RE: Germany
Dave J Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Alexander Eichler [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] in US, it needs copyright law to act like it does. Conclusion is, that GPL is only a possibility to give the right to use to somebody else. Copyright beneath this still exists. So GPL is a license agreement. As any other [DJW:] GPL is founded on copyright. In fact, I've heard that the FSF will insist that copyright ownership is made very clear before accepting something under the Gnu banner. If you are not the copyright owner you have no possibility of assigning any copyright statement to software, nor do you have the right to grant the various permissions that the GPL is meant to guarantee. This does not prevent the GPL from simultaneously being a contract between the copyright holder and the would-be modifier or distributer. [...] Cheers, Ben _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Germany
These points are well-taken, but they are really beside the point. Today, any transaction in Cyberspace may encounter difficult questions of choice of law or jurisdiction. This issue is not unique to open source. I would not spend too much time worrying about this. Instead, let's concentrate on open source. I am particularly interested in reading your comments on whether anyone has attempted to incorporate the ASP model (renting software) into a public license. Does ASP present unique open source concerns? - Rod - Original Message - From: "Greg Wright" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 8:14 AM Subject: Re: Germany *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 26/01/01 at 16:56 SamBC wrote: - Original Message - From: "Alexander Eichler" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi all, Under German law there are a couple of problems with Open Source Licensing, e.g. it is impossible under German law to have no liability for Open Source Software. On the other hand, GPL says that there is no liability. I learned that this is a problem in some states in US too. It is a problem in many nations, UK being the easiest example, where there are several 'implied warranties' that cannot be denied, succintly: merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and damages liability. No license or document is going to cover all 4 corners of the globe.no matter what you invest in the creation Just as an example, our Govt. is investigating DVD and how the implementation of regions may be illegal here, what they can do about the findings is another matter.T Regards Greg Wright -- IT Consultant Sydney Australia PH 0418 292020 Available for Global Contracts Int. +61 418 292020 web http://www.ausit.come-mail Greg AT AusIT.com Trading As - AAA Computers, ITpro, Ozzie Soft, providers of IT services.
Re: Germany
- Original Message - From: "Angelo Schneider" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hm, Microsoft is the cause of the Mellissa Virus and similar Viruses (I LOVE YOU). In germany currently a several Billion Dollar/EURO case is prepared against Microsoft. Because the lack of security of the Office/Outlook software and the so caused loss in time/money for the affected institutions of those viruses. Yep, that's good under my understanding of UK law as well AND sure we have more than one leg to stand on. The same is true in the united states. Of course you have implied warranties. Or do you think you can say: "Here is software, I have written it. Pay me some dollars and you may use it. But I OWN it, still. Nope, I'm not liable if it hurts your computer :-)" You can say it, but it may be unenforceable in many jurisdictions, in the UK it is *very* foggy, but I'd bet on MS losing. The best argument the plaintiff could give is misrepresentation of goods, which would require reserch to justify fully or to counter Sure you are liable. However the GNU license says: you may use it on your own risk. And as you do not pay, its like: you may swim here on your own risk, its my coast and my land and the water is at my cost but if you swim there, its on your own risk. The difficulty is, in the UK no distinction is made between goods sold, and those provided free of charge. And the vendor is not liable, the orginator is... This are two different issues. Depends on jurisdiction, hence the discussion... Angelo SamBC wrote: -- Von: SamBC[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Freitag, 26. Januar 2001 19:49:28 An: John Cowan Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: Germany Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch von einer Regel weitergeleitet. - Original Message - From: "John Cowan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "SamBC" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 6:28 PM Subject: Re: Germany SamBC wrote: It is a problem in many nations, UK being the easiest example, where there are several 'implied warranties' that cannot be denied, succintly: merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and damages liability. All this, however, is not merely a problem for the GPL or OSS software in general. All software is essentially sold without warranty protection of any sort, insofar as the jurisdiction permits. Which most don't! If you expect that Microsoft Word (to choose an example at random) has to have any more function than an old leaky boot, you don't have a leg to stand on. If MSWord, through 'poor workmanship', causes corruption/loss of data which has financial value in any way, you do have a leg to stand on in the UK, due to the coupling of implied warranty (fitness for purpose) and difficulty of disclaiming liability in the UK via PROMINENT NOTICES that CANNOT BE MISSED (excuse caps, easiest way to enforce point). Exactly while almost all software licenses SCREAM their disclaimers. But these are shrink-wrap EULA's, to bring up a general problem. Money is already spent, and the shop doesn't have to refund you if you refuse to agree to the license, because the product is still fit for the purpose for which they sold it, your tough titty if you refuse to use it... It is taken that software is the same as any other product, covered by these warranties. However, one of the assumptions the GPL works under (and is not a very safe one) is that people will read the disclaimer, and be sensible, or believe it to be true. In addition, recovering the purchase price is rather pointless. I was making a general point A defending lawyer would make a good case that the failure of the software was at best a semi-deliberate ploy, as they new that it was not full-scale commercial stuff. Probably won't work, because the commercial stuff is just the same. One legal statement that may work is to state the intended purpose of the product, and state it as something pathetic, so people can't sue when it is used for another purpose and make a mess. The end result, at least in the UK, is that disclaiming liability is not a legal step, but it can help cover you at least partially, as you have warned the person. Sorry I wasn't so succinct before. SamBC -- Please support a software patent free EU, visit http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html -- Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVAFax: +49 721 9812467
Re: Germany
Hello Rod, *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 27/01/01 at 10:13 Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: These points are well-taken, but they are really beside the point. Today, any transaction in Cyberspace may encounter difficult questions of choice of law or jurisdiction. This issue is not unique to open source. I would not spend too much time worrying about this. Instead, let's concentrate on open source. I am particularly interested in reading your comments on whether anyone has attempted to incorporate the ASP model (renting software) into a public license. Does ASP present unique open source concerns? That was my point exactly, do not worry about trivial things, do what is possible. It matters not that we are dealing with Open Source, achieving workable objective's is what the aim should be, protecting something is what a license tries to do. (which I do not doubt most know). Getting a little OT, I do not see the need for anyone to explain they are not lawyers as well, I would rather see somone state if they are in fact a lawyer. - Rod - Original Message - From: "Greg Wright" [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 26/01/01 at 16:56 SamBC wrote: - Original Message - From: "Alexander Eichler" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Under German law there are a couple of problems with Open Source Licensing, e.g. it is impossible under German law to have no liability for Open Source Software. On the other hand, GPL says that there is no liability. I learned that this is a problem in some states in US too. It is a problem in many nations, UK being the easiest example, where there are several 'implied warranties' that cannot be denied, succintly: merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and damages liability. No license or document is going to cover all 4 corners of the globe.no matter what you invest in the creation Just as an example, our Govt. is investigating DVD and how the implementation of regions may be illegal here, what they can do about the findings is another matter.T Regards Greg Wright -- IT Consultant Sydney Australia PH 0418 292020 Available for Global Contracts Int. +61 418 292020 web http://www.ausit.come-mail Greg AT AusIT.com Trading As - AAA Computers, ITpro, Ozzie Soft, providers of IT services.
Re: Germany
SamBC wrote: It is a problem in many nations, UK being the easiest example, where there are several 'implied warranties' that cannot be denied, succintly: merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and damages liability. All this, however, is not merely a problem for the GPL or OSS software in general. All software is essentially sold without warranty protection of any sort, insofar as the jurisdiction permits. If you expect that Microsoft Word (to choose an example at random) has to have any more function than an old leaky boot, you don't have a leg to stand on. via PROMINENT NOTICES that CANNOT BE MISSED (excuse caps, easiest way to enforce point). Exactly while almost all software licenses SCREAM their disclaimers. It is taken that software is the same as any other product, covered by these warranties. However, one of the assumptions the GPL works under (and is not a very safe one) is that people will read the disclaimer, and be sensible, or believe it to be true. In addition, recovering the purchase price is rather pointless. A defending lawyer would make a good case that the failure of the software was at best a semi-deliberate ploy, as they new that it was not full-scale commercial stuff. Probably won't work, because the commercial stuff is just the same. -- There is / one art || John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
