Convert GPL to MPL

[Marcel Ferrante]

Oh, I will need some time to review all this messages, but I already want
thank a lot for the contributions.
I thing this number of replies indicates the importancy of this subject. I
will organize it and comeback.

Regards,
Marcel


2008/1/19, B.Jean <veille.jus at gmail.com>:
>
> Philippe Verdy a écrit :
> > Arnoud Engelfriet [mailto:arnoud at engelfriet.net] wrote:
> >
> >> John Cowan wrote:
> >>
> >>> Arnoud Engelfriet scripsit:
> >>>
> >>>> French law has perpetual moral rights, but e.g. in Germany they
> expire
> >>>> when the economic rights expire. I don't think England has perpetual
> >>>> moral rights, so legally I'd be in the clear if I omitted
> >>>>
> >> Shakespeare's
> >>
> >>>> name from my translation.
> >>>>
> >>> And the U.S. allows no moral rights in textual works at all.
> >>>
> >> Which is a gross violation of the principles of the Berne Convention.
> >>
> >> (The flipside is that US authors don't get to exercise their moral
> rights
> >> anywhere in the world.)
> >>
> >
> > Fully agree with you! There has already been decisions in US courts,
> forcing
> > US companies to respect the moral rights owned by foreign authors
> protected
> > by laws of Berne convention signatory parties, and even forcing them to
> > indemnify these authors for their abuse.
> >
> > US respects this international convention and certainly don't want to
> break
> > it.
> >
> > And it's not always necessary to start a trial within US, if there's a
> > treaty of collaboration between juridic systems: an action against an US
> > offender can be initiated in its own country, where a court order will
> to
> > solve the litigation will become applicable in US using a simplified
> > procedure not requiring a new trial and decision by a US court.
> >
> > Note however that the juridic collaboration is limited, notably from US
> that
> > severely limits this collaboration and wants its citizens being judged
> in US
> > in most cases; this can be the cause of diplomatic litigation and
> > negociation between the two countries. However, if a court decision has
> > already occurred, US can't contest this decision, but could seek
> > arrangements to negociate the application of the terms of the decision,
> and
> > find reasonable "equivalences", but this is only accepted to protect the
> > Constitutional rights. However, such restriction by Constitutional
> rights
> > applies essentially to individuals, not to organizations.
> >
> > Foreign moral rights ARE recognized in US (and this is already largely
> used
> > by US corporations when they want to protect these: they will claim
> their
> > rights by demanding protection in countries that define and protect
> these
> > rights, in addition to registering their rights in US; for this, they
> create
> > a collaborative work and the copyright notice includes the names of
> their
> > foreign subsidiary establishments).
> >
> > This is also used by influent US people that have a legal right of
> residence
> > outside US, and this is also used when any US citizen travels abroad:
> their
> > moral rights are claimed in the countries they visit (for example in
> France
> > where they can prosecute paparazzi that violated their private life:
> France
> > effectively protects the moral rights and each year, its courts are
> taking
> > lots of decisions on this subject; the French jurisprudence on moral
> rights
> > is abysmal since very long, it will be hard to defeat it if you violate
> > them).
> >
> Excuse me : do you have some reference about decisions and everything
> you speak about ?
>
> Sincerly,
> Benjamin
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20080120/3533504f/attachment.html>