Europe Discusses Free Software Licenses

axelm writes "Two studies on legal issues concerning free software matters were published last week: One is written by German law professor G. Spindler from Göttingen, http://www.vsi.de/inhalte/aktuell/studie_final.pdf . The other has been published in the most precious french law review, Dalloz 2003, p. 1556. Both discuss mainly critical aspects of European copyright and contract law. The German Institute for Legal Research on Free and Open Source Software (http://www.ifross.de) answers some of the arosen questions and concludes that legal security for Open Source is still given in German and Europe."

prestigious

[spaceling]

I think the poster meant "prestigious law review."

Re:prestigious

[JeanPaulBob]

And I'm pretty sure the questions weren't "arosen".

Re:prestigious

[henrygb]

Perhaps he meant fragile or expensive: the Dalloz site [dalloz.fr] says it is closed for maintenance, though the subscription database [dalloz.fr] is open to those who are prepared to pay.

Why is legal security only available in German?

[Troed]

I mean .. can't you translate it?

(yes, I know it should be "Germany" .. )

Wow

[Vanieter]

Hey, that helps ! Care for a little translating ?

Babelfish translation:

[Stephen Samuel]

Intensified discussion around right security of suitor software (04.07.2003)
Of: Dr. Axel butcher [mailto] and Dr. Till hunter [mailto]

The discussion around legal security in handling suitor software by two current statements were heated up. In the distance of fewer days one on behalf of the VSI provided study of the Goettinger of professor Gerald Spindler and an essay Paris professor Christophe of the Caron appeared in the most important French technical periodical for lawyer (Dalloz 2003, number 23, P. 1556

Re:Babelfish translation:

[Stephen Samuel]

My reading of the translation is that the original study confused Open Source licenses with the more common commercial shrink-wrap and post-purchase licenses.

It really seems to me that thee his effective conclusion is that things like Microsoft's licenses aren't binding because the consumer buys their software, takes it home, and then finds out that (s)he suddenly has this wierd license presented that binds him/her to not do all sorts of things that weren't apparent when the purchase contract was complete

Re:Babelfish translation:

[axelm]

Thanks for translating our small article on ifross.de and sorry for my bad english. The fsf translations are not the part of the license. They are only informing of the content. This might not be sufficient after European Conusmer Law. What is needed is a multilateral legal concept of free software licenses.