<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:595.3pt 841.9pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=FR link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>It’s true that the
FSF should better not insist that the GPL is not a contract, unless it adds a US
jurisdiction specifying the interpretation of the term “licence”. This
would finally stop the different conflicting interpretations, that would be
solved more cleanly using the equivalences established by the national implementations
of the WIPO treaties.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>If the GPL needs to be
enforced internationally (as it should) it should have the same enforcement,
scope of application, and protection level as any other proprietary licence
under WIPO rules (note that GPLv3 contains a provision directly linked to a WIPO
treaty, in the definition of technical countermeasures used in DRM schemes, meaning
that the FSF already recognizes it! It also contains provisions related to
patents, which only exist internationally under WIPO rules).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>So just to make things
clearer to everyone, the FSF should just need to say that the licence document
is written and protected under US law (it is already the case, given that the
GPL text is exclusively copyrighted and signed by the FSF established in US,
meaning that the interpretation of the text is done according to US law, and
then protected internationally thanks to the Bern Convention and WIPO treaties,
meaning that the licence in US becomes a contract in other countries, where applicable).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Too much time has been
invested into trying to convince that the GPL is not a contract, this is
useless, given that licences in US are recognized as contracts internationally.
The US-specific segregation between commercial contracts and copyright-licencing
scheme does not apply magically to other countries: this is the WIPO trey ratification
process that establishes the mapping to relevant laws and their protection in
each country.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>So if a non-US resident
author, say for example in France, creates and publishes something with a GPL
licence, it benefits of the protection by French law for author’s rights,
moral rights, and these get protected under WIPO rules (and in European Union
with the EUDC directive implementation by each member country), so that these
rights and obligations are recognized in US too. So the contract, valid in France
becomes valid in US too, due to the WIPO membership and ratification of the
Bern convention by US, according to the implementation in US of the WIPO treaties.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>The relevant thing here
is not only the licence, but the copyright notice that provides (and really
should provide) the national origin of the author.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>In other words, just use
the GPL as indicated, and make sure that your required copyright notice not
only gives the author name, but also its legal residence country, i.e.: “Copyright
© 2007, John Dub, USA.”, not just “Copyright © 2007 John Dub.”.
This definitely fixes the ambiguity of interpretations. Just specifying the
author name is not enough to enforce the GPL internationally and protect every
relevant author’s rights.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Evidently, the authors
must not lie in their copyright notice about their country of legal residence
(to get some additional protections that they don’t have in their own
country), if they want an enforceable application of their legitimate rights:
they must be prepared to defend legal their position in a relevant court of the
indicated country, so they must have legal residence there, or be prepared to
defend their case abroad.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>An author should not
automatically need to defend their rights in a US court (according to the legal
residence of the FSF), just because the GPL is written and signed in US,
because this would be very costly for that author if he does not live there (and
in some cases, he may not even be able to travel into US, due to travel/migration
legal restrictions, and having to pay the service of a US lawyer would be
really too much expensive for most international authors of GPL covered works).
All we need is the possibility for an author to specify a relevant court to
defend its legal rights there, so that this court decision becomes applicable internationally
according to WIPO treaty implementation rules: a US court will then be able to
apply the foreign decision using the US implementation laws relevant to the
WIPO treaties ratification by US.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>This scheme simplifies a
lot the problem, because the WIPO treaties (plus other international treaties
like those ratified in WCO) are used as the single kernel for enforcing a licence
internationally. This scheme allows the convergence of different legal systems,
and it also reduces the cost of generating multiple licences applicable only to
some areas (like Microsoft does in its EULA which contain distinct texts for
several countries, only because Microsoft is able to defend its position in
each of these countries where it is legally established).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span lang=EN-GB
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>De :</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Chris Travers
[mailto:chris.travers@gmail.com] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Envoyé :</span></b> mardi 18 septembre
2007 17:31<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Cc :</span></b>
license-discuss@opensource.org<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Objet :</span></b> Re: Automatic GPL
termination</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=gmailquote><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>On 9/18/07, <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Arnoud
Engelfriet</span></b> <<a href="mailto:arnoud@engelfriet.net">arnoud@engelfriet.net</a>>
wrote:</span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
Speak for your own country, USAnian. In civil law Europe,<br>
conditional licenses are contracts, period.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br>
I would add that we have recently seen a court conclude the same thing
here. Furthermore, if the GPL were *not* a bilateral contract, arguments
that one should seek specific performance (to make people live up to their end
of the bargain) wouldn't be safe. THe most you could argue for would be
an injunction. <br>
<br>
IANAL, though.<br>
<br>
In short the whole world (other than RIck, the FSF, and a few others), know
that the GPL is a bilateral contract which gives someone certain rights in
exchange for certain performances on their part. <br>
<br>
Best Wishes,<br>
Chris Travers<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>