<div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Josh,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">A lot of difficult questions indeed.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">The Directive is translated in 23 EU
languages (<a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=celex:32009L0024">http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=celex:32009L0024</a>
) and implemented in the various national laws. The first version (91/250/EEC) had
to be implemented on 31/12/1992 latest. I
am afraid that it could take a lot of time to trace all implementations in the
various Member States, therefore I just assume that they have done it. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">In general, implementation is the
reproduction of the articles of the Directive (in each relevant national
language) into some articles of the national “Code for intellectual property”.
For example in Belgium, you will find a reproduction of the French and Dutch
version under Article XI.300 of the Code (last published version in the Belgian
Official Journal 12.06.2014).</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Recital (15) of the Directive is part of it
as “rationale”, not as “article”. Therefore this part is normally not
implemented as such in national legislation. However in case of hypothetic
litigation, chances are high that the Court of Justice of the European Union
will be requested to clarify (by preliminary rulings), and in such case the
rationale (15) will be visited by the Court.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Case law related to the Directive and its
implementation is extremely rare: it was said that Case 406/10 SAS vs WPL of May
2, 2012 (involving two proprietary software vendors) was a premiere, more than
20 years after the publication of the Directive). Based on the rationale (15) and
on this case, it is a “reasonable opinion” as European lawyer that in case of
litigation on linking, the Court – if requested by the national judge to
provide some preliminary rulings, and after hearing the opinion of Advocate
General - would declare that linking done through a “reproduction of the program
code that is indispensable to achieve interoperability” is authorised as an
exception to general copyright rules.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Although representing the Commission as
guardian of the Treaties in preliminary ruling cases (the Legal Service routinely
intervenes as amicus curiae / friend of the court – similar to an expert
witness giving a Court the benefit of his advice), it is uncertain that the Commission
itself could ask for such preliminary rulings. This specific case is not
foreseen by the Treaties. Commission may act as plaintiff or defendant. Therefore
we have to wait for some hypothetical national litigation or some action
against the Commission as software licensor.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">One could not exclude either that in case
of linking between a GPL-covered program and a proprietary program, the Court may
consider that distributing the linked work under a proprietary license would<i> “</i></span><em><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;color:black;border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0cm;font-style:normal;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial">prejudices
the legitimate interests of the rightholder</span></em><span class=""><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;color:black;border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0cm;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial">” </span></i></span><span class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;color:black;border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0cm;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial">because the protection of free software is a fundamental interest for
the free software movement. But the same prejudice would not exist when linking
two F/OSS programs (i.e. in case their F/OSS licenses have incompatible copyleft
provisions)<i>.</i></span></span><i><span lang="EN-GB"></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;color:black;border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0cm;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><i><br></i></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;color:black;border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0cm;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><u>Best regards,</u></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:9pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;color:black;border:1pt none windowtext;padding:0cm;background-image:initial;background-repeat:initial"><u>P-E</u></span></span></p></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-12-01 23:12 GMT+01:00 Joshua Gay <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jgay@fsf.org" target="_blank">jgay@fsf.org</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">P-E,<br>
<br>
Thank you for sharing this legal information. I have a bunch of<br>
questions and would appreciate help in understanding this further.<br>
<br>
Is section 15 part of the actual directive, or is it simply part of the<br>
rationale that helps explain the intent behind the 12 articles that<br>
follow? If the articles are the actual directive, might those be more<br>
narrowly interpreted and more narrowly applicable than the general<br>
rationale cited? And also, its hard for me to see which articles relate<br>
to section 15 as it would apply to linking to a library. If I understand<br>
this correctly, an EU directive was an agreement amongst member states<br>
to uphold or create local laws. Do all EU member states have laws for<br>
this particular directive, and if so, does the same rationale described<br>
in paragraph 15 apply to all of those laws in each of the respective<br>
member states?<br>
<br>
Sorry I know that is a lot of questions, but, I am genuinely trying to<br>
make sense of how this EU directive works and how it applies to the<br>
licenses my org publishes and provides educational materials on.<br>
<br>
Any and all help is appreciate.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Josh<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">--<br>
Joshua Gay<br>
Licensing & Compliance Manager <<a href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.fsf.org/licensing</a>><br>
Free Software Foundation <<a href="https://donate.fsf.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://donate.fsf.org</a>><br>
GPG key ID: 8DA625BB What's a GPG key ID?<br>
See our Email Self-Defense Guide:<br>
<<a href="https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org</a>><br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org">License-discuss@opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz<br><a href="mailto:pe.schmitz@googlemail.com" target="_blank">pe.schmitz@googlemail.com</a><br>tel. + 32 478 50 40 65</div>
</div>