4 ms·

It's going to be interesting because it's in Germany, which is in Europe. There's been a recent court case in France that ruled that copyright claims based on t

by ajnin 4y ago

It's going to be interesting because it's in Germany, which is in Europe. There's been a recent court case in France that ruled that copyright claims based on the GPL were invalid because it is a contract, and you can't claim both copyright and a contract on something, so it should be dealt with in civil contract court. (Or in other words, granting a license like the GPL invalidates all copyright claims you might have in the future!) The article is quite light on details, I wonder on what exact grounds they filed their claim.

arlcode 4y ago
This is a civil case if I am not mistaken. Earlier cases in Germany where decided in favour of the obligations of the GPL.
GauntletWizard 4y ago
I can't even imagine what that means. How do stock photos work in France?
sva_ 4y ago
I think the case you're thinking of was in France: https://thehftguy.com/2020/09/15/french-judge-rules-gpl-license-to-be-inapplicable-in-french-copyright-court/ https://thehftguy.com/2020/09/15/french-judge-rules-gpl-lice...
yellow_lead 4y ago
So both cases are in Europe?
jrochkind1 4y ago
> you can't claim both copyright and a contract on something, That makes no sense to me. Licensing copyrighted work is pretty standard, and it must be in France too? The GPL is a license, which is indeed a contract. But surely people license (enter into a contract between copyright holder and user which grants certain allowed uses) copyrighted work in France routinely?
- londons_explore 4y ago
  I think the distinction is that if the parties involved don't have a contract between them, copyright law applies. But if there is a contract in place, then copyright law no longer applies, and you instead have to resolve any disputes as if they were violations of a contract. The difficulty being that the GPL allows anyone to enter into a contract without even consent of the other party, and the contract law courts may not see that as a valid contract.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The difficulty being that the GPL allows anyone to enter into a contract without even consent of the other party No, it doesn't. Voluntarily, publicly offering the GPL as license terms is consenting to others accepting that offer.

by ajnin 4y ago

arlcode 4y ago

This is a civil case if I am not mistaken. Earlier cases in Germany where decided in favour of the obligations of the GPL.

GauntletWizard 4y ago

I can't even imagine what that means. How do stock photos work in France?

sva_ 4y ago

I think the case you're thinking of was in France: https://thehftguy.com/2020/09/15/french-judge-rules-gpl-license-to-be-inapplicable-in-french-copyright-court/ https://thehftguy.com/2020/09/15/french-judge-rules-gpl-lice...

yellow_lead 4y ago

So both cases are in Europe?

jrochkind1 4y ago

> you can't claim both copyright and a contract on something, That makes no sense to me. Licensing copyrighted work is pretty standard, and it must be in France too? The GPL is a license, which is indeed a contract. But surely people license (enter into a contract between copyright holder and user which grants certain allowed uses) copyrighted work in France routinely?

londons_explore 4y ago
I think the distinction is that if the parties involved don't have a contract between them, copyright law applies. But if there is a contract in place, then copyright law no longer applies, and you instead have to resolve any disputes as if they were violations of a contract. The difficulty being that the GPL allows anyone to enter into a contract without even consent of the other party, and the contract law courts may not see that as a valid contract.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The difficulty being that the GPL allows anyone to enter into a contract without even consent of the other party No, it doesn't. Voluntarily, publicly offering the GPL as license terms is consenting to others accepting that offer.