text_combined: iso88591qpaul20linehan plinehanyahoocom translated article full see end post think ive done far better job google translation least readable corrections appreciated stuff others additions debate apologies ive paraphrased anybody incorrectly glad retract anyone miffed article makes four main points 1 absence critical clauses case idea licence invalid doesnt specify countrys law gpl governed 2 specification english end user opposed businesses gpl doesnt apply written french 3 arbitary licence change point french law author change terms licence arbitarily granting rights author must clearly delimited terms long dates times absence limitations original author right change software back closed whim david neary makes point copyright holder automatically retains right change licence scott replies simply requires authorisation copyright holders thats understanding french law allows gpl type licence _on condition_ specific conditions granting rights clear nothing stop original author taking back work lawyers see correctly imho weakness gpl 4 hidden defects roughly clause means authors isare liable defects consumer engineer linux blows data lost authors liable ciaran johnson says moft others similar clauses point _all_ invalid one affects gpl also niall obroinn makes point sale rather serviceleasing arrangement thats doesnt come point would suggest whole thrust article see software sales even money changes hands governed much consumer law france anyway rick moen makes point sale rather granting rights default see bit even granting rights author explicitly specified french law fact two ip lawyers france think gpl covered sale make feel de facto sale de facto contract 5 roughly may reasons french law gpl may invalid whole article freedoma worth imperfect licences specialised lawyers look gpl lawyer cyril rojinsky duly appointed court jurist vincent grynbaum specialised area intellectual property examine free licences particular gpl published study review proprietes intellectuelles intellectual property1 conclusion grim approach interesting problem know whether freedom valid french law question moot point rather asked form content text free licences particular gpl problem free programmes rather licence contracts free programmes absence critical clauses authors tell us first reference copyright legally sufficient framework international contracts case licence contracts programmes developed spread via internet idea copyright basically include differences one country another international contracts necessary specify laws one referring french law american c authors found three public licences correctly formulated point qpl ibm public licence mozilla public licence specification english language next authors remind us least france clause contract may contrary french law 2 however turns licence gpl contrary french law several respects firstly written english fsf doesnt officially approve translations toubon law obliges sort contract written french including businesses since notion user applies consumers also businesses professionals c contacted editors linuxfrench lawyer cyril rojinsky declared far business concerned toubon law probably doomed change since contradiction european directives subject whatever problem still valid individuals waiting french law change french companies deal since law land programme gpl suddenly change licence another problem much serious according french law author free programme time invoke invalidity licence software simply changing licence effect law intellectual property stipulates granting rights author subordinate condition granted rights object distinct clause granting act ie licence granting rights delimited respect scope grantees also respect location ie rights may excersised duration grants 3 case gpl free licences briefly means france elsewhere author french gpl could revert proprietary one day next problem guarantee hidden defects serious flaw guarantee gpl licences others show software delivered without guarantee going immediately reply commercical programmes carry clause licence contracts correct however whatever written licence contract one free oneself guarantee hidden defects since imposed civil code concept poorly understood layman protects buyer whoever may individual business since specifies civil code consumer protection law hidden defects deliberate made good faith seller example one buys pair socks sale shop notice specifying sale items neither refunded exchanged arriving home notice one socks hole several scenarios possible could checked socks purchase flaw deemed obvious sing money couldnt check socks packaged example case despite notice neither refund exchange may invoke hidden defect changed obtain refund personally already invoked shops hidden defect clause always worked well shopkeepers always cooperative quote couple words civil code concept hidden defect rather wide necessary hadnt possibility discovering defect buying product according civil code wouldnt bought price known defect third case much rarer able show vendor knowledge defect hidden didnt inform case reimburse product expenses incurred sale metro tickets go shop fuse blew plugged c idea hidden defect applies products including programmes made abundantly clear authorities courts surrounding y2k particularly inconvenient free programmes since site offers linux distro download supposed provide guarantee hidden flaws linuxfrench asked cyril rojinsky case free programme one could speak hidden defect since source code available replied actually concerning guarantee question obvious defect arise analyis different depending whether person downloads distribution professional opensource advantage proprietary programme protects distributor guarantee hidden defect insofar buy person distribution public large problem remains roughly speaking lawyer cyril rojinsky said study far exhaustive many areas could explored interview asked example fragility gpl clause forbids linking source code gpl proprietary code effect laws intellectual property give right user modify programme intention permitting interoperability another programme need link proprietary library communication protocol device driver may consider null void clause gpl conclusion study wake call community freedom merits shoddy licences modified court cases proliferate put risk undeniable originality effort 1 une publication de linstitut de recherche en proprit intellectuelle no4 juillet 2002 2 une telle clause de contrat qui est oppose ce que dit la loi franaise est qualifie en terme juridique de clause rpute noncrite cestdire quon fait comme si cette clause ntait pas crite dans le contrat cest pour cela par exemple que vous pouvez signer un bail pour un appartement qui stipule que les enfants sont interdits dans limmeuble et envisager sans inquitude davoir quand mme un enfant en effet le code civil stipule que le devoir dun locataire dun appartement doit se comporter en bon pre de famille 3 article l1313 ___________________________________________________________ yahoo une adresse yahoofr gratuite et en franais yahoo mail httpfrmailyahoocom irish linux users group iluglinuxie httpwwwlinuxiemailmanlistinfoilug unsubscription information list maintainer listmasterlinuxie tue 8 oct 2002 235152 0200 cest ilug interesting article free software licences