"This file is in the public domain" is sufficient in Belgian
legislation, and in any droit d'auteur legislation I know of.
sincerely, Batist
On 30/03/06, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Summary:
>
> If there's a file in one of my
ts &
van Nuffel (apparently, EU law is so complex it takes two to
comprehend it).
Kindly
Batist
looses every economic right he has to ensure the free flow of goods on
the internal market.
check out
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31991L0250:EN:HTML
art.4 (c)
Not that you can do anything against that law, but in a litigation it
is a rightful defense.
Kind regards
Batist
re inalienable. So a contract/license
about these will be void to a great extent. This case is actually an
example of a broader discussion currently in droit d'auteur countries
about the conflicting interests of producers and authors. Producers
want to change a work to better market it, while the inalienable moral
right prohibits the producer to do so on his own accord.
Kind regards
Batist
Don't know about the US, but certainly not for every country.
Kind regards
Batist
This book gives a history of how software was granted copyright
protection gradually through case law in the US:
A. CLAPES, Softwars, London, Quorum Books, 1993, 325 p.
I found it both useful and agreeable, albeit slightly outdated being
more than ten years old.
Kind regards
Batist
re ideas, however creative they may be. Copyright
protection only protects the expression.
In continental law it is very clear that you're mistaken on this
point. You are right though in a meta-legal context, the copyright
given on the symbols is to ensure legal protection for creativity, but
creativity in the sense of intellectual labour, not artistic
creativity.
Kind regards
Batist
sibility that in fact they can be applied to the
same work. This would lead to a double copyright protection, but if
you look at it from the viewpoint of authorship, this simply means
there are two different reasons why one can be considered an author of
an original work.
A derivative work is not a collective work and vice-versa, but one
work can be both at the same time.
Kind regards
Batist
change these conditions at will"
clause. There is simply no consensus on those future conditions. It is
effectively a license change, thus a change of contract, with every
possible consequence of notice and so on.
My apologies for digressing. In any case, judges are most often very
reasonable people, who more often than not understand that the law
should follow established practice and not the other way around.
Kind regards
Batist Paklons
ussing intellectual
property in more general terms, focussed on Open Source. See
http://m9923416.kuleuven.be for that (unfortunately, the most
interesting one is written in dutch, and I do not have time to
translate).
Kind Regards
Batist
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:28:52 +, Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
>
> > And GPL also says, that the person who packages and then distributes
> > breaks the rules of GPL, it has no longer right to distribute nor use
> > the GPLed work.
It is impossible for
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:28:52 +, Lewis Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:
>
> > And GPL also says, that the person who packages and then distributes
> > breaks the rules of GPL, it has no longer right to distribute nor use
> > the GPLed work.
It is impossible for
liability under the GPL. Instead the
copyright holder must be sued, and will not be held liable insofar as
he is legally allowed.
Kind regards
batist
[1] two European directives that, each in their way, can cause liability:
directive n° 374 of 1985 on liability for defective products: if the
soft
liability under the GPL. Instead the
copyright holder must be sued, and will not be held liable insofar as
he is legally allowed.
Kind regards
batist
[1] two European directives that, each in their way, can cause liability:
directive n° 374 of 1985 on liability for defective products: if the
soft
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 23:55:25 -0800, Michael K. Edwards
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've cited cases about implied licenses under both the 1909 and 1976
> Copyright Acts (in the US). As far as I can tell, the only mechanism
> for conveying such an implied license is an implied contract, and when
>
tice wouldn't make it public
domain, but just not-enforceable. Very often in litigation, one would
register an already (long before) published work, to be able to
enforce it in the upcoming litigation.
I am not sure about this, but as a defense (the 'no, I am not
infringing your copyright'), it probably doesn't have to be registred,
but to be sure you should ask a US lawyer.
kind regards
batist
need to be on
the side of the party imposing the contract. It's a bit like the
contract of a gift. The only consideration in a gift is on the side of
the party imposing the contract. And don't worry, gifts are entirely
legal in civil law.
So those two requirements are entirely -in my view
in general for europe,
as a lot of EU law tends to this trend.
and a last note, i did not take the necessary time to investigate this
problem in great extent (which would take days), so again, please
consider it with the necessary precaution.
Batist
--
"The first thing we do,
ey do
not have to. So you're not much further, and for practical applications,
one should remain on the safe side and assume that no instance can
intervene when the governement is wrong.
Batist
ps english legalese may be worded in the wrong terminology, as it is not
my native language.
--
It isn
G
more inclined to check out one paragraph than a whole document.
And last of all, it's just a sign of professionalism. First impression
is oft a first judgement about the intrinsic quality. Compare the
outer/inner beauty problem. Polishing outer beauty will make the inner
beauty more visi
20 matches
Mail list logo
