Slashdot Mirror

I think I've found the court order. There is a translation into English for the German-impaired.

The german institute for law in free and open source software has made available a copy of the german original injunction (PDF format).

Some clauses of the GPL are invalid under German law, esp. 11 and 12. But this doesn't mean that the whole GPL is invalid.

You can find an article titled "Open Source and German Copyright Law" here: www.tilljaeger.de/art10.pdf. Or look at the web site of the "Institute for Legal Questions on Open Source Software", www.ifross.de (in German).

PS: IANAL

The discussion around legal security in handling suitor software by two current statements were heated up. In the distance of fewer days one on behalf of the VSI provided study of the Goettinger of professor Gerald Spindler and an essay Paris professor Christophe of the Caron appeared in the most important French technical periodical for lawyer (Dalloz 2003, number 23, P. 1556). In the center thereby the study Spindlers published under large press echo is located.

The press release of the VSI under the heading "study occupies juridical insecurities" shortens the appraisal thereby on the Linux critical statements. This surprises few, considers one that the VSI essentially represents the interests of the "prop. guessing eras" software industry. In contrast to it the appraisal is substantially more differentiated, the Stigmatisierung of the author as an opponent suitor software is therefore hasty. The shown legal problems are predominantly already well-known. Spindler refuses itself only in specifics question to the solutions, which the past bibliography offers, predominantly carries it the concept however. Where it deviates, its solutions are open to attack. In specifics question misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the licenses are to be deplored. This is to be lit up in the following one by some selected examples to the GNU general Public License (GPL) more near. A complete analysis of the work Spindlers is still pending. To that extent the theses of Koglin and Schulz, at present in work, are as well as a new edition of hunter/butcher, open SOURCE software - legal basic conditions of the free software to be waiting.

To surprise it must first that the study seems to equate the terms Freeware and free software (P. 18). For this is to be noticed that as Freeware spread programs usually straight do not correspond to the definitions of the Free software Foundation and the open SOURCE initiative, in particular no working on right exists. The related conceptualness is therefore unfortunate and does not correspond not to the understanding vorherschenden among experts.

To welcome it is against the fact that the study assumes that anyhow in the principle that also with complex Entwicklungstrukturen of numerous authors, who also -, secondary and successively at a software write, an action to restrain interference of an author "for all" is possible, without the names of all co-authors must be called (P. 26). This result is for the question of the penetration of the licenses before court of hardly overrating importance, corresponds however to the past level of knowledge. Importantly and "Linux friendly" is also the estimate of the appraisal that an ignoring of the obligations from the GPL to an omission of the rights leads. The GPL says this in number 4; after German right is this correct-proves as a solvent condition in accordance with 158 Abs. 2 BGB to regard (P. 31).

On the other hand it is more than misleading, if in the appraisal in several places from a "obligation to the free passing on the open SOURCE software" is spoken. On the one hand at all no obligation exists to the passing on, on the contrary the GPL sets up obligations for the case that the licensee passes voluntarily the software on or itself obligated to the passing on. One by SE existing publication obligation does not exist straight. On the other hand 1 paragraph 2 may be quite required a payment for the passing on of the individual piece of duplication in accordance with number, only no royalties may be raised. For the difficult question of the demarcation, when a payment is to be regarded as royalty, unfortunately nothing is this in the appraisal, is left thus to further research.

Problematic and of central importance the remarks of the appraisal are for the question of the e

The discussion around legal security in handling suitor software by two current statements were heated up. In the distance of fewer days one on behalf of the VSI provided study of the Goettinger of professor Gerald Spindler and an essay Paris professor Christophe of the Caron appeared in the most important French technical periodical for lawyer (Dalloz 2003, number 23, P. 1556). In the center thereby the study Spindlers published under large press echo is located.

The press release of the VSI under the heading "study occupies juridical insecurities" shortens the appraisal thereby on the Linux critical statements. This surprises few, considers one that the VSI essentially represents the interests of the "prop. guessing eras" software industry. In contrast to it the appraisal is substantially more differentiated, the Stigmatisierung of the author as an opponent suitor software is therefore hasty. The shown legal problems are predominantly already well-known. Spindler refuses itself only in specifics question to the solutions, which the past bibliography offers, predominantly carries it the concept however. Where it deviates, its solutions are open to attack. In specifics question misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the licenses are to be deplored. This is to be lit up in the following one by some selected examples to the GNU general Public License (GPL) more near. A complete analysis of the work Spindlers is still pending. To that extent the theses of Koglin and Schulz, at present in work, are as well as a new edition of hunter/butcher, open SOURCE software - legal basic conditions of the free software to be waiting.

To surprise it must first that the study seems to equate the terms Freeware and free software (P. 18). For this is to be noticed that as Freeware spread programs usually straight do not correspond to the definitions of the Free software Foundation and the open SOURCE initiative, in particular no working on right exists. The related conceptualness is therefore unfortunate and does not correspond not to the understanding vorherschenden among experts.

To welcome it is against the fact that the study assumes that anyhow in the principle that also with complex Entwicklungstrukturen of numerous authors, who also -, secondary and successively at a software write, an action to restrain interference of an author "for all" is possible, without the names of all co-authors must be called (P. 26). This result is for the question of the penetration of the licenses before court of hardly overrating importance, corresponds however to the past level of knowledge. Importantly and "Linux friendly" is also the estimate of the appraisal that an ignoring of the obligations from the GPL to an omission of the rights leads. The GPL says this in number 4; after German right is this correct-proves as a solvent condition in accordance with 158 Abs. 2 BGB to regard (P. 31).

On the other hand it is more than misleading, if in the appraisal in several places from a "obligation to the free passing on the open SOURCE software" is spoken. On the one hand at all no obligation exists to the passing on, on the contrary the GPL sets up obligations for the case that the licensee passes voluntarily the software on or itself obligated to the passing on. One by SE existing publication obligation does not exist straight. On the other hand 1 paragraph 2 may be quite required a payment for the passing on of the individual piece of duplication in accordance with number, only no royalties may be raised. For the difficult question of the demarcation, when a payment is to be regarded as royalty, unfortunately nothing is this in the appraisal, is left thus to further research.

Problematic and of central importance the remarks of the appraisal are for the question of the e

The (perceived?) problem exists, and is preventing certain software from being released as GPL.

In particular, the ActiveMath system, developed in the University of Saarland and the DFKI.

I've been working in this project for one year, but I've been trying to convince them to release it as GPL for more than two years. Consistently and repeatedly, the answer has been that they wanted to do so, but "the GPL is incompatible with German law". The lawyer they consulted, some Professor at the Uni whose name I don't remember now, also wrote a lengthy analysis which I couldn't read since it was in German. But everyone here insists on that indeed the GPL is not valid in Germany.

I planned to raise this issue in the round table Suggestions for encouraging the creation of Free software for researchers at the end of the Libre software and research track in the Libre Software Meeting in Metz, so if other people want to discuss it there, I'd be very interested.

Below I reproduce the content of the email I sent to activemath-dev on Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:49:41 +0200, with what I know about this issue:

>[copyleft doesn't agree with German law]

Do you have some exact quotation? Like an email or something?
Many GPL programs are produced in Germany.

Seems like the only clash is the "no warranty" clause (points 11 and 12), that would be illegal in Germany ("Gesetz zur Regelung des Rechts der Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen"). (This doesn't mean that you become a criminal by releasing your software with such a clause. It's only that said clause does not apply.)
This just means that we can't reject responsability, just like any other software publisher in Germany.
AFAIK, the rest of the GPL is perfectly applicable in Germany:
http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/ 2000-November/000043.html

However, it seems to be the case that, when distributing something free of charge and with the source available for inspection, that responsability is greatly reduced:
http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/art3.html

More information can be found in the other pages at the "Institut für Rechtsfragen der freien und open source Software":
http://www.ifross.de

To avoid the dangers of not having the "no warranty" clause, some people use some "Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen" (AGB), which put some mechanisms in place to shield the software publisher from sueing. There is a peculiarity in German law that allows anyone to ask for a fee to a publisher when warning them of some infraction, such as trademark infringement. Thus one of the points of these AGB is to allow downloading only to people that abide to them by means of a password-protected download area, and then requiring for access an agreement that the person obtaining the software renounces to use the files to look inside for infringements.
However, this restrictions cause conflict with the GPL, as they are certainly restrictions on the freedom of the users, and can easily make the software non-free:
http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/ 2001-May/0010

The (perceived?) problem exists, and is preventing certain software from being released as GPL.

In particular, the ActiveMath system, developed in the University of Saarland and the DFKI.

I've been working in this project for one year, but I've been trying to convince them to release it as GPL for more than two years. Consistently and repeatedly, the answer has been that they wanted to do so, but "the GPL is incompatible with German law". The lawyer they consulted, some Professor at the Uni whose name I don't remember now, also wrote a lengthy analysis which I couldn't read since it was in German. But everyone here insists on that indeed the GPL is not valid in Germany.

I planned to raise this issue in the round table Suggestions for encouraging the creation of Free software for researchers at the end of the Libre software and research track in the Libre Software Meeting in Metz, so if other people want to discuss it there, I'd be very interested.

Below I reproduce the content of the email I sent to activemath-dev on Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:49:41 +0200, with what I know about this issue:

>[copyleft doesn't agree with German law]

Do you have some exact quotation? Like an email or something?
Many GPL programs are produced in Germany.

Seems like the only clash is the "no warranty" clause (points 11 and 12), that would be illegal in Germany ("Gesetz zur Regelung des Rechts der Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen"). (This doesn't mean that you become a criminal by releasing your software with such a clause. It's only that said clause does not apply.)
This just means that we can't reject responsability, just like any other software publisher in Germany.
AFAIK, the rest of the GPL is perfectly applicable in Germany:
http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/ 2000-November/000043.html

However, it seems to be the case that, when distributing something free of charge and with the source available for inspection, that responsability is greatly reduced:
http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/art3.html

More information can be found in the other pages at the "Institut für Rechtsfragen der freien und open source Software":
http://www.ifross.de

To avoid the dangers of not having the "no warranty" clause, some people use some "Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen" (AGB), which put some mechanisms in place to shield the software publisher from sueing. There is a peculiarity in German law that allows anyone to ask for a fee to a publisher when warning them of some infraction, such as trademark infringement. Thus one of the points of these AGB is to allow downloading only to people that abide to them by means of a password-protected download area, and then requiring for access an agreement that the person obtaining the software renounces to use the files to look inside for infringements.
However, this restrictions cause conflict with the GPL, as they are certainly restrictions on the freedom of the users, and can easily make the software non-free:
http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/ 2001-May/0010

They conclude that under German law, the authors liability is most probably limited to intentional damage and gross negligence.

Also, they argue that clause 2 (allowing modifications) and clause 9 ("and any later version") may be problematic. The problem with clause 2 is that modifications of a program may (e.g.) tarnish the reputation of the author, and legally one cannot waive one's right to sue for that (at least in Germany). Also, apparently the author may claim that modifications violate the artistic integrity of her work. However, the analysis foresees problems mainly for works of art, rather than utility programs. Clause 9 is problematic because here the author waives rights for future usage modes that she cannot yet foresee. But licences can only apply to usage modes presently known.

The baseline of problems with the GPL seems to be that in Germany (and, I think, also in other european states), waiving or selling of basic personal rights is usually not possible.

The German parliament which has just adopted DMCA-style provisions to outlaw the circumvention of technical protection measures that control and curtail the fair use of intellectual property (and only needs the other House's assent for part of the new legislation) makes Germany the third country, following Denmark and Greece, to implement the highly controversial "monstrosity" known as the European Union Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC.

This move, allegedly a "propaganda victory" dubbed "lex Bertelsmann" (after the giant media conglomerate expected to line their corporate pockets under the new laws) in furious disapproval by tech-savvy parts of the news media, makes Germany one of the early adopters setting an unfortunate precedent for further European countries like the UK and France whose citizens, and notably developers like Linux kernel guru Alan Cox, will probably not be spared from similar legislation for much longer either.

Although open-source researchers, cyber-rights activists and even the ruling Social Democrats' very own IT experts as well as hardware manufacturers underlined the severe dangers and inconsistencies of this new and doubtful philosophy extending copyright law to reduce many of the general public's rights to insignificance, in a debate focusing only on academic exemptions from the publishers' power grab, the opposition even tried to tighten the government's bill, ignoring widespread experiences of Chilling Effects such as censorship and assaults on the Freedom to Tinker during the past four years under the EUCD's U.S. counterpart of draconian "bad law and bad policy", the flawed Digital Millennium Copyright Act, another overreaching implementation of the

From reading the argument, the implication seems to be that (in Germany) you could not legally redistribute GPL2 code with a GPL3 license if the GPL3 license would allow additional modes of usage. On the other hand apparently you cannot use GPL2 code for ASP in Germany if it was written before ASP was widely known...

BTW, the "no warranty" clause is also not valid in Germany.

In the latest issue of the german publication Linux Magazin (this article is not available online), Till Jaeger mentioned that Sections 11 and 12 of the GPL, concerning warranty and liability, will be void according to german law.
He explained that the "General Trading Conditions Act" (Gesetz zur Regelung des Rechts der Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen, aka AGBG) makes it impossible in germany to completely withdraw the creators responsibility for a given product, even if the product is donated, like software downloaded for free. I.e. in the case of intend ("Vorsatz") or serious negligence ("grobe Fahrlässigkeit") the author of a program will be liable to a certain extend.

Worst of all I think, because of the complete denial of warranty and liability the GPL is sporting, the aformentioned sections 11 and 12 become void.

So what about a localized "German GPL" or a "Germany Clause" in the GPL to reduce the risk for the program's author to a maximum extend by not completely voiding these sections?

(BTW: Maybe this problem not only concerns germany but also some eastern european countries - concerning trade laws and consumer rights, they have often adopted german legislation in the past decade.)