Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

License Contracts, Free Software and Creative Commons

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
General Reports of the XIXth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law Rapports Généraux du XIXème Congrès de l'Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GRIA,volume 24))

  • 843 Accesses

Abstract

This report discusses legal questions raised by licenses in the field of free and open source software (FOSS) and other alternative license models from a comparative perspective. It summarizes and juxtaposes national reports on said licensing schemes from 25 different jurisdictions. To begin with, the report provides general information on FOSS and alternative licensing such as relevant legislation and case-law (Sect. 17.2). It then continues to analyse FOSS and other alternative licenses in the light of contract law (Sect. 17.4) and copyright law (Sect. 17.3). For example, it addresses the questions whether alternative licenses are construed as contracts or unilateral acts and whether they contradict an author”s statutory right for equitable remuneration. Moreover, the report briefly deals with other related aspects such as potential conflicts with patent and trademark claims (Sect. 17.5). It comes to the conclusion (Sect. 17.6) that many of the legal uncertainties that FOSS and other alternative licenses like creative commons faced in the past have been resolved. However, new questions have arisen and deserve further scrutiny in the future.

Contrats de licence, les logiciels gratuits et biens communs créatifs.

Metzger/Hennigs, General Report in Metzger (ed.), Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models, Volume 12 of the Series Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, pp. 3–48 (2016), © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016. With permission of Springer.

Reports received from Australia, Susan Crennan; Belgium, Vincent Cassiers, Marie-Christine Janssens and Esther van Zimmeren; Brazil, Fabrício B. P. Polido and Monica Guise Rosina; Croatia, Igor Gliha and Romana Matanovac Vučković; Cyprus, Tatiana Synodinou and Philippe Jougleux; the Czech Republic, Pavel Koukal, Matěj Myška and Jaromír Šavelka; Denmark, Henrik Udsen; Finland, Anniina Huttunen, Henri Tanskanen and Martin von Willebrand; France, Nicolas Binctin; Germany, Alexander Peukert and Dominik König; Greece, Dionysia Kallinikou; Hungary, Anikó Grad-Gyenge and Péter Mezei, Italy, Marco Ricolfi; Japan, Ryu Kojima; Korea, Gyooho Lee; Malaysia, Tay Pek San and Sik Cheng Peng; the Netherlands, Lucie Guibault and Olivia Salamanca; Poland, Beata Giesen; Portugal, Alexandre L. D. Pereira; Romania, Răzvan Dincă; Spain, Pedro A. De Miguel Asensio; Taiwan, Wei-min Liao; Turkey, Emre Bayamlıoğlu; the UK, Luke McDonagh; the U.S.A., Peter Maggs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    There are few comparative law studies on FOSS and other alternative licenses: Van den Brande/Coughlan/Jaeger, The International Free and Open Source Software Law Book, 2nd ed. München 2014, passim (17 jurisdictions); Jaeger/Metzger, Open Source Software – Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen der Freien Software, 3rd ed. München 2011, pp. 298-312 (German law and 5 other jurisdictions); Rosenkranz, Open Contents, Tübingen 2011, pp. 39-155 (German and US law).

  2. 2.

    See Grassmuck, Freie Software zwischen Privat- und Gemeineigentum, Bonn 2002, p. 202-210.

  3. 3.

    See Levy, Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution, New York 1994, passim.

  4. 4.

    See the initial announcement of Richard Stallmann of 27.9.1983, http://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.en.html.

  5. 5.

    See Torvalds, Just for Fun: The Story of an Accidental Revolution, New York 2002.

  6. 6.

    See http://www.samba.org.

  7. 7.

    MySQL was originally developed by a Swedish software company and later acquired by SUN. Today, Oracle has the exclusive rights, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySQL.

  8. 8.

    See http://www.mozilla.org/about/history.html.

  9. 9.

    See http://httpd.apache.org/ABOUT_APACHE.html.

  10. 10.

    See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html.

  11. 11.

    See http://www.opensource.org/osd.html, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.

  12. 12.

    See http://www.de.freebsd.org/copyright/license.html.

  13. 13.

    See Section 5(c) GNU GPL Version 3.0.

  14. 14.

    See http://creativecommons.org/about/history.

  15. 15.

    See http://creativecommons.org/licenses.

  16. 16.

    See http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_use.

  17. 17.

    Only Denmark, Finland, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Taiwan and the UK report no special provisions on license contracts.

  18. 18.

    The only exception is the Czech Republic where the provisions on license contracts are laid down in the Czech Civil Code.

  19. 19.

    For example, Belgium, Brazil, Croatia, France, Italy, Korea, Poland and Portugal.

  20. 20.

    For example , Australia Sec. 10(1); Croatia Art. 44; Greece Art. 13; Spain Arts. 48-50; Turkey Art. 56.

  21. 21.

    For example, Belgium Art. 3 §1; Croatia Art. 52; Germany Sec. 31 lit. a para. 1 and Sec. 40; Greece Art. 13 para. 5; Spain Art. 43; Turkey Arts. 48-49.

  22. 22.

    For example, Belgium Art. 3 §1; Croatia Art. 44; Turkey In Germany Sec. 31 para. 5 states that if the content and scope of the exploitation rights has not been specifically designated, it shall be determined in accordance with the purpose envisaged by both parties to the contract. The courts, however, apply the principle “in dubio pro auctore”. In the Czech Republic the principle is mentioned in scholarly contributions.

  23. 23.

    Special provisions on FOSS or other alternative licenses have only been enacted in the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Korea, Portugal, and the U.S.A.

  24. 24.

    Italy, Portugal and the U.S.A. In Australia, there are no special provisions on FOSS or other alternative licenses, however, the Australian government has a policy requiring all government agencies to consider open source software for all software procurements. For a more detailed overview of special provisions on FOSS licenses in the area of public procurement, see below Sect. 17.4.4.

  25. 25.

    Italy Art. 68 of legislative decree n. 82 of 2005 (Codice dell’Amministrazione Digitale); see Ricolfi, forthcoming in Metzger (ed.), Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, Italian Report, I.2.1.

  26. 26.

    The Czech Republic Sec. 2373.

  27. 27.

    See Koukal/Myška/Šavelka, Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, Czech Report, I.2.

  28. 28.

    France Art. L. 122-7-1.

  29. 29.

    See Binctin, Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, French Report, I.2.

  30. 30.

    Germany Secs. 31 lit. a para. 1 s. 2, 32 para. 3 s. 3, 32 lit. a para. 3 s. 3 and 32 lit. c para. 3 s. 2.

  31. 31.

    See Peukert/König, forthcoming in Metzger (ed.), Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, German Report, I.2.

  32. 32.

    Korea Art. 17 Act on Promotion of the Offer and Use of Public Data, Act No. 11956, enacted on July 30, 2013 and effective since October 31, 2013.

  33. 33.

    The jurisdictions that do report case law on FOSS or other alternative licenses are the following: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Korea, the Netherlands, Spain, Taiwan and the U.S.A.

  34. 34.

    Court of Nivelles, 26 October 2010, Lichodmapwa/Festival de Théatre de Spa, Auteurs&Media 2011, p. 533; Revue du droit des technologies de l’information, 2011/41, p. 67. An English summary is available at: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/09-1684-A_(Lich%C3%B4dmapwa_v._L%27asbl_Festival_de_Theatre_de_Spa).

  35. 35.

    TJSP, Ronei Marques de Oliveira vs. State Attoney Office, Appeal No. 993.08.000538-9, decision as of June, 18th 2008.

  36. 36.

    TJSP, Jovelina de Souza Suzuki and State Attoney Office vs. Alvares Machado and State Attoney Office, Appeal No. 3966025000, decision as of December 19, 2006. Available at http://ccsl.ime.usp.br/files/ANEXO_11.pdf.

  37. 37.

    CA Paris, 18 Oct. 2008; TGI Paris, 3ème chambre, 1ère section, 28 mars 2007, Educaffix c/ CNRS, Université Joseph Fourier et autre.

  38. 38.

    CA Paris, 16 Sept. 2009, Pôle 5 ch. 10, n° 04/24298; Expertise 2009, p. 390, AFOA/Edu4.

  39. 39.

    See Binctin in Metzger, French Report, I.3.

  40. 40.

    TA Lille 29 12 2010 n°1007450 Société Nexedi.

  41. 41.

    CE, 7ème et 2ème s-sect. réunies, 30 sept. 2011, n° 350431.

  42. 42.

    Munich Regional Court I Case 21 O 6123/04, 19.5.2004, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Rechtsprechungs-Report 2004, pp. 350 et seq.

  43. 43.

    Berlin Regional Court Case 16 O 134/06, 21.2.2006, Computer und Recht 2006, pp. 735 et seq. (also concerning „netfilter/iptables“); see also Hamburg Regional Court Case 308 O 10/13, 14.6.2013, Computer und Recht 2013, pp. 498 et seq. (violation of contractual penalty clause).

  44. 44.

    Frankfurt/Main Regional Court Case 2-6 O 224/06, 6.9.2006, Computer und Recht 2006, pp. 729 et seq.

  45. 45.

    Hamburg Regional Court Case 308 O 10/13, 14.6.2013, Computer und Recht 2013, pp. 498 et seq.

  46. 46.

    Bochum Regional Court Case 8 O 293/09, 20.1.2011, Kommunikation & Recht 2011, pp. 277 et seq.

  47. 47.

    Berlin Regional Court Case 16 O 458/10, 8.10.2010, Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht-Rechtsprechungsdienst 2011, pp. 559 et seq.

  48. 48.

    Judgement of March 23, 2010, No 122.

  49. 49.

    Daum Communication, Corp. v. DidioNet, Corp., judgement rendered by the Korean Patent Court on August 29, 2013, Case No. 2013 Heo 1023.

  50. 50.

    ElimNet, Inc. v. HaionNet, Inc., judgement rendered by the Korean Supreme Court on February 12, 2009, Case No. 2006 Do 8369.

  51. 51.

    See http://wiki.creativecommons.org/File:Curry-Audax-English.pdf, District Court of Amsterdam - March 9 2006, Case no. 334492/KG 06-176 SR. English translation prepared by L Steijger and N Hendriks for the Institute of Information Law (IViR), Amsterdam, here: http://mirrors.creativecommons.org/judgements/Curry-Audax-English.pdf.

  52. 52.

    See SAP Madrid (Secc. 28ª) 150/2007, of 5 July 2007, AC 2007, 1768; SAP Granada (Secc. 3ª) 409/2008, of 10 October 2008, AC 2008, 2097; SAP La Coruña (Secc. 4ª) 556/2008 of 11 December 2008, JUR 2009, 241020; SAP Madrid (Secc. 28ª) 56/2009 of 13 March 2009, AC 2009, 509; SAP Pontevedra (Secc. 1ª) 329/2009, of 9 July 2009, AC 2009, 1843; SAP Tarragona (Secc. 1ª) núm. 390/2009 of 19 November, JUR 2010, 44100; SAP León (Secc. 1ª) 576/2009, of 26 November 2009, AC 2010, 296; SAP Cáceres (Secc. 1ª) 40/2010, of 5 February 2010, JUR 2010, 112508; SAP La Coruña (Secc. 4ª) 122/2010, of 17 March 2010, JUR 2010, 196063; y SAP Madrid (Secc. 28ª) 76/2010, of 22 March 2010, JUR 2010, 206687.

  53. 53.

    See De Miguel Asensio, forthcoming in Metzger (ed.), Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, Spanish Report, I.3.

  54. 54.

    See Liao, forthcoming in Metzger (ed.), Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, Taiwanese Report, I.3.

  55. 55.

    See MDY Industries v. Blizzard Entertainment, 629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010); Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp., 467 F.3d 1104 (7th Cir. 2006).

  56. 56.

    Jacobsen v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

  57. 57.

    See Maggs, forthcoming in Metzger (ed.), Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, U.S. report, II.1.

  58. 58.

    See Kraus v. Titleserv, 402 F.3d 119, 123-124, (2nd Cir. 2005); Vernor v. Autodesk, 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010).

  59. 59.

    Only the following countries report no jurisdiction-specific licenses at all: Croatia, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Taiwan, Turkey, and the U.S.A.

  60. 60.

    These jurisdictions include Australia; Belgium: 2.0; the Czech Republic: 3.0; Germany; Korea: 2.0; Malaysia: 2.5; the Netherlands: 2.5 and 3.0; Romania; Spain; UK: 2.0. In Finland, there are ongoing efforts to introduce official translations of the CC 4.0 licenses in Finnish.

  61. 61.

    The Brazilian one is called CC-GNU GPL BR and it was designed to promote a governmental initiative that also involved the creation of a partnership between the Free Software Foundation, the Information Technology National Institute (Rio de Janeiro) and the Creative Commons organization. Moreover, in 2005, the government of the State of Paraná created its own General Public License for the public administration, the GPL – PA.

  62. 62.

    These countries include the Czech Republic, Finland, the Netherlands, Portugal and the UK.

  63. 63.

    For example, in Croatia, Denmark and Turkey.

  64. 64.

    For example, in Australia, Brazil, Czech Republic, Germany, Taiwan, Turkey or the UK.

  65. 65.

    See Binctin in Metzger, French Report, I.4.

  66. 66.

    See Kojima, forthcoming in Metzger (ed.), Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, Japanese Report, I.4.

  67. 67.

    These jurisdictions include Belgium, Brazil, Croatia, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Korea, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Turkey.

  68. 68.

    See Greece Art. 13.

  69. 69.

    Poland being the only exception.

  70. 70.

    See Sec. 151 German CC and Art. 234 Portuguese CC. Under U.S. law, the notification may be waived as well. Under Art. 1333 Italian CC, no communication of the offeree is required either.

  71. 71.

    See Arts. 66 and 69 Polish CC and Giesen, forthcoming in Metzger (ed.), Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, Polish Report, VI.1.

  72. 72.

    See Secs. 10(1) and 26 of the Contracts Act 1950.

  73. 73.

    Tay Pek San/Sik Cheng Peng, Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, Malaysian Report, II.2.b).

  74. 74.

    Maggs in Metzger, U.S. Report, II.2.b).

  75. 75.

    This principle is found in Restatement (Second) of Contracts, § 90(1), which provides: (1) A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires.

  76. 76.

    G Treitel, The Law of Contract (11th ed.: London, Sweet and Maxwell, 2003), 83.

  77. 77.

    See McDonagh, forthcoming in Metzger (ed.), Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, UK Report, II.2.b).

  78. 78.

    See, for example, Spain Art. 1261 CC.

  79. 79.

    See De Miguel Asensio in Metzger, Spanish Report, II.2.b).

  80. 80.

    Belgium Art. 1108 CC.

  81. 81.

    See Cassiers/Janssens/van Zimmeren, forthcoming in Metzger (ed.), Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, Belgian Report, II.2.b).

  82. 82.

    These jurisdictions include Denmark, Finland, Korea, Poland, Romania and Taiwan. In the Netherlands, only assignments must be recorded in a deed.

  83. 83.

    These jurisdictions include Australia, Belgium, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Germany, Spain and the UK.

  84. 84.

    See Australia, Art. 10(1) and the Czech Republic, Sec. 2358 para. 2a. In the Czech Republic, however, the writing requirement is usually not enforceable since both parties are responsible for the creation of the license agreement so that neither of them is entitled make an objection; see Koukal/Myška/Šavelka in Metzger, Czech Report, II.3.

  85. 85.

    See Belgium Art. 3 §1. The requirement can be met by a formal agreement or any other type of writing, such as an e-mail or an invoice; see Cassiers/Janssens/van Zimmeren in Metzger, Belgian Report, II.3.

  86. 86.

    Brazil Art. 10 Software Protection Act of 1998 states “The acts and contracts of license involving marketing rights relating to computer programs of foreign origin shall fix, with respect to taxes and related charges, the responsibility for the respective payments and establish the remuneration owed to the right holder of the computer program resident or domiciled abroad”.

  87. 87.

    Germany Secs. 31 lit. a para. 1 s. 1, 40.

  88. 88.

    Germany Sec. 31 lit. a para. 1 s. 2.

  89. 89.

    See Peukert/König in Metzger, German Report, II.3.

  90. 90.

    See Spain Art. 45.

  91. 91.

    See UK Secs. 101, 101A.

  92. 92.

    Croatia Art. 51; France Art. L. 131-2; Greece Art. 14; Hungary Art. 45(1); Italy Art. 110; Malaysia Sec. 27(3); Portugal Art. 32(2) IP Act; Art. 41(2) Copyright Act; Turkey Art. 52; U.S.A.

  93. 93.

    See, for example, Croatia Art. 290 para. 1 OA.

  94. 94.

    See France Art. L. 131-2.

  95. 95.

    See Maggs in Metzger, U.S. Report, II.3.

  96. 96.

    See Croatia Art. 292 para. 4 OA.

  97. 97.

    See Gliha/Vučković, forthcoming in Metzger (ed.), Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, Croatian Report, II.3.

  98. 98.

    Greece, Art. 14.

  99. 99.

    See Hungary Art. 45(3); Grad-Gyenge/Mezei, Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, Hungarian Report, II.3.

  100. 100.

    See Italy Sec. 2 of Art. 109; Ricolfi in Metzger, Italian Report, II.3.

  101. 101.

    See Malaysia Sec. 27(3); Tay Pek San/Sik Cheng Peng in Metzger, Malaysian Report, II.3.

  102. 102.

    See Portugal Art. 32(2) IP Act; Art. 41(2) Copyright Act.

  103. 103.

    See Portugal Art. 11(2) Decree-Law 252/94; Pereira, Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, Portuguese Report, II.3.

  104. 104.

    See Bayamlıoğlu, Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, Turkish Report, II.3.

  105. 105.

    Australia and Finland being the only exceptions. In Taiwan, such a classification only applies to business-to-consumer contracts.

  106. 106.

    Hungary Art. 205/B HCC; Portugal Arts. 5, 6 and 8 Decree-Law 446/85; Spain Arts. 5 and 7 LCGC; Turkey. In Belgium, Germany and Poland this requirement applies to business-to-consumer contracts only, see Belgium Arts. 7 and 8; Germany Sec. 305 para. 2 no. 2 CC; Poland Art. 384 para. 4 CC.

  107. 107.

    See Belgium Art. 8 §2.

  108. 108.

    See Giesen in Metzger, Polish Report, VI.2.

  109. 109.

    See Peukert/König in Metzger, German Report, II.4.

  110. 110.

    Brazil; the Czech Republic Sec. 1799; Denmark Sec. 38 b Contracts Act; Germany Sec. 305c CC; Korea; Poland Art. 385 para. 2 CC; Portugal Arts. 5, 6 and 8 Decree-Law 446/85; Spain Arts. 5 and 7 LCGC. In Belgium, this requirement applies to business-to-consumer contracts only, see Belgium Art. 40 §1 BCPA.

  111. 111.

    See Polido/Guise Rosina, forthcoming in Metzger (ed.), Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, Brazilian Report, II.4.

  112. 112.

    For example, Germany Sec. 305c CC; Portugal Arts. 5, 6 and 8 Decree-Law 446/85.

  113. 113.

    For example, Denmark; Germany Sec. 305c CC; Turkey.

  114. 114.

    The Czech Republic Sec. 1800 para. 1.

  115. 115.

    Croatia Art. 296 OA; Denmark Sec. 38 c Contracts Act; Germany Sec. 307 paras. 1 and 2 CC; Greece Law 2251/1994; Turkey. In Belgium, Spain and Taiwan, this requirement only applies to business-to-consumer contracts, see Belgium Art. 73 BCPA; Spain Art. 82 TRLGDCU.

  116. 116.

    See Germany Sec. 307 para. 1 CC.

  117. 117.

    Bayamlıoğlu in Metzger, Turkish Report, II.4.

  118. 118.

    These jurisdictions include Australia, Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Taiwan, the UK and the U.S.A.

  119. 119.

    See Spain Art. 7 LCGC; De Miguel Asensio in Metzger, Spanish Report, II.5.

  120. 120.

    Brazil Art. 224 CC.

  121. 121.

    Korea Art. 3 para. 1 of the Standard Term Contracts Act.

  122. 122.

    See Lee, forthcoming in Metzger (ed.), Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, Korean Report, II.5.

  123. 123.

    Turkey Law no: 805 dated 1926.

  124. 124.

    See Bayamlıoğlu in Metzger, Turkish Report, II.5.

  125. 125.

    See Germany Sec. 305 para. 2 CC; Portugal Art. 7(3) General Consumer Act, Law 24/96 of 31 July (as last amended by Law 10/2013 of 28 January) and Portuguese Language Act, Decree-Law 238/86 of 19 August (as amended by Decree-Law 42/88 of 9 February).

  126. 126.

    That is the case in Belgium, Croatia and Romania.

  127. 127.

    These jurisdictions include Belgium, Brazil, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Korea, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Turkey.

  128. 128.

    See Belgium; Brazil Art. 4; Croatia Art. 44 para. 5; the Czech Republic Sec. 1747; Denmark Sec. 53(3); Finland; France; Germany Sec. 31 para. 5; Hungary Art. 42(3); Korea, Korean Supreme Court on July 30, 1996, Case No. 95 Da 29130) (Jeong Sung Shin et al. v. Jiku Corp.) and Korean Supreme Court on February 15, 2013, Case No. 2011 Do 5835 (Lyprinol Case); the Netherlands; Poland; Portugal Art. 41(3); Romania Art. 39(7); Turkey Arts. 48/3, 52, 54, 55, 68 and 73.

  129. 129.

    Denmark Sec. 53(3).

  130. 130.

    See the Czech Republic Sec. 2362; Spain Art. 99 TRLPI.

  131. 131.

    See the Czech Republic Sec. 2376 para. 3.

  132. 132.

    See Cassiers/Janssens/van Zimmeren in Metzger, Belgian Report, II.6.

  133. 133.

    See Germany Sec. 31 para. 5; Greece Art. 15 para. 4. Croatia applies a similar concept with exceptions; see Gliha/Vučković in Metzger, Croatian Report, II.6.

  134. 134.

    Compare Bartsch v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 391 F.2d 150 (2nd Cir. 1968), with Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 845 F.2d 851 (9th Cir. 1988); see Maggs in Metzger, U.S. Report, II.6.

  135. 135.

    These countries include Australia, Italy, Malaysia, Taiwan, UK.

  136. 136.

    For example, Malaysia and the UK.

  137. 137.

    For example, Italy.

  138. 138.

    See Koukal/Myška/Šavelka in Metzger, Czech Report, II.7.

  139. 139.

    See Czech Republic Sec. 2898; France Art. 1386-1 CC; Germany Sec. 309 no. 8 lit. b and no. 7 CC; Greece Art. 332 para. 1 CC; Italy Art. 1229, Sec. 1 CC; Poland Art. 473 § 2 CC and Art. 3853 No. 1, 2 CC; Portugal Arts. 12 and 18(a)(b)(c) Decree-Law 446/85; Taiwan Paras. 354 and 364 CC; Turkey Art. 115 Code of Obligations Law No: 6098. The only exception being Romania.

  140. 140.

    Malaysia (B2C, Sec. 24D Consumer Protection Act 1999); Spain B2C, Article 86 TRLGDCU; the U.S.A.

  141. 141.

    See the Netherlands Art. 6:237f) CC.

  142. 142.

    See Polido/Guise Rosina in Metzger, Brazilian Report, II.8.

  143. 143.

    However, the reporters from Hungary and Korea do mention the provisions that could potentially lead to the invalidity of such disclaimers; see Hungary Art. 314 (2); Korea Art. 7 subpara. 3 Standard Term Contracts Act.

  144. 144.

    These jurisdictions include Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Malaysia and Romania.

  145. 145.

    See Spain Art. 82.3 TRLGDCU.

  146. 146.

    See Guibault/Salamanca, forthcoming in Metzger (ed.), Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, Dutch Report, II.8.

  147. 147.

    Australia; Belgium; Brazil Arts. 474 and 475 CC; Croatia; the Czech Republic Sec. 548; Denmark; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Italy; Korea; the Netherlands Art. 6:265 CC; Poland; Portugal Art. 432(2) CC; Spain Art. 1124 CC.

  148. 148.

    See Germany Sec. 158 para. 2 CC; Italy Arts. 1355 ff. CC.

  149. 149.

    See Cassiers/Janssens/van Zimmeren in Metzger, Belgian Report, II.9.

  150. 150.

    See France Art. 1152 CC.

  151. 151.

    See Romania Art. 1553 Civil Code; Dincă, forthcoming in Metzger (ed.), Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, Romanian Report, II.9.

  152. 152.

    See Tay Pek San/Sik Cheng Peng in Metzger, Malaysian Report, II.9.

  153. 153.

    See MDY Industries v. Blizzard Entertainment, 629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010); Maggs in Metzger, U.S. Report, II.9.

  154. 154.

    See Bayamlıoğlu in Metzger, Turkish Report, II.9.

  155. 155.

    See McDonagh in Metzger, UK Report, II.9.

  156. 156.

    These jurisdictions include Australia, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Korea, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Turkey, the UK and the U.S.A.

  157. 157.

    See Germany Sec. 69d para. 1; Italy Art. 64ter; the Netherlands Art. 45j; Turkey Art. 38; the U.S.A. Secs. 109(a) and 117.

  158. 158.

    Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs.

  159. 159.

    Udsen, forthcoming in Metzger (ed.), Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, Danish Report, III.1.

  160. 160.

    See the Czech Republic Sec. 1756.

  161. 161.

    See Brazil Art. 9 SPA.

  162. 162.

    See Greece Arts. 40-45.

  163. 163.

    These jurisdictions include Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, France (if the author is the licensor), Greece, Hungary, Italy, Korea, Malaysia, Romania.

  164. 164.

    See Cassiers/Janssens/van Zimmeren in Metzger, Belgian Report, III.2.

  165. 165.

    See Cassiers/Janssens/van Zimmeren in Metzger, Belgian Report, III.2.

  166. 166.

    Denmark Sec. 53(3); Udsen in Metzger, Danish Report, III.2.

  167. 167.

    See Germany Sec. 133 CC; Peukert/König in Metzger, German Report, III.2.

  168. 168.

    See Portugal Art. 11(3); Pereira in Metzger, Portuguese Report, III.2.

  169. 169.

    These countries include Australia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Korea, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.

  170. 170.

    See Spain Art. 43 (1) and (2); De Miguel Asensio in Metzger, Spanish Report, III.2.

  171. 171.

    Brazil; France; Greece; Malaysia; Poland Art. 41; Romania Art. 41 para. (1); Turkey Art. 52.

  172. 172.

    Belgium Art. 3 §1; the Czech Republic Sec. 2372 para. 1; Greece Art. 13 para. 5; Hungary Art. 44 (2); Italy Art. 119(3); Poland Art. 41 para. 4; Romania Art. 41 para. (1); Spain Art. 43 (5).

  173. 173.

    Hungary Art. 44 (2).

  174. 174.

    See District Court of Amsterdam, 24 September 1997 (De Volkskrant), in Informatierecht/AMI 1997, p. 194; Guibault/Salamanca in Metzger, Dutch Report, III.3.

  175. 175.

    Brazil Art. 29, X; Croatia; Denmark Sec. 53(3); Finland; France; Germany Secs. 31 lit. a para. 1 s. 2, 32c para. 3 s. 2; Portugal Art. 11(3); Turkey.

  176. 176.

    These countries include Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France and Germany.

  177. 177.

    See Gliha/Vučković in Metzger, Croatian Report, III.3.

  178. 178.

    See France Art. L 131-6; Binctin in Metzger, French Report, III.3.

  179. 179.

    See, for example, the judgement of the Korean Supreme Court from July 30, 1996, Case No. 95 Da 29130.

  180. 180.

    See McDonagh in Metzger, UK Report, III.3.

  181. 181.

    Belgium; Brazil; Croatia; the Czech Republic Sec. 2363; Denmark; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Korea Art. 46 para. 3; Malaysia; Portugal; Romania Arts. 39 (5), (6) and 63 (3); Spain; Turkey; the UK; the U.S.A.

  182. 182.

    See Koukal/Myška/Šavelka in Metzger, Czech Report, III.4.

  183. 183.

    See Denmark Sec. 56(2); Udsen in Metzger, Danish Report, III.4.

  184. 184.

    See Peukert/König in Metzger, German Report, III.4.

  185. 185.

    These jurisdictions include Brazil, Greece, Portugal and Spain.

  186. 186.

    See Greece Art. 4 para. 1 (e); Spain Art. 14.

  187. 187.

    See Germany Sec. 31 lit. a para. 1 s. 3.

  188. 188.

    See U.S.A. § 201.10.

  189. 189.

    These countries include the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Hungary, Italy, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Romania and Turkey.

  190. 190.

    See France Art. L. 121-4 and Art. L. 121-7; Binctin in Metzger, French Report, III.5.

  191. 191.

    See Romania Art. 10 lit. e and Art. 77 (3).

  192. 192.

    Croatia Art. 17 paras. 1 and 5.

  193. 193.

    See Huttunen/Tanskanen/von Willebrand, forthcoming in Metzger (ed.), Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, Finnish Report, III.5.

  194. 194.

    Australia; Belgium; Croatia; the Czech Republic Sec. 2366 para. 1; Denmark Secs. 38(1), 39(2); Germany Secs. 32, 32a, 32c; Greece; Hungary Arts. 16 (4) and (5), 42 (1); Italy Arts. 18 Sec. 5, 46 Sec. 3, 46bis, Secs. 1 and 2, 180 Sec. 5; Malaysia; the Netherlands; Poland Art. 44; Portugal; Romania Art. 43 (2); Spain; the UK Sec. 93A.

  195. 195.

    See Denmark Sec. 39(2).

  196. 196.

    See the UK Sec. 93A.

  197. 197.

    See Cassiers/Janssens/van Zimmeren in Metzger, Belgian Report, III.5.

  198. 198.

    See the Czech Republic Sec. 2366 para. 1.

  199. 199.

    See Poland Art. 44; Portugal Art. 3(4) Decree-Law 252/94 and Article 14(4) Copyright Act.

  200. 200.

    Apparently, Portugal being the only exception.

  201. 201.

    See Crennan, forthcoming in Metzger (ed.), Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, Australian Report, III.6.; Cassiers/Janssens/van Zimmeren in Metzger, Belgian Report, III.6.

  202. 202.

    See Germany Secs. 32, 32a, 32c; Peukert/König in Metzger, German Report, III.6.

  203. 203.

    See Pereira in Metzger, Portuguese Report, III.6.

  204. 204.

    These jurisdictions include Brazil, Finland, France, Korea, Taiwan, Turkey and the U.S.A.

  205. 205.

    See France Art. L. 1221-7 and Art. L. 121-7-1.

  206. 206.

    These jurisdictions include Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Croatia, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain and the UK.

  207. 207.

    See McDonagh in Metzger, UK Report, III.7.

  208. 208.

    See Cassiers/Janssens/van Zimmeren in Metzger, Belgian Report, III.7.

  209. 209.

    See Sec. 3(e)(i) of the Czech CC license.

  210. 210.

    See Binctin in Metzger, French Report, III.7.

  211. 211.

    See Peukert/König in Metzger, German Report, III.7.

  212. 212.

    See Romania Art. 123 lit. a.

  213. 213.

    These countries include Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Korea, Portugal, Turkey and the U.S.A.

  214. 214.

    See Udsen in Metzger, Danish Report, III.7.

  215. 215.

    See Huttunen/Tanskanen/von Willebrand in Metzger, Finnish Report, III.7.

  216. 216.

    See Grad-Gyenge/Mezei in Metzger, Hungarian Report, III.7.

  217. 217.

    Ricolfi in Metzger, Italian Report, III.7.

  218. 218.

    See Poland Art. 105 para. 1; Giesen in Metzger, Polish Report, VIII.

  219. 219.

    See Portugal Art. 1(2) Law 62/98 of 1 September (amended by Law 50/2004 of 24 August); Pereira in Metzger, Portuguese Report, III.7.

  220. 220.

    See Bayamlıoğlu in Metzger, Turkish Report, III.7.

  221. 221.

    Belgium; Brazil; Croatia; the Czech Republic; Denmark; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Italy; Korea Art. 38; Malaysia Sec. 25(2)(a), (b); the Netherlands; Portugal Art. 56; Romania Art. 11; Spain Art. 14; Turkey; the UK Secs. 77-80.

  222. 222.

    See Belgium Art. 1 §2; Cassiers/Janssens/van Zimmeren in Metzger, Belgian Report, III.8.

  223. 223.

    See Brazil Art. 24 IV; Croatia Art. 16; the Czech Republic Sec. 10 Copyright Act; Denmark Sec. 3(2); Hungary Art. 13.

  224. 224.

    See Denmark Sec. 3(3); Udsen in Metzger, Danish Report, III.8.; Huttunen/Tanskanen/von Willebrand in Metzger, Finnish Report, III.8.

  225. 225.

    See Germany Sec. 39 para. 1.

  226. 226.

    See Peukert/König in Metzger, German Report, III.8.

  227. 227.

    The Netherlands Sec. 25(3).

  228. 228.

    See Guibault/Salamanca in Metzger, Dutch Report, III.8.

  229. 229.

    See Greece Art. 4; Kallinikou, forthcoming in Metzger (ed.), Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models – A Comparative Analysis of the Main Legal Issues, Greek Report, III.8.

  230. 230.

    See Turkey Art. 16/2.

  231. 231.

    See Turkey Arts. 14 and 16; Bayamlıoğlu in Metzger, Turkish Report, III.8.

  232. 232.

    See France Art. L. 121-1.

  233. 233.

    See Peukert/König in Metzger, German Report, III.8.

  234. 234.

    See Giesen in Metzger, Polish Report, V.

  235. 235.

    See Portugal Arts. 3(5) and 5(a) Decree-Law 252/94; Pereira in Metzger, Portuguese Report, III.8.

  236. 236.

    See Crennan in Metzger, Australian Report, III.8.

  237. 237.

    Australia Sec. 115(2); Belgium; Brazil Arts. 389 and 392 Brazilian Civil Code; Croatia Arts. 178, 179 para. 1 and 183; the Czech Republic Sec. 2910; Denmark Art. 83(1); Finland; France; Germany Sec. 97; Greece; Hungary Art. 94(1); Italy Art. 158; Korea; Malaysia; Poland Art. 471 CC; Portugal Arts. 210-G and 211; Romania; Spain Art. 140; Turkey; the UK.

  238. 238.

    Australia; Belgium; Croatia Arts. 177, 185 and 185a; Germany Sec. 97; Greece; Hungary Art. 94(1); Korea; Malaysia; Portugal Arts. 210-G and 211; Romania; Spain Art. 138 and 139; Turkey.

  239. 239.

    See Croatia Art. 179 para. 3; the Czech Republic; Hungary Art. 94(1).

  240. 240.

    Court of Nivelles, 26 October 2010, Lichodmapwa/Festival de Théatre de Spa, Auteurs&Media 2011, p. 533; Revue du droit des technologies de l’information, 2011/41, p. 67. An English summary is available at: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/09-1684-A_(Lich%C3%B4dmapwa_v._L%27asbl_Festival_de_Theatre_de_Spa).

  241. 241.

    See Germany Sec. 97 para. 2 s. 3; Bochum Regional Court Case 8 O 293/09, 20.1.2011, Kommunikation & Recht 2011, pp. 277 et seq.

  242. 242.

    See Udsen in Metzger, Danish Report, III.9.

  243. 243.

    See Turkey Art. 68.

  244. 244.

    See Bayamlıoğlu in Metzger, Turkish Report, III.9.

  245. 245.

    See Ricolfi in Metzger, Italian Report, III.9.

  246. 246.

    Convention on the Grant of European Patents of 5 October 1973 (European Patent Convention) as revised in 2000 (EPC 2000).

  247. 247.

    These member states include Croatia, France, the Netherlands and Turkey.

  248. 248.

    See CCOM Pty Ltd. v. Jiejing Pty Ltd. (1994) 51 FCR 260; International Business Machines Corp. v. Commissioner of Patents (1991) 33 FCR 218; Crennan in Metzger, Australian Report, IV.1.

  249. 249.

    See http://www.openinventionnetwork.com.

  250. 250.

    See Binctin, French report, IV.1.

  251. 251.

    Daum Communication, Corp. v. DidioNet, Corp., judgement rendered by the Korean Patent Court on August 29, 2013, Case No. 2013 Heo 1023; Lee in Metzger, Korean Report, IV.1.

  252. 252.

    See John D. Harkrider, Seeing the Forest through the SEPS, 27-SUM ANTITRUST 22 (2013); Maggs in Metzger, U.S. Report, IV.1.

  253. 253.

    Düsseldorf Court of Appeal Case 20 U 41/09, 28.9.2010, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Rechtsprechungs-Report 2010, pp. 467 et seq.

  254. 254.

    See Peukert/König in Metzger, German Report, IV.2.

  255. 255.

    See judgement of the Korean Supreme Court on December 10, 2002, Case No. 2000 Hu 3418; Lee in Metzger, Korean Report, IV.2.

  256. 256.

    Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, 261 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2001).

  257. 257.

    See Maggs in Metzger, U.S. Report, IV.2.

  258. 258.

    These jurisdictions include Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Romania, Taiwan, the UK and the U.S.A.

  259. 259.

    Peukert/König in Metzger, German Report, IV.3.

  260. 260.

    See Tay Pek San/Sik Cheng Peng in Metzger, Malaysian Report, IV.3.

  261. 261.

    See Guibault/Salamanca in Metzger, Dutch Report, IV.3; see also Cassiers/Janssens/van Zimmeren in Metzger, Belgian Report, IV.3.

  262. 262.

    Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp., 467 F.3d 1104 (7th Cir. 2006).

  263. 263.

    See Maggs in Metzger, U.S. Report, IV.3.

  264. 264.

    For example, the reporters from Australia, Brazil, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Korea, Portugal, Spain and Turkey.

  265. 265.

    See Lee in Metzger, Korean Report, IV.3.

  266. 266.

    See Pereira in Metzger, Portuguese Report, IV.3.

  267. 267.

    These jurisdictions include Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Spain, Taiwan, the UK and the U.S.A.

  268. 268.

    See Crennan in Metzger, Australian Report, I.2.

  269. 269.

    Guide to Open Source Software for Australian Government Agencies, June 2011, Version 2.0.

  270. 270.

    See Cassiers/Janssens/van Zimmeren in Metzger, Belgian Report, IV.4.

  271. 271.

    See Udsen in Metzger, Danish Report, IV.4.

  272. 272.

    Italy Art. 68 of legislative decree n. 82 of 2005 (Codice dell’Amministrazione Digitale).

  273. 273.

    See Ricolfi in Metzger, Italian Report, I.2.1.

  274. 274.

    See Tay Pek San/Sik Cheng Peng in Metzger, Malaysian Report, IV.4.

  275. 275.

    See Guibault/Salamanca in Metzger, Dutch Report, IV.4.

  276. 276.

    See Portugal Law 36/2011 of 21 June.

  277. 277.

    See Pereira in Metzger, Portuguese Report, IV.4.

  278. 278.

    See Portugal Art. 9 of the Open Standards Act.

  279. 279.

    See Spain Ley 11/2007 de 22 de junio, de Acceso Electrónico de los Ciudadanos a los Servicios Públicos (Boletín Oficial del Estado nq 150, 23th July, 2007).

  280. 280.

    See Spain Art. 4 of Ley 11/2007 de 22 de junio, de Acceso Electrónico de los Ciudadanos a los Servicios Públicos (Boletín Oficial del Estado nq 150, 23th July, 2007).

  281. 281.

    See Liao in Metzger, Taiwanese Report, IV.4.

  282. 282.

    See Maggs in Metzger, U.S. Report, IV.4.

  283. 283.

    See DoD Open Systems Architecture Contract Guidebook v. 1.1, available at https://acc.dau.mil/OSAGuidebook.

  284. 284.

    These jurisdictions include Brazil, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Romania and Turkey.

  285. 285.

    See Huttunen/Tanskanen/von Willebrand in Metzger, Finnish Report, IV.4.

  286. 286.

    See http://www.governoeletronico.gov.br/acoes-e-projetos/e-ping-padroes-de-interoperabilidade.

  287. 287.

    See Polido/Guise Rosina in Metzger, Brazilian Report, IV.4.

  288. 288.

    See http://www.etalab.gouv.fr/ and http://www.data.gouv.fr/.

  289. 289.

    See Binctin in Metzger, French Report, IV.4.

  290. 290.

    See Italy Art. 7 of the Transparency Act (legislative decree n. 33 of 14 March 2013); Arts. 52 and 62 of legislative decree n. 82 of 2005 (Codice dell’Amministrazione Digitale); Ricolfi in Metzger, Italian Report, I.2.2.

  291. 291.

    See Spain Arts. 45 and 46 Ley 11/2007 de 22 de junio, de Acceso Electrónico de los Ciudadanos a los Servicios Públicos (Boletín Oficial del Estado nq 150, 23th July, 2007).

  292. 292.

    See Polido/Guise Rosina in Metzger, Brazilian Report, IV.5.

  293. 293.

    See Lee in Metzger, Korean Report, IV.5.

  294. 294.

    See http://www.blackducksoftware.com/solutions/legal.

  295. 295.

    See Jaeger/Metzger, Open Source Software – Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen der Freien Software, 3rd ed. München 2011, pp. 97-103.

  296. 296.

    See Metzger, Transnational Law for Transnational Communities The Emergence of a Lex Mercatoria (or Lex Informatica) for International Creative Communities, 3 JIPITEC (2012) 361-368.

  297. 297.

    See on this question Jakob, A qualitative study on the adoption of Copyright Assignment Agreements (CAA) and Copyright License Agreements (CLA) within selected FOSS Projects, 5 JIPITEC (2014) 105-115; Maracke, Copyright Management for Open Collaborative Projects –Inbound Licensing Models for Open Innovation, script-ed 2013, 140-148; Engelhardt, Drafting Options for Contributor Agreements for Free and Open Source Software: Assignment, (Non)Exclusive Licence and Legal Consequences. A Comparative Analysis of German and US Law, script-ed 2013, 149-176; Metzger, Internationalisation of FOSS Contributory Copyright Assignments and Licenses: Jurisdiction-Specific or “Unported”?, script-ed 2013, 177-206; Guadamaz/Rens, Comparative Analysis of copyright assignment and licence formalities for Open Source Contributor Agreements, script-ed 2013, 207-230.

References

  • Engelhardt, Tim: Drafting Options for Contributor Agreements for Free and Open Source Software: Assignment, (Non)Exclusive Licence and Legal Consequences. A Comparative Analysis of German and US Law, script-ed 2013, 149-176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grassmuck, Volker: Freie Software zwischen Privat- und Gemeineigentum, Bonn 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guadamaz, Andres/Rens, Andrew: Comparative Analysis of copyright assignment and licence formalities for Open Source Contributor Agreements, script-ed 2013, 207-230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harkrider, John D.: Seeing the Forest through the SEPS, 27-SUM ANTITRUST 22 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, Till/Metzger, Axel: Open Source Software–Rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen der Freien Software, 3rd ed., Munich 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakob, Sylvia F.: A qualitative study on the adoption of Copyright Assignment Agreements (CAA) and Copyright License Agreements (CLA) within selected FOSS Projects, 5 JIPITEC (2014) 105-115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, Steven: Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution, New York 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maracke, Catharina: Copyright Management for Open Collaborative Projects–Inbound Licensing Models for Open Innovation, script-ed 2013, 140-148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger, Axel: Transnational Law for Transnational Communities The Emergence of a Lex Mercatoria (or Lex Informatica) for International Creative. Communities, 3 JIPITEC (2012) 361-368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger, Axel: Internationalisation of FOSS Contributory Copyright Assignments and Licenses: Jurisdiction-Specific or “Unported”?, script-ed 2013, 177-206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torvalds, Linus: Just for Fun: The Story of an Accidental Revolution, New York 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treitel, Sir Guenter: The Law of Contract, 11th ed., London 2003.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Axel Metzger

  2. Harte-Bavendamm Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, Germany

    Stefan Hennigs

Authors
  1. Axel Metzger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Hennigs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Axel Metzger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Law, University of Vienna, Vienna, Wien, Austria

    Martin Schauer

  2. Department of European, International and Comparative Law, University of Vienna, Vienna, Wien, Austria

    Bea Verschraegen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Metzger, A., Hennigs, S. (2017). License Contracts, Free Software and Creative Commons. In: Schauer, M., Verschraegen, B. (eds) General Reports of the XIXth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law Rapports Généraux du XIXème Congrès de l'Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law(), vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1066-2_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1066-2_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-024-1064-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-024-1066-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation