> > Then again, as an example of a copyright case where > > contract law was held to be irrelevant, consider Huston v. La > > Cinq Cass. civ. 1re (28 May 1991).
On 5/17/05, Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hm, so a French court could claim jurisdiction over a case where a > modification is made to free software that the original software's > author opposed and the modified work is distributed in France. Among other things, yes. > Was your point that significant use of free software is untenable in > continental Europe, or that droit d'auteur is distinct from the more > economic parts of copyright (the parts the GPL addresses)? Let me put it to you this way: I claim that the GPL is not a contract. I don't believe I'm disputing any claim you've made when I say this, because near as I can tell you have never actually asserted that the GPL is a contract. The closest you've come seems to be this: < I've engaged in an extended discussion with the person on the other < end of [EMAIL PROTECTED], to whom Eben Moglen directed me, on both the < "derivative work" and "GPL is a contract" points. IANAL, and neither < is [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I raised many of the US legal precedents < which I have previously cited on debian-legal. Suffice it to say that < if the FSF has a leg to stand on, it's not visible through that < mechanism of inquiry. Similarly, the specific claims you've proposed in your above paragraph don't really correspond to anything that I'm saying. -- Raul
