9A22185D029BBE6EAA4332F1A7249E2.pdf https://www.pillsburylaw.com/images/content/1/6/v2/1655/A9A2... (Doesn't address France specifically.)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by jlos 5y ago

Should've gotten some Canadian lawyers involved in GPL. Due to the combined heritage of English and French (Quebec) Canada has both Civil law (French) and Common Law (English).

elliekelly 5y ago

I believe Louisiana uses a combination of civil and common law as well for the same reason.

jibcage 5y ago

As I understand it, Louisiana is a civil law state as well: https://www.bloomlegal.com/blog/what-is-unique-about-louisiana-law/ https://www.bloomlegal.com/blog/what-is-unique-about-louisia...

retrac 5y ago

While this is a true factoid, civil law in Canada is restricted to Quebec, and is ultimately subordinate to the constitution, which is interpreted in a nearly identical manner to American law, in the common law style. The civil law influence is mostly restricted to Quebec in areas of provincial jurisdiction (family law, small claims, etc.) The Copyright Act is federal and would get the common law handling. (Approximately the same situation is true in the USA with Louisiana, whose state laws also have a form inherited or at least strongly influenced by the Napoleonic code, ultimately, but since harmonized to fit into a common law system.)

908B64B197 5y ago
> and is ultimately subordinate to the constitution, Didn't like, a third or more of the population just didn't sign it?
- retrac 5y ago
  Quebec never signed off on the 1982 constitutional reform, which created a mechanism for amending the constitution and finally fully separated Canada from the UK government. Until that point, the constitution of Canada was technically part of UK law. Not entirely unlike the devolved Parliament of Scotland today. The UK Parliament could amend it, in theory unilaterally. (It was long-standing convention not to do so except when requested, by the 20th century.) So Quebec's signature was not required, legally, for the current constitution to be imposed upon them. (Long ago, Quebec's elected delegates did approve of the original Constitution Act in 1867.) Per the amendment formula, each province including Quebec has veto power over any further amendment that requires unanimous consent (affecting distribution of government powers, etc.) Which is now something of a stand-off. Getting an amendment that triggers that clause passed, seems all but impossible in contemporary Canada politically.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    > So Quebec's signature was not required, legally, for the current constitution to be imposed upon them. That sounds completely alien.
    - colejohnson66 5y ago
      If you’re familiar with the US Constitutional Amendment process, not all states have to sign onto the amendment for it to go into affect. And when it does, even the non-signers are bound by it.
      - 908B64B197 5y ago
        Correct... Except the process itself is described in the constitution, which every state signed.
        colejohnson66 5y ago
        That is true. I forgot about that part.
        int_19h 5y ago
        US Constitution had to be ratified by a minimum of 9 states (out of 13 total) before it went into effect. In practice, the Continental Congress made it operable with 11 signatures; the remaining 2 happened after that.
- ameixaseca 5y ago
  It was a single province, which at the time had around a third of the population indeed. Their signature was not required for the constitution to enter in effect. It was desired (it still is) but since the refusal was (and still is) mostly political, it is not regarded as a major impediment. Keep in mind two-thirds is a qualified majority.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    > Their signature was not required for the constitution to enter in effect. That's... weird. I mean, I couldn't really imagine one of the 13 colonies not signing the declaration or constitution. > but since the refusal was (and still is) mostly political I mean, it's a political document... anything having to do with it will be political!
    - jcranmer 5y ago
      > That's... weird. I mean, I couldn't really imagine one of the 13 colonies not signing the declaration or constitution. The US Constitution went into effect on ratification of 9 of 13 states. Virginia and New York were numbers 10 and 11, but ratified it before a government under the new constitution was elected. North Carolina waited about a year later to ratify it, and Rhode Island even several months after that (it ratified it only after the United States threatened to embargo them), and consequently were not part of the first government under the new constitution.
      - 908B64B197 5y ago
        At a time where interstate travel could take several months, That doesn't surprise me. But they did end-up all signing in a relatively short timeframe.
    - retrac 5y ago
      > I couldn't really imagine one of the 13 colonies not signing the declaration or constitution. Canada never declared independence from the UK. That's probably the difference in thinking. The constitution was not revolutionary. It was a reorganization, and that reorganization was carried out according to UK law (which was equivalent to Canadian law as a UK colony) at the time. The law did not require the consent of the provinces to amend the constitution at that time. In fact, the law allowed the UK parliament to simply rewrite Canada's constitution unilaterally. So they did, upon the request of the Canadian federal government after years of consultations in Canada to propose the amendments the UK rubber-stamped, when they renounced all further claim to that in 1982. If you want an analogy, some US states rejected the prohibition amendment, but they were bound by it anyway. Established constitutional law allowed it to be imposed on those states.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Canada has both Civil law (French) and Common Law (English). So does the US; Louisiana is America’s Quebec.

908B64B197 5y ago
Not just legally, culinary too...

mcguire 5y ago

Why do you assume that they don't know what they are doing? https://fsffrance.org/news/article2009-09-22.en.html https://fsffrance.org/news/article2009-09-22.en.html https://www.pillsburylaw.com/images/content/1/6/v2/1655/A9A22185D029BBE6EAA4332F1A7249E2.pdf https://www.pillsburylaw.com/images/content/1/6/v2/1655/A9A2... (Doesn't address France specifically.)

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]