Fta PDF

B
LMML
:
T. BM|G
MU1CM.
C 1 |GC|TB1|CG BCC|1+
MBC1B
T. MBLLeBC
T. TB|1|GeB M|UBB
d. M|UB
Legal aspecIs ol
Ihe inlormaIion
socieIy
Malcolm Bain
Manuel Gallego
Manuel MarInez Ribas
JudiI Rius
FID_oo42
GNUEDL PlD_42 Legal aspecLs of Lhe informaLion socieLy
Malcolm Baln Manuel Callego Manuel Martinez Rlbas
Malcolmis alawyer and aparLner
aL ld Law ParLners, 8arcelona, alaw
firmproviding advice in inLellecLual
and indusLrial properLy and informa-
Lion Lechnologylaw. He specialises
in Lhe law applied LosofLware and
free conLenL elecLronic commerce
and personal daLaproLecLion.
Manuel is a lawyer graduaLed from
niversiLaL PompeulabrawiLh a
masLer's degree in 8usiness Law.
He currenLlyworks as a lawyer aL
Lhe law offices of lornesa, Prada&
lernandezde 8arcelona, specialising
in commercial law: CompanyOper-
aLions, Commercial ConLracLing and
New 1echnologies.
Manuel is a lawyer and aParLner
aL ld Law ParLners, 8arcelona. He
has served as coordinaLor and man-
ager of European projecLs. Manuel
is aregular conference lecLurer in
8arcelona, Madrid (ESADE, lESE,
Abad Oliva, lomenLo, kecoleLos,
8arcelonaChamber, CaLalonian
1echnologies lnsLiLuLe, lnLerneL
Clobal Conference, Pompeulabra
niversiLy, niversidad PoliLcnica
8arcelona, NavarraniversiLy),
8russels, Paris (niversiLyof Paris),
lonLainebleau(lNSEAD), DarmsLadL,
Munich, SLockholm, AmsLerdam,
Milan, kome, London and Zurich.
He has auLhored several elecLronic
commerce publicaLions, digiLal LesLs,
elecLronic agenLs, kllD.
judlt Rlus
|udiL has abachelor's degree in Law
and amasLer's degree in lnLerna-
Lional SLudies fromniversiLaL Pom-
peulabra. She was also granLed
Lhe LaCaixa scholarship LosLudy
Lowards amasLer's degree in law,
science and Lechnology aL SLan-
ford niversiLy. ApracLicing aLLor-
ney, she specialises in advising com-
panies in Lhe informaLion Lechnol-
ogyand pharmaceuLical secLors.
She has collaboraLed in research
projecLs wiLh granLs fromLhe Euro-
pean nion and is a co-auLhor of
asLudyon Lhe Law and E-1rade in
Spain.
EirsI ediIion: march 2010
JudiI Rius, Malcolm Bain, Manuel Gallego, Manuel MarInez Ribas
All righIs are reserved
ol Ihis ediIion, EUOC, 2010
Av. Tibidabo, 3-43, 0803S Barcelona
Design: Manel Andreu
Fublishing: Eureca Media, SL
Copyrht 2010, lUOC. lermsson s ranteJ to copy, Jstrhute anJ/or moJjy ths Jocument unJer the terms oj the GNU lree
Oocumentaton lcense, Verson 1.2 or any later verson puhlsheJ hy the lree Sojtware lounJaton, wth no lnvarant Sectons,
no lront-Cover Texts, anJ no Bacl-Cover Texts. A copy oj the lcense s ncluJeJ n the secton enttleJ "GNU lree Oocumentaton
lcense"
Software has become a strategic societal resource in the last few decades.
Te emergence of Free Software, which has entered in major sectors of
the ICT market, is drastically changing the economics of software
development and usage. Free Software - sometimes also referred to as
Open Source" or Libre Software" - can be used, studied, copied,
modined and distributed freely. It oners the freedom to learn and to
teach without engaging in dependencies on any single technology
provider. Tese freedoms are considered a fundamental precondition for
sustainable development and an inclusive information society.
Although there is a growing interest in free technologies (Free Software
and Open Standards), still a limited number of people have sumcient
knowledge and expertise in these nelds. Te FTA attempts to respond to
this demand.
Introduction to the FTA
Te Free Technology Academy (FTA) is a joint initiative from several
educational institutes in various countries. It aims to contribute to a
society that permits all users to study, participate and build upon existing
knowledge without restrictions.
What does the FTA oer?
Te Academy oners an online master level programme with course
modules about Free Technologies. Learners can choose to enrol in an
individual course or register for the whole programme. Tuition takes
place online in the FTA virtual campus and is performed by teaching
stan from the partner universities. Credits obtained in the FTA
programme are recognised by these universities.
Who is behind the FTA?
Te FTA was initiated in 2008 supported by the Life Long Learning
Programme (LLP) of the European Commission, under the coordination
of the Free Knowledge Institute and in partnership with three european
universities: Open Universiteit Nederland (Te Netherlands), Universitat
Oberta de Catalunya (Spain) and University of Agder (Norway).
For who is the FTA?
Te Free Technology Academy is specially oriented to IT professionals,
educators, students and decision makers.
What about the licensing?
All learning materials used in and developed by the FTA are Open
Educational Resources, published under copyleft free licenses that allow
them to be freely used, modined and redistributed. Similarly, the
software used in the FTA virtual campus is Free Software and is built
upon an Open Standards framework.
Preface
Evolution of this book
Te FTA has reused existing course materials from the Universitat
Oberta de Catalunya and that had been developed together with
LibreSoft stan from the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos. In 2008 this book
was translated into English with the help of the SELF (Science,
Education and Learning in Freedom) Project, supported by the
European Commission's Sixth Framework Programme. In 2009, this
material has been improved by the Free Technology Academy.
Additionally the FTA has developed a study guide and learning activities
which are available for learners enrolled in the FTA Campus.
Participation
Users of FTA learning materials are encouraged to provide feedback and
make suggestions for improvement. A specinc space for this feedback is
set up on the FTA website. Tese inputs will be taken into account for
next versions. Moreover, the FTA welcomes anyone to use and distribute
this material as well as to make new versions and translations.
See for specinc and updated information about the book, including
translations and other formats: http://ftacademy.org/materials/fsm/1. For
more information and enrolment in the FTA online course programme,
please visit the Academy's website: http://ftacademy.org/.
I sincerely hope this course book helps you in your personal learning
process and helps you to help others in theirs. I look forward to see you
in the free knowledge and free technology movements!

Happy learning!
Wouter Tebbens
President of the Free Knowledge Institute
Director of the Free technology Academy
Acknowledgenments
Te authors wish to thank the Fundaci per a la
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (http://www.uoc.edu)
for nnancing the nrst edition of this work under the
framework of the International Master's degree in Free
Software onered by this institution.
Te current version of these materials in English has
been extended with the funding of the Free Technology
Academy (FTA) project. Te FTA project has been
funded with support from the European Commission
(reference no. 142706- LLP-1-2008-1-NL-ERASMUS-
EVC of the Lifelong Learning Programme). Tis
publication renects the views only of the authors, and the
Commission cannot be held responsible for any use
which may be made of the information contained
therein.
GNUEDL PlD_42 3 Legal aspecLs of Lhe informaLion socieLy
Contentx
Module 1
1ntroducton to the IegaI axgectx o the normaton xocet
1. ThelreesolIwaremovemenIandIhelaw
2. ThelreesolIwaremodel
3. ObjecIivesolIhecourse,keyconcepIs
Module 2
1nteIIectuaI grogert: authorx' rghtx and cogrght
1. InIellecIualproperIy:auIhors'righIsandcopyrighI
2. FroIecIedworks
3. AuIhorshipandworkscreaIedinopencollaboraIion
4. RighIsinproIecIedworks
S. LimiIsolauIhors'righIs}copyrighIlairuse
o. CopyrighI
7. DaIabase}Su GenersRighIs
8. CollecIivemanagemenIorganisaIionsanddigiIallevies
. LegalproIecIionolauIhors'righIs}copyrighI
10. Conclusion
Module 3
TrademarRx and gatentx
1. Trademarks
2. FaIenIs
3. TheconIroversyonsolIwarepaIenIabiliIy
4. Conclusions
Module 4
Sotware Icencex and ree xotware
1. SolIwarelicenses
2. SolIwareconIracIs
3. EreesolIwareandlreeconIenI
4. EreesolIwarelicences
S. EreesolIwarelicencesinpracIice
o. Conclusion
Module S
LegaI axgectx o onIne actvtex {1nternet}
1. InIroducIion
2. OnlineacIiviIies
3. LiabiliIyolinlormaIionsocieIyserviceproviders
4. EcommerceOnlineConIracIing
S. ElecIronicsignaIures
GNUEDL PlD_42 4 Legal aspecLs of Lhe informaLion socieLy
o. Cybercrime
Module o
Prvac
1. FrivacyIheproIecIionolpersonaldaIa
2. BasicconcepIs
3. Generalprinciples
4. RighIsandobligaIions
S. AccessIodaIaanddaIaIranslers
o. SecuriIyobligaIions
7. RegulaIorysupervision
8. ThelegallrameworklordaIaprivacyinoIherjurisdicIions
. FrivacyinIhesecIorolelecIroniccommunicaIions
10. Conclusions:IheimpacIolprivacyonIechnologicalprojecIs
Module 7
Ogen xtandardx
1. ConcepIs
2. SIandardisaIionprocesseslorums
3. BeneliIsolopensIandards
4. ConIroversiesregardingopensIandards
S. TheEuIureWayEorward7
InIroducIion
Io Ihe legal
aspecIs ol Ihe
inlormaIion
socieIy

GNUEDL lnLroducLion LoLhe legal aspecLs of Lhe informaLion socieLy
lcense"
1ndex

1ntroducton............................................................................................... S

1. The Iree xoItware movement and the Iaw.................................. 7

2. The Iree xoItware modeI..................................................................
2.1. The Iheory ol Ihe social genesis ol undersIanding .....................
2.2. GreaIer disseminaIion ................................................................. 10
2.3. OIher argumenIs ......................................................................... 10

3. Ob]ectvex oI the courxe, Re concegtx......................................... 12
3.1. ObjecIives .................................................................................... 12
3.2. Some key concepIs ...................................................................... 13
GNUEDL 5 lnLroducLion LoLhe legal aspecLs of Lhe informaLion socieLy
1ntroducton
Rumours began in 2003 and Ihe lirsI aIIack was sIaged in March: iI was noI
Ihe second Gull War, buI Ihe ollensive acIion Iaken by SCO, lirsI againsI IBM,
and laIer againsI Ihe communiIy ol lree solIware developers, over Ihe code
included in Ihe Ihen currenI kernel ol Ihe GNU}Linux 2.4 operaIing sysIem.
This ollensive broughI Io Ihe surlace Iensions IhaI were already being lelI be-
Iween Ihe non-lree solIware and Ihe lree solIware worlds. By 2000, iI was re-
porIed IhaI MicrosolI had already made several criIical sIaIemenIs in Ihe so-
called "Halloween documenIs" againsI GNU}Linux, an operaIing sysIem IhaI
had began Io acquire a share ol Ihe markeI IhaI had unIil Ihen been reserved Io
MicrosolI (Windows) and several oIher companies disIribuIing various non-
lree versions ol Unix (IBM AIX, Oracle-Solaris).
Also in 2003, Ihe European Commission dralIed and Ihe European FarliamenI
debaIed a proposal lor a direcIive Io allow or deny Ihe granIing ol paIenIs on
invenIive compuIer programs and Io deIermine Ihe lormal requiremenIs lor
obIaining Ihis proIecIion. AlIer Ihe mobilisaIion ol a large parI ol Ihe solIware
developmenI communiIy (noI only Ihose involved in lree solIware, buI also
commercial solIware developmenI companies and oIher sIakeholders in Ihe
secIor), in 200S, Ihe same FarliamenI linally rejecIed Ihe proposal Ihe lirsI
Iime in Ihe hisIory ol Ihe European Union.
This didn'I sIop MicrosolI alleging, in 2007, IhaI Ihe GNU}Linux operaIing
sysIem was inlringing upon some 283 ol iIs paIenIs, quoIing a reporI IhaI
acIually said IhaI Linux "poIenIially" inlringed 283 paIenIs.
These "horror sIories", so Io speak, are indicaIors IhaI Ihe legal aspecIs ol solI-
ware in general and lree solIware in parIicular are aI Ihe hearI ol currenI de-
baIes in Ihe world ol new Iechnologies. These Iensions are noI merely Iechni-
cal issues relaIing Io Ihe sIabiliIy, scalabiliIy or securiIy ol solIware, buI raIher
derive lrom more basic issues in Ierms ol who is Ihe legiIimaIe owner ol Ihe
code included in Ihe program, who may disIribuIe such code, how paymenI
is Io be made and in whaI amounI lor a compuIer sysIem considered lree and
available wiIhouI limiIaIions Io daIe.
Moreover: Ihese discussions lorm parI ol a broader debaIe on Ihe lreedom,
culIure and exploiIaIion ol immaIerial works which are delined as any pro-
gram, movie, music, IexI or image in digiIal lorm in Ihe new inlormaIion
socieIy. This debaIe incorporaIes several similar conIroversies including, lor
insIance, Ihe conIroversy regarding Ihe downloading ol music or movies on
peer-Io-peer (F2F) neIworks or Ihe lighI Io achieve enhanced conIrol by Ihe
owners ol Ihe righIs Io works broadcasI over Ihe neIworks and Ihe "scope"
ol such conIrol: geographic (in whaI counIries), Iemporal (lor how long) and
luncIional (whaI can be done wiIh Ihem), wiIh special emphasis on digiIal
righIs managemenI (DRM) sysIems.
The dilemma ol Ihe "non-lree" indusIry lies in Ihis: as new Iechnologies al-
low lor Ihe mass copying and disseminaIion (and aI a low cosI) ol inIangible
works proIecIed by law (inIellecIual and indusIrial properIy righIs), how can
new Iechnological and legal conIrol mechanisms be esIablished Io proIecI Ihe
auIhors and owners ol Ihe righIs Io such work7
Eacing a 40 year-old (or more) Irend Io exIend Ihe proIecIion ol copyrighI
and reduce individual lreedoms, and Io exIend paIenIs Io solIware luncIion-
aliIies lobbied above all by Ihe large enIerIainmenI, publishing and solIware
companies a lorm ol proIesI movemenI has arisen claiming Ihe lreedom ol
culIure and knowledge and Iheir consIiIuIive elemenIs: music, wriIIen IexIs,
visual works, compuIer solIware...
This proIesI movemenI is noI Ihe work ol "long-haired revoluIionaries". QuiIe
Ihe opposiIe, a Ieam ol law prolessors lrom Ihe universiIies ol MIT, Harvard
and SIanlord, lor insIance, has lormed a cenIre lor assisIing in Ihe dissemina-
Iion ol digiIal works (CreaIive Commons), whereby a new sysIem ol licensing
copyrighIs has been esIablished, allowing auIhors Io carelully esIablish Iheir
level ol conIrol over Ihe copying, modilicaIion and disseminaIion ol Iheir
works.
A key componenI ol Ihis proIesI is Ihe lree solIware movemenI, led in iIs day
and lor some, Io Ihis day by Ihe Eree SolIware EoundaIion (ESE). SolIware
is an inIrinsic parI ol culIure, noI only as Iechnological knowledge, buI also
as a par excellence means ol access Io culIure and knowledge. SolIware is Ihe
loundaIion ol Ihe neIwork ol all neIworks, Ihe inIerneI, inIerconnecIing com-
mercial enIiIies, ciIizens and public insIiIuIions. We should also consider IhaI
solIware is run on compuIers and makes compuIers run, and IhaI compuIers
are essenIial elemenIs ol Ihe creaIion ol knowledge and ol Ioday's social, com-
mercial, scienIilic and educaIional relaIions.
ReIerencex
Eor more on SCO see Ihe
Wikipedia or Ihe Groklaw
siIes.
Halloween DocumenIs are
commenIed online.
Froposed EU CompuIer
ImplemenIed InvenIions
DirecIive is described aI
Ihe Wikipedia and Ihe
EEII siIes.
Linux paIenI claims are
reporIed lor example,
aI CNNmoney.com and
eWeek.com.
DigiIal RighIs Manage-
menI SysIems are de-
scribed aI Ihe Wikipedia
siIe.
1. The Iree xoItware movement and the Iaw
Eacing Ihe resIricIive legal lramework where Ihe delaulI rule is "all righIs re-
served", and Ihe Iendency Io apply Ihis and corner scienIilic and Iechnological
knowledge by Ihe large compuIer companies perhaps led by large corpora-
Iions as MicrosolI, Oracle, Apple and Adobe, Ihe lree solIware movemenI (lree
and open, we are noI disIinguishing aI Ihis poinI) was born. This movemenI
seeks Io mainIain and proIecI lreedom in Ihis secIor, which is lundamenIal
Io modern socieIy. This movemenI argues IhaI Ihe "non-lree" Irend is IhreaI-
ening Io make us inIo Ihe socieIy ol permissions ol "permissions, please"
where Ihe owners ol Ihe knowledge musI be asked lor permission Io use
a work, which is granIed under ever more resIricIive, someIimes draconian,
condiIions.
Free xoItware
Eree solIware is a maIIer ol Ihe users' lreedom Io run, copy, disIribuIe, sIudy, change and
improve Ihe solIware. More precisely, iI means IhaI Ihe program's users have Ihe lour
essenIial lreedoms:
The lreedom Io run Ihe program, lor any purpose (lreedom 0).
The lreedom Io sIudy how Ihe program works, and change iI Io make iI do whaI you
wish (lreedom 1). Access Io Ihe source code is a precondiIion lor Ihis.
The lreedom Io redisIribuIe copies so you can help your neighbour (lreedom 2).
The lreedom Io disIribuIe copies ol your modilied versions Io oIhers (lreedom 3). By
doing Ihis you can give Ihe whole communiIy a chance Io beneliI lrom your changes.
Access Io Ihe source code is a precondiIion lor Ihis.
The Eree SolIware DeliniIion can be lound aI Ihe GNU OperaIing SysIem siIe.
However, whaI disIinguishes Ihe solIware secIor lrom oIher parIs ol Ihis more
general proIesI movemenI is IhaI Ihe lree solIware movemenI is based sIricIly
and direcIly, Io mark iIs proIesI, on currenI laws. Eree solIware is disIinguished
lrom non-lree solIware by how Ihose same laws are used. Eree solIware is noI
disIinguished lrom non-lree solIware by iIs qualiIy or Iechnology, alIhough
iI is argued IhaI iI presenIs advanIages in Ihese Ierms, buI by Ihe copyrighI
licensing regime. A lree solIware licence does noI conIain Ihe proIecIion and
conIrol measures IradiIionally included in non-lree solIware licences.
We should noIe IhaI now, as ol 2007 and 2008, several "IradiIional" solIware
companies, which had used a "non-lree" or "exclusive" model lor Ihe disIri-
buIion ol Iheir producIs, are now embracing Ihe lree movemenI (or aI leasI,
Ihe open source movemenI). MicrosolI has published several programs under
lree licences, using iIs own licences, Iwo ol which have been approved "Open
Source" by Ihe Open Source IniIiaIive. Sun (now parI ol Oracle) has released
Ihe Java environmenI under Ihe GFL licence (and has purchased MySQL). Ya-
hoo! has purchased and now manages Ihe Zimbra projecI. We musI now see
il Ihese are acIual commiImenIs Io developmenI, based on lree principles and
eIhics, or merely commercial sIraIegies...
The developmenI ol ollice auIomaIion soluIions (OpenOllice.org) as an alIer-
naIive Io commercial packages (mainly MS-Ollice by MicrosolI) also involves
cerIain legal aspecIs. Due Io Ihe dominance ol Ihe commercial packages in Ihe
business and domesIic worlds, il a user ol OpenOllice.org wishes Io share IexI
liles, presenIaIions or spreadsheeIs wiIh oIhers using non-lree programs, iI is
essenIial lor Ihere Io be inIeroperabiliIy beIween daIa lormaIs. NoneIheless,
Ihese lormaIs are olIen privaIe program elemenIs (non-lree) and proIecIed by
copyrighI and even paIenI laws. In Ihe absence ol a public and open sIandard
lor such daIa lormaI (such as ODE lor documenIs), does a developer have Ihe
righI Io decompile or sIudy Ihe original code ol non-lree applicaIions Io be
able Io exporI or imporI liles lrom a non-lree source inIo Ihe lree applicaIion7
Does obIaining a paIenI on an XML lile exporI lormaI imply Ihe need Io ob-
Iain a licence lor such inIeroperabiliIy7
Consider Ihe paIenI obIained by MicrosolI in Ihe UniIed SIaIes in Eebruary 2004 on XML
scripIs lor Ollice 2003 and Ihe recenI approval ol OOXML as a sIandard lormaI. Will Ihe
Open SpecilicaIion Fromise made by MicrosolI sullice Io proIecI users lrom such new
"sIandard"7
In 18, NeIscape opened Ihe code ol iIs NavigaIor Io creaIe a lree version now
managed by Ihe Mozilla EoundaIion (wiIh projecIs such as Eirelox, Thunder-
bird, Seamonkey...). This radical decision noI only led Io Ihe resignaIion by
Ihe direcIor ol Iechnology (who could noI see Ihe sIraIegic and commercial
reasons behind iI), buI also insIigaIed a heaIed debaIe on Ihe Ierms and pro-
visions ol Ihe new licence or, beIIer yeI, Ihe licences. NeIscape was lorced Io
dralI one licence lor Ihe iniIial NavigaIor (Ihe NeIscape Fublic License, MFL)
and anoIher licence (broader) lor any luIure modilicaIions (Ihe Mozilla Fublic
License).
UlIimaIely, Ihe creaIion ol lree solIware, iIs modilicaIion and disseminaIion,
solIware reengineering, inIeroperabiliIy, paIenIabiliIy, eIc. are currenI issues,
consIanIly presenI in any acIiviIy revolving around Ihe core subjecI ol Ihis
course on Ihe legal aspecIs and exploiIaIion ol Ihe inlormaIion socieIy, wiIh
a special locus on lree Iechnologies. These are issues IhaI raise imporIanI legal
quesIions. The legal aspecIs ol a lree inlormaIion socieIy are numerous and
exIremely relevanI, as Ihey condiIion all aspecIs ol Ihe process ol creaIion,
disIribuIion and use ol solIware and conIenI.
Thus iI is essenIial lor anyone inIeresIed in creaIing, developing, disIribuIing
or using lree solIware, Io have solid knowledge ol Ihe relevanI legal aspecIs
and IhaI is precisely Ihe purpose ol Ihis course.
2. The Iree xoItware modeI
The lree solIware movemenI uses several argumenIs Io delend iIs posiIion and
iI is imporIanI Io consider IhaI such argumenIs have imporIanI legal impacIs.
To undersIand Ihe lree and open source solIware iniIiaIive, we consider iI Io
be uselul Io brielly commenI on Ihese argumenIs.
2.1. The theor oI the xocaI genexx oI underxtandng
The lirsI argumenI used by Ihe delendanIs ol lree solIware is philosophical-
ideological. The basic principle is IhaI knowledge as such does noI belong Io
any one person, as all knowledge is based on earlier knowledge and is a copy,
Io a greaIer or lesser exIenI, ol oIher ideas. Think ol whaI NewIon said abouI
"sIanding on Ihe shoulders ol gianIs".
In oIher words, no one has ideas IhaI have noI been direcIly or indirecIly inllu-
enced by social relaIions mainIained in Ihe communiIies ol which Ihey lorm
parI and il Ihe genesis is social, Ihe use musI in Iurn remain social. The main
luncIion ol Ihe generaIion ol knowledge is Io improve socieIy and, Iherelore,
Io reach Ihe largesI possible number ol people.
Il we were Io consider solIware as knowledge, Ihe argumenI made by organ-
isaIions such as ESE seems simple. The mosI direcI consequence ol Ihis phi-
losophy ol Ihe social genesis ol knowledge, lrom a legal viewpoinI, is IhaI
Ihe copyrighI law limiIaIion againsI copying, using or redisIribuIing solIware
makes no sense, as iI hinders Ihe generaIion ol new knowledge and does noI
allow lor Ihe accomplishmenI ol iIs main purpose: reIurning Io Ihe commu-
niIy.
ExamgIe
In Spain, lor insIance, in 2004, Ihe Regional GovernmenI ol ExIremadura launched
LinEX, a broad program Io promoIe Ihe creaIion ol disIribuIion based on Debian GNU}
Linux, lor Ihe purpose ol insIalling iI aI all public educaIion cenIres in Ihe region. There
are clearly Iechnological and economic reasons behind Ihis decision. However, Ihe legal
consequences are equally imporIanI: Ihe use ol lree solIware provides Ihe lreedom Io dis-
seminaIe solIware among all ciIizens and residenIs, wiIhouI Ihe need Io acquire anoIher
licence. The Regional GovernmenI may also easily modily Ihese sysIems Io adapI Ihem
Io local needs, wiIhouI requesIing permission lrom Ihe original owners a considerable
legal independence sIraIegy. EducaIional cenIres beneliI lrom Ihe program, as Ihey do
noI depend on suppliers (ol solIware or mainIenance and upgrading services). And Ihey
may open Ihe source code ol Ihe applicaIions insIalled lor educaIional purposes (com-
puIer classes, eIc.).
2.2. Greater dxxemnaton
There is anoIher reason, which could be considered Ihe "pragmaIic" reason.
Eree solIware supporIers claim IhaI Ihe disIribuIion ol work under a lree li-
cence (in Ihe sense ol guaranIeeing Ihe aloremenIioned lour basic lreedoms
Io users) is Ihe besI way Io obIain beneliIs lrom Ihe publicaIion ol conIenI,
parIicularly lor Ihose IhaI are noI esIablished developers or auIhors.
The argumenI is IhaI Ihose who Iruly win wiIh Ihe currenI resIricIive copy-
righI sysIem are lamous auIhors and middlemen, i.e., publishing houses. The
resI ol Ihe creaIors live oll Ihe presIige IhaI Ihey receive lrom Ihe works (and
noI lrom royalIies), allowing Ihem Io provide "addiIional services", such as
providing mainIenance or consulIing or giving conlerences, courses, speech-
es, wriIing lor newspapers, eIc.
ConIinuing Ihis argumenI, lor mosI auIhors whaI is Iruly imporIanI, Io in-
crease Iheir economic perlormance, is IhaI Iheir work reach Ihe largesI possi-
ble number ol people. Along Ihese lines, Ihe conclusion Ihey have reached, is
IhaI lor an unknown auIhor, Ihe copyrighI sysIem poses an obsIacle Io Iheir
reaching Ihe public and beneliIing lrom Iheir creaIions. To counIeracI Ihe im-
pacI ol Ihe legal lramework, Ihe works musI be disIribuIed under lree licences,
Io ensure lull lreedom ol redisIribuIion.
2.3. Other argumentx
We may ciIe oIher argumenIs used by Ihe lree solIware and conIenI movemenI
Io supporI Iheir posiIion, all wiIh legal impacI or consequences:
The enhanced disseminaIion ol Ihe work noI only gives way Io greaIer
beneliIs, buI also improves Ihe work's qualiIy (as misIakes are correcIed,
commenIs enrich Ihe work, viewpoinIs are shared, eIc.). To do Ihis, iI
is necessary Io provide Ihe user wiIh Ihe righI Io modily and access Ihe
source code (when relerring Io programs). This is Ihe philosophy behind
Wikipedia, whose ranking in Ierms ol qualiIy is similar Io IhaI ol Ihe En-
cyclopaedia BriIannica, in spiIe ol Ihe someIimes humble origins ol iIs
various conIribuIors.
The lree solIware model is based on Ihe parIicipaIion ol users, noI only in
Ihe idenIilicaIion ol errors, buI also in Ierms ol design and developmenI.
To do so, iI is necessary Io disIribuIe Ihe works (Ihe solIware, lor insIance)
as beIa versions, wiIh Ihe lreedom Io insIall, use, IesI and conIribuIe Io
Ihe projecI or provide leedback (Ihis is where Ihe licence and lack ol guar-
anIees come in, as iI is a beIa version).
The lree solIware developmenI model is more ellicienI: iI is noI neces-
sary Io reinvenI Ihe wheel, as Ihe wheels Ihe solIware componenIs, IexIs,
5upplementary content
SeeCreaLivecommonscase
sLudiesformoreexamples.
graphics, icons or phoIos are available Io be reused. This is possible in
a digiIal world, as Ihe "consumpIion" (use) ol Ihe digiIal objecI does noI
imply or require exclusive "ownership" ol Ihe producI. Once again, Ihis
may solely be done wiIh licences which allow lree use (reproducIion, dis-
IribuIion) in a non-exclusive way by Ihe users.
3. Ob]ectvex oI the courxe, Re concegtx
3.1. Ob]ectvex
Thus Ihe main objecIive ol Ihis course is Io provide Ihe knowledge and nec-
essary (legal) Iools Io be aware ol Ihe possible legal issues IhaI are relevanI in
a Eree Technology environmenI. In parIicular, iI aims Io help sIudenIs under-
sIand Ihe concepIs and legal lramework ol lree solIware and how Io conIribuIe
and beneliI lrom iI in a sale and legal way.
We will look aI Ihe lollowing concepIs:
The main legal relerence lramework lor lree solIware and Iechnologies,
and Ihe inlormaIion socieIy in general, being:
CopyrIght law (known as "InIellecIual FroperIy RighIs" on Ihe Euro-
pean conIinenI).
Patent and trademarR law (also known as one ol Ihe "IndusIrial Frop-
erIy RighIs).
In Ihe English and US legal lramework, Ihe concepI ol "InIellecIual FroperIy RighIs" cov-
ers mosI lorms ol legal proIecIion ol inIangibles, i.e. copyrighI, paIenIs and Irademark
righIs. This is conlusing, as has been noIed, and excepI when sIaIed, we will avoid Ihis
Ierm (see "key concepIs").
ConcepIs like exisIing legal sysIems ol solIware proIecIion copyrighI, paIenIs, Irade-
mark and key concepIs like copylejt and lree licences will be sIudied Io geI a general
background in Ihose Iopics and Io develop pracIical skills Io use Iheme in dillerenI con-
IexIs.
The legal Issues oI onlIne actIvItIes, including ecommerce. The inlor-
maIion socieIy is a neIworked and "virIual" socieIy, where many il noI
mosI acIiviIies Iake place online or are supporIed by online processes. We
lound iI imporIanI lor sIudenIs Io have an undersIanding ol Ihe legal is-
sues raised by online acIiviIies boIh as regards commerce and as regards
ciIizen digiIal righIs and obligaIions.
PrIvacy law and how Ihis impacIs Ihe processing ol daIa and Ihe delence
ol individuals' lreedom and privacy in an ever more connecIed digiIal
world.
Open Standards, and how Ihey are becoming more and more imporIanI
in Ihe conIexI ol solIware and lormaI inIeroperabiliIy, cloud compuIing
(where in lacI Ihe solIware doesn'I maIIer, iI is Ihe inIerlace and Ihe lormaI
IhaI do).
The principal legal lramework lor Ihis work is European law, wiIh examples
Iaken lrom Ihe laws ol Member SIaIes (in parIicular England}Wales and Spain,
where Ihe auIhor is qualilied Io pracIice). This work is under a lree licence,
Ihus examples, correcIions and commenIs lrom oIher jurisdicIions are wel-
come. Some non-auIhoriIaIive relerences are also made Io Ihe US legal lrame-
work, mainly lor comparing and conIrasIing approaches on how Io regulaIe
Ihe InlormaIion SocieIy.
3.2. Some Re concegtx
Any approach Io Ihe subjecI ol Ihe legal issues ol Ihe InlormaIion SocieIy and
lree solIware and conIenI implies lacing a mulIiIude ol dillerenI deliniIions
and Ierms. To unily criIeria, in Ihis secIion we will lisI some ol Ihe main con-
cepIs ol Ihe course and propose Ihe deliniIion IhaI Ihe auIhors will be using
when relerring Io Ihem.
By Intellectual property, auIhor's righIs or copyrighI, we are relerring Io Ihe
sysIem ol proIecIion ol original, liIerary, arIisIic or scienIilic creaIions, which
include solIware, and which reserve Io Iheir owners Ihe righIs Io reproduc-
Iion, IranslormaIion, disIribuIion and public communicaIion (upload Io Ihe
inIerneI) (see Module 2 lor lurIher deIails).
By IndustrIal property, we reler Io Ihe legal sysIem proIecIing Ihe use or ex-
ploiIaIion ol disIinguishing signs idenIilying producIs or companies (trade-
marRs), invenIions (patents) and conlidenIial inlormaIion ol economic value
(IndustrIal secrets) (see Module 3 lor lurIher deIails).
A user lIcence is Ihe legal insIrumenI used by Ihe owner ol a work (solIware
or oIher conIenI) Io granI permissions Io Ihird parIies Io use such work, in
exchange lor an economic remuneraIion or noI.
Regarding Ihe nomenclaIure relaIing Io lree and open source solIware licences
in a broad sense, we shall use Ihe lollowing Ierminology:
Free soItware and Iree lIcence: any licence respecIing Ihe lour lreedoms,
Ihus allowing lor iIs reproducIion, disIribuIion and modilicaIion, and
granIing access Io iIs source code.
Open source soItware and open source lIcence: solIware conlorming
Io Ihe guidelines ol Ihe deliniIion ol open code solIware (OSD), largely
"synonymous" wiIh lree, buI wiIh anoIher perspecIive (more commercial,
more orienIed Io Ihe access Io iIs source code).
CopyleIt soItware and copyleIt lIcence: applicaIions and licences dis-
IribuIed wiIh a copylelI clause, which may be sIrong (as Ihe GFL) or weak
(as Ihe LGFL or Ihe MFL).
Non-Iree or proprIetary soItware: applicaIions disIribuIed under non-
lree licences.
InIellecIual
properIy: auIhors'
righIs and
copyrighI

GNUEDL lnLellecLual properLy: auLhors'righLs and copyrighL
lcense"
1ndex
1. 1nteIIectuaI grogert: authorx' rghtx and cogrght.............. S
1.1. The IradiIional concepI ol AuIhors' righIs ................................. S
1.2. Origin ol AuIhors' righIs}copyrighI ............................................ S
1.3. AuIhors' righIs or copyrighI7 ...................................................... o
1.4. RegulaIory lramework ................................................................. 7
1.4.1. AuIhors' righIs aI inIernaIional level ............................ 7
1.4.2. AuIhors' righIs}copyrighI in European Law ..................

2. Protected worRx................................................................................. 11
2.1. Works ........................................................................................... 11
2.2. RequiremenIs lor proIecIion ....................................................... 12
2.3. AuIhor's righIs and solIware ....................................................... 13

3. Authorxhg and worRx created n ogen coIIaboraton............ 1o
3.1. AuIhors ........................................................................................ 1o
3.2. Ownership ol righIs in a derivaIive work ................................... 1
3.3. IdenIilying Ihe auIhor and}or righIsholder ................................ 1

4. Rghtx n grotected worRx.............................................................. 21
4.1. Fersonal or moral righIs ............................................................. 21
4.2. Economic or paIrimonial righIs ................................................. 22
4.2.1. ReproducIion righI ........................................................ 23
4.2.2. RighI Io disIribuIion ...................................................... 2S
4.2.3. RighI ol public communicaIion .................................... 2o
4.2.4. TranslormaIion righI ..................................................... 27
4.2.S. SIricIly-compensaIory righIs .......................................... 28
4.3. OIher righIs proIecIed ................................................................ 2

5. Lmtx oI authorx' rghtx/cogrght ~ Iar uxe........................... 30
S.1. Time limiIaIions: duraIion .......................................................... 30
S.2. SubsIanIive limiIs: excepIions .................................................... 31
S.3. Eair use ........................................................................................ 34

. Cogrght.............................................................................................. 3o

7. Oatabaxe / Su Gcncts Rghtx........................................................ 38
7.1. DaIabases deemed original works ............................................... 38
7.2. DaIabases IhaI are noI original ................................................... 38

8. CoIIectve management organxatonx and dgtaI Ievex........ 40
8.1. CollecIive managemenI .............................................................. 40
8.2. CollecIing SocieIies ..................................................................... 41
8.3. CriIicism ...................................................................................... 42
8.4. CollecIive managemenI and solIware ........................................ 42

9. LegaI grotecton oI authorx' rghtx/cogrght.......................... 43
.1. Legal measures ol proIecIion ...................................................... 44
.2. DigiIal RighIs ManagemenI ........................................................ 4S
.2.1. Technological FroIecIion Measures ............................... 4o
.2.2. LegislaIion ...................................................................... 47
.3. Measures ol delence againsI Ihe inlringemenI ol righIs ............. 47
.4. AddiIional measures in relaIion Io solIware ............................... 4
.S. OIher measures ol delence ......................................................... 4

1. ConcIuxon............................................................................................ S1
GNUEDL 5 lnLellecLual properLy: auLhors'righLs and copyrighL
1. 1nteIIectuaI grogert: authorx' rghtx and cogrght
lntellectual lroperty Rhts, or IFR, are a series ol righIs IhaI proIecI inIangible
(inIellecIual) works ol human creaIion. While Ihe Ierm llR in Anglo-Saxon
counIries conlusingly covers several Iypes ol righIs, including AuIhors' righIs
(copyrighI), paIenIs and Irademarks, in Ihe conIinenIal IradiIion, IFR is lim-
iIed Io Authors' rIghts, or copyrIght, wiIh Ihe concepI ol "lnJustral lroperty
Rhts" Io cover oIher Iypes ol righIs.
In Ihis Module 2 we look aI IFR in Ihe conIinenIal IradiIion, AuIhors' righIs,
and iIs special relaIionship wiIh solIware, while IndusIrial FroperIy RighIs are
covered in Module 3.
1.1. The tradtonaI concegt oI Authorx' rghtx
Authors' rhts is a legal Ierm describing Ihe cerIain specilic righIs granIed Io
creaIors in Iheir original works. In Ihe legal sysIem ol mosI English-speaking
counIries, Ihe Ierm copyrht is used, as we shall see laIer. In Ihis secIion we
shall see how Ihe law esIablishes and regulaIes Ihese righIs.
Neghbourng rghtx
In Ihe general Iheory ol AuIhors' righIs, Ihere are also cerIain righIs
aIIached Io a work IhaI are granIed Io cerIain persons who are noI au-
Ihors, such as inIerpreIers and perlormers on Ihe one hand, and pro-
ducers, broadcasIing enIiIies on Ihe oIher. Thus a recorded musical work
(e.g. a song) will be concurrenIly proIecIed by several dillerenI righIs:
The auIhors' righIs ol Ihe composer ol Ihe music and Ihe lyricisI.
The perlormers' righIs ol Ihe singer and Ihe musicians.
The producers' righIs ol Ihe person or corporaIion which made Ihe
recording.
1.2. Orgn oI Authorx' rghtx/cogrght
FroIecIion by AuIhors' righIs sIems lrom Ihe hisIorical momenI when works
were iniIially exploiIed economically by reproducIion in hard copies. EirsI, by
medieval copiers and, especially, lurIher ahead, wiIh Ihe appearance ol Ihe
prinIing press. Fublishing houses, as a whole, beneliIed direcIly lrom Ihe in-
venIion ol Ihe press, as works were Iranslormed inIo commercial objecIs IhaI
could reap Ihem economic beneliIs. However, aI Ihe same Iime, Ihe use ol Ihe
press simplilied Ihe reproducIion ol Ihe works by Ihird parIies and publishers
exerIed pressure on lawmakers Io obIain proIecIion and secure Iheir reIurns.
By doing so, Ihe lirsI objecIive ol AuIhors' righIs}copyrighI was Io regulaIe and
proIecI publishing houses and presses by granIing privileges, alIhough Ihey
were also used by governors Io conIrol and censure works.
Orgn oI cogrght
II seems IhaI Ihe lirsI law on CopyrighI was Ihe English SIaIuIe ol Queen Anne (1710),
which granIed publishers exclusive righIs Io prinI and disIribuIe Iheir works lor a limiIed
period. These righIs evolved over Iime Iowards greaIer recogniIion and proIecIion ol
Ihe acIual auIhor's righIs in his}her creaIions, leading Io Ihe 188 Berne ConvenIion
commenIed below and Ioday's lramework.
The evoluIion ol AuIhors' righIs}copyrighI bears a direcI relaIion Io Iheir ex-
Iension Io new Iypes ol works and greaIer Iime periods, and Ihe adapIaIion
ol Ihe rules Io Ihe characIerisIics inherenI in each Iype ol new work IhaI has
been granIed proIecIion. AdapIing AuIhors' righIs}copyrighI Io compuIer pro-
grams and Io new Iechnological means ol broadcasIing works has generaIed
an unprecedenIed revoluIion in Ihe IradiIional legal lramework ol AuIhors'
righIs}copyrighI.
1.3. Authorx' rghtx or cogrght?
We have used Ihe Ierm Authors' rhts/copyrht when we reler Io Ihe generic
concepI ol Ihe legal proIecIion ol works ol auIhorship. The expressions Au-
thors' rhts and copyrht are olIen used as IranslaIions ol Ihe same concepI,
however Ihis dual denominaIion responds Io Iwo dillerenI concepIions ol
Ihese righIs IhaI coexisI Ioday.
Simply puI, Ihe sysIem ol Authors' rhts is more personalised and proIecIs cre-
aIions as exIensions ol Ihe auIhor's persona. On Ihe oIher hand, Ihe copyrht
sysIem ol Anglo-Saxon counIries is more collecIive and Iends Io proIecI Ihe
economic inIeresI in a work so as Io encourage auIhors Io creaIe more, as a
general-inIeresI beneliI lor all.
Nowadays, Ihere is a high degree ol coincidence in Ihe regulaIion ol Ihe Iwo
legal philosophies, due in greaI parI Io Ihe inIernaIionalisaIion ol inIellecIual
properIy law and Ihe harmonising luncIion ol inIernaIional IreaIies on Ihe
maIIer. There are noneIheless some relevanI dillerences, such as, lor insIance,
in relaIion Io Ihe moral righIs ol auIhors, which we develop laIer on. In Ihis
IexI, we will use Ihe Ierm inIerchangeably, excepI where specilically indicaIed.
Cogrght
Il we wish Io sIudy Ihe copyrighI sysIem, we musI locus in mosI parI on Ihe sIudy ol
Ihe UniIed SIaIes legal sysIem and Ihe BriIish legal sysIem. In Ihe UniIed SIaIes, Ihe
mosI imporIanI copyrighI legislaIion applied Io solIware is based on Ihe CopyrighI AcI
ol 17o and Ihe CompuIer SolIware CopyrighI AcI ol 180. In Ihe UniIed Kingdom, Ihe
legislaIion currenIly in lorce is Ihe CopyrighIs, Designs and FaIenIs AcI ol 188. These
laws consolidaIe Ihe legal provisions conIained in several laws and case law.
1.4. ReguIator IrameworR
In Ihis secIion, we will brielly review Ihe main legal lrameworks providing Ihe
proIecIion ol AuIhors' righIs, beginning wiIh an inIernaIional perspecIive and
including European and naIional regulaIion.
1.4.1. Authorx' rghtx at nternatonaI IeveI
The inIernaIional lramework lor Ihe proIecIion ol AuIhors' righIs is made up
ol cerIain nternatonal treates or conventons (IreaIies beIween counIries main-
ly aimed aI harmonising Ihe legal regime) and cerIain nternatonal oransa-
tons, who moniIor and develop new laws, among oIher luncIions. LeI us sIarI
wiIh Ihe organisaIions.
OrganisaIions.The mosI imporIanI source ol regulaIion ol AuIhors' righIs
aI Ihe inIernaIional level is now Ihe WorlJ lntellectual lroperty Oranzaton
(or WIFO). CreaIed in 1o7, WIFO is a specialised agency ol Ihe UniIed
NaIions whose main purpose is Io develop an inIernaIional inIellecIual
properIy sysIem rewarding creaIiviIy, losIering innovaIion and conIribuI-
ing Io economic developmenI, while aI Ihe same Iime proIecIing public
inIeresIs. As such, iI sponsors inIernaIional IreaIies Io harmonise Ihe legal
lramework and remove barriers Io Ihe exploiIaIion ol works.
AnoIher inIernaIional organisaIion inIeresIed in AuIhors' righIs is Ihe
WorlJ TraJe Oranzaton (known by iIs iniIials WTO), an inIernaIional or-
ganisaIion in charge ol Ihe rules governing Irade among counIries. The
WTO began Io show inIeresI in AuIhors' righIs in Ihe mid nineIies, due
Io Ihe growIh in inIernaIional Irade in services and works suscepIible ol
copyrighI proIecIion.
TreaIies}ConvenIions. The lirsI and loremosI IreaIy on AuIhors' righIs is
Ihe Berne ConventIon Ior the ProtectIon oI LIterary and ArtIstIc WorRs
oI 188, wiIh iIs mosI recenI revision having been drawn up in 17.
The Berne ConvenIion is based on Ihree main principles:
NaIional IreaImenI. Works originaIing in any ol Ihe conIracIing sIaIes
musI receive in each ol Ihe oIher conIracIing sIaIes Ihe same proIec-
Iion as granIed Io Ihe works ol Iheir own ciIizens.
AuIomaIism and simpliciIy. FroIecIion shall be auIomaIic and shall
noI be subjecI Io Ihe compliance ol any lormaliIy.
Moral righIs. The ConvenIion encompasses moral righIs, i.e., Ihe righI
lor an auIhor or his}her lamily Io claim auIhorship ol Ihe work and
Io oppose any damage Io iIs inIegriIy.
The Berne ConvenIion esIablishes Ihe basic lramework lor AuIhors' righIs,
including Ihe works IhaI are proIecIed, Ihe scope and duraIion ol righIs
and Iheir limiIs, and cerIain specilic provisions lor developing counIries.
Chronologically, Ihe nexI inIernaIional IreaIy relaIed Io IFR is Ihe Agree-
ment regardIng the Trade-Related Aspects oI Intellectual Property oI
14, known by iIs acronym "TRIFS", sponsored by Ihe WTO (see above).
The agreemenI covers various broad issues such as how basic principles
ol Ihe Irading sysIem and oIher inIernaIional inIellecIual properIy agree-
menIs should be applied and how Io give adequaIe proIecIion Io inIellec-
Iual properIy righIs. II also regulaIes how counIries should enlorce Ihose
righIs adequaIely in Iheir own IerriIories and how Io seIIle dispuIes on
inIellecIual properIy beIween members ol Ihe WTO.
The mosI relevanI conIribuIions made by Ihe TRIFS AgreemenI as Io Au-
Ihors' righIs in Ihe inlormaIion socieIy are:
II compels signaIory sIaIes Io observe Ihe provisions ol Ihe Berne Con-
venIion, wiIh Ihe excepIion ol Ihe requiremenIs perIaining Io moral
righIs.
II proIecIs compuIer programs as liIerary works, and ouIlines Ihe pro-
IecIion lor daIabases. Eor Ihe signaIory sIaIes ol Ihe TRIFS AgreemenI,
Ihe provisions ol Ihe Berne ConvenIion are applicable Io compuIer
programs, regardless ol wheIher Ihey are signaIories ol Ihe Berne Con-
venIion.
II imposes upon Ihe signaIory sIaIes Ihe obligaIion Io granI Ihe owners
ol AuIhors' righIs Io a compuIer program Ihe righI Io auIhorise or
prohibiI Ihe renIals ol iIs producIs.
The legislaIive work aI Ihe inIernaIional level did noI end wiIh Ihese Iwo
IreaIies, and in 1o, Iwo new IreaIies were subscribed under Ihe WIFO
lramework, Io adapI AuIhors' righIs Io Ihe Iechnological evoluIion, main-
ly Ihe inIerneI: Ihe WIPO CopyrIght Treaty (WCT) and Ihe WIPO Treaty
on InterpretatIon or PerIormance and Phonograms (WFFT).
The WCT enIered inIo lorce on o March 2002 and provides proIecIion
Io auIhors ol liIerary and arIisIic works, including original compuIer pro-
grams and daIabases. As we shall see, Ihe European Union and Ihe UniIed
SIaIes have pioneered Ihe applicaIion ol Ihe provisions ol Ihis IreaIy in
adopIing Ihe CopyrighI DirecIives in Ihe European Union and Ihe DigiIal
Millennium CopyrighI AcI (DMCA) in Ihe UniIed SIaIes.
The mosI relevanI aspecIs ol Ihe WCT are:
II universalises Ihe Berne ConvenIion and redelines iIs concepIs wiIh-
in Ihe new Iechnological conIexI, guaranIeeing Io righIs holders IhaI
Iheir righIs will conIinue Io be proIecIed when Iheir works are dis-
closed Ihrough new Iechnologies and communicaIion sysIems, such
as Ihe inIerneI, creaIing new righIs applicable Io Ihe inIerneI environ-
menI.
II inIroduces Ihe legal proIecIion ol Ihe Iechnological measures ol pro-
IecIion, which we will commenI on laIer.
ComgIete textx oI the treatex
The compleIe IexI ol all WIFO IreaIies and a lisI ol Iheir signaIories are available on iIs
websiIe. The compleIe IexI ol Ihe TRIFS AgreemenI, along wiIh iIs signaIories and an
explanaIion ol iIs provisions, is available on Ihe WTO websiIe.
1.4.2. Authorx' rghtx/cogrght n Eurogean Law
TradiIionally, in Europe, Member SIaIes have regulaIed inIellecIual proper-
Iy (copyrighI), leading Io a huge casuisIry in Ihe regulaIion ol Ihe subjecI.
NoneIheless, aI Ihis Iime, Ihe cenIre producing legislaIion on inIellecIual
properIy in Europe is no longer lormed so much by Ihe sIaIes as iI is by Ihe
European Commission.
The luncIion ol Ihe European Commission is complex inasmuch as, besides
harmonising naIional legislaIions in Ihe maIIer (where Ihe copyrighI based
sysIem coexisIs wiIh Ihe AuIhors' righIs sysIem), iI musI aIIend Io Ihe inIer-
naIional commiImenIs acquired mainly, as we have seen, wiIhin WIFO and
WTO.
The European regulaIions on AuIhors' righIs and compuIer programs is based
on DIrectIve 1/250/CLL ol Ihe Council, ol 14 May 11, regarding Ihe le-
gal proIecIion ol compuIer programs, modilied by DirecIive 3}8}CEE ol Ihe
Council, ol 2 OcIober 13 and resIaIed in 200 by DIrectIve 200/24/LC
(Ihe Computer lrorams Orectve). This DirecIive esIablishes IhaI compuIer pro-
grams shall be proIecIed by AuIhors' righIs as liIerary works, as provided by
Ihe Berne ConvenIion.
As regards AuIhors' righIs more generally, DIrectIve 2001/2/CL, ol 22 May
2001, was adopIed, regarding Ihe sIandardisaIion ol cerIain aspecIs ol AuIhors'
righIs and neighbouring righIs in Ihe inlormaIion socieIy (Ihe Copyrht n
the lnjormaton Socety Orectve, ol EUCD). This new DirecIive seeks Io bring
all currenI regulaIions up Io daIe, complying wiIh Ihe commiImenIs assumed
under Ihe WCT. The negoIiaIion ol Ihis DirecIive was conIroversial and im-
plied a proIracIed debaIe on how Io regulaIe copyrighI in a digiIal world.
The PrIncIples oI the CopyrIght In the InIormatIon SocIety DIrectIve (LU-
CD) are as lollows:
II broadens Ihe concepIs ol reproducIion and public communicaIion (now
including Ihe righI Io make Ihe work available Io Ihe public, e.g. by inIer-
neI download), applied Io all works, including solIware and Io Ihe com-
plemenIary documenIaIion disIribuIed over Ihe inIerneI.
II esIablished legal proIecIion lor Iechnological proIecIion measures
(TFMs see below).
Einally, DIrectIve 2004/48/CL, ol 2 April 2004, regarding Ihe enlorcemenI
ol inIellecIual properIy righIs, esIablishes harmonised measures, procedures
and resources required Io guaranIee Ihe respecI lor inIellecIual properIy righIs
wiIhin Ihe EU, including righIs ol enIry, seizure, injuncIions and awards lor
damages.
AddiIionally, daIabases are granIed proIecIion under a special sysIem wiIh
righIs parallel Io AuIhors' righIs under DIrectIve //CL, regarding Ihe legal
proIecIion ol daIabases (see below).
These DirecIives harmonise Io a cerIain exIenI (buI noI lully) Ihe AuIhors'
righIs}copyrighI regimes ol EU Member SIaIes, providing broad brush similar-
iIy beIween Ihe naIional legal regimes. There are noIable dillerences, parIicu-
larly beIween copyrighI and AuIhors' righIs regimes wiIh respecI Io lair use
and moral righIs, as we will see laIer.
NatIonal law
AI naIional level, Ihese inIernaIional IreaIies and, in Ihe EU, DirecIives
have been implemenIed or legislaIed via sIaIuIe. WiIhouI going inIo Ihe
complexiIies ol inIernaIional privaIe law, iI is imporIanI Io remember IhaI
copyrighI law is naIional law, lor while Ihe proIecIion is "inIernaIional",
courIs apply Ihe law ol Ihe counIry Io works creaIed in IhaI counIry and
dispuIes arising Ihere in relaIion Io oIher works.
Recommended InRx
Spain: Ley sobre la Fropiedad InIelecIual.
UK: CopyrighI, paIenIs and designs AcI 188.
Erance: code de la propriI inIellecIuelle, codilied in laws ol 11 March 1S7 and 3
July 18S.
Germany: German copyrighI law or DeuIsches UrheberrechI is codilied in Ihe GeseIz
uber UrheberrechI und verwandIe SchuIzrechIe (abbreviaIed UrhG).
2. Protected worRx
In Ihis secIion we shall aIIempI Io undersIand Ihe specilic objecI ol proIec-
Iion under AuIhors' righIs (generally speaking, i.e. including Ihus copyrighI),
especially as regards Iheir applicabiliIy Io solIware.
2.1. WorRx
AuIhors' righIs proIecI or granI righIs over "works". A work may be delined
as Ihe lormal expression ol an idea or leeling wished Io be communicaIed
Io Ihe public, expressed by any means or in any lorm, wheIher Iangible or
inIangible, known now or invenIed in Ihe luIure.
The Iype ol work covered by AuIhors' righIs or copyrighI includes lIterary,
artIstIc and scIentIIIc worRs, including Iherelore novels, poems and plays,
painIings, relerence documenIs, newspapers, movies and audiovisual works,
musical composiIions and choreographies, sculpIures, phoIographs, archiIec-
Iural works, adverIising, maps and Iechnical drawings, compuIer programs,
daIabases, and many more works.
II is essenIial Io undersIand IhaI proIecIion by AuIhors' righIs cover Ihe lorm,
Ihe conIainer, Ihe expression ol Ihe creaIive idea, buI noI Ihe conIenI or idea
in iIsell. NeiIher Ihe subjecI ol inspiraIion (lacIs, daIes...), nor ideas are pro-
IecIed by AuIhors' righIs.
Computer Programs
A "compuIer program" is noI delined, buI we can use Ihe lollowing deliniIion,
variaIions ol which are used by several EU Member SIaIes: a sequence oj state-
ments or nstructons expresseJ n worJs, coJes, schemes or n any other jorm, whch
s capahle, when ncorporateJ n a machne-reaJahle meJum, oj causn a computer
(a Jevce wth njormaton processn capahltes) to perjorm a tasl or acheve a
partcular result. |WIFO Model provisions on proIecIion ol solIware, 178}re-
sIaIed 11]. Under Ihe CompuIer Frograms DirecIive, proIecIion is exIended
Io Ihe preparaIory design maIerial, buI noI Io cerIain inIerlace inlormaIion
required lor inIeroperabiliIy.
To undersIand Ihe legal proIecIion ol solIware as any oIher work suscepIible
ol proIecIion by AuIhors' righIs we musI Iake inIo accounI Ihe characIerisIics
ol iIs proIecIion:
Only Ihe expression ol a compuIer program is proIecIed, Ihe source and
objecI code, noI Ihe ideas or algoriIhms Ihey implemenI.
A program is proIecIed as an inIangible good, regardless ol Ihe medium
in which iI is embodied.
The deliniIion and scope ol proIecIion ol compuIer programs means IhaI all
sIages ol preparaIion ol a program are covered, lrom Ihe Iime IhaI Ihere is
an iniIial descripIion, in graphic lorm (llowcharI) or verbal lorm (recorded),
sullicienIly deIailed Io deIermine a seI ol insIrucIions. II includes Ihe expres-
sion in any programming language and also covers Ihe series ol insIrucIions
in semiconducIors (microcode and lirmware).
Accordingly, AuIhors' righIs mainly proIecI Ihe lollowing elemenIs ol solI-
ware:
The compuIer program iIsell (source code, byIe code, objecI code).
The preparaIory documenIaIion, including archiIecIure documenIs
llowcharIs, daIa models, UML diagrams, eIc.
User manuals and Iechnical supporI documenIaIion.
Human inIerlaces, including graphic elemenIs, sounds, lonIs and oIher
audiovisual elemenIs.
2.2. Regurementx Ior grotecton
To be suscepIible ol proIecIion by AuIhors' righIs, a work musI meeI cerIain
condiIions IhaI may be summarised as lollows: "works IhaI are Ihe original
creaIions ol man, expressed by any means or in any medium". Three condi-
Iions Iherelore apply:
CreatIon by man. The program musI be Ihe lruiI ol Ihe inIellecI ol an
auIhor, as a consequence ol his}her acIiviIy.
Lxpressed by any means and through any medIum. InIangible properIy
requires an insIrumenI or means ol being perceived by Ihe ouIside world.
Therelore, works musI be conIained in a Iangible or inIangible means ol
expression, eiIher known now or invenIed in Ihe luIure. Eor solIware, Ihe
means ol expression may be a hard drive, a diskeIIe or CD-ROM, llash
card, eIc.
OrIgInal. To be proIecIed, works musI be original. MeriI or qualiIy, des-
Iined use, degree ol manulacIure, lawlulness or unlawlulness and prioriIy
in Iime are all meaningless.
CompuLerprogramscreaLed
bymachinesaregenerallynoL
deemedsuscepLibleofpro-
LecLion,wiLhLheexcepLionof
compiledsofLware(creaLedby
acompiler),whichisassimilaL-
edLosofLwarecreaLedbyLhe
personwhoconfiguresand
runsLhecompiler.
II is noI easy Io deline originaliIy. Indeed, iI consIiIuIes Ihe mosI dispuIed
maIIer over recenI years in Ihe conIinenIal IradiIion. The mosI orIhodox Ira-
diIion ol Ihe sysIem ol AuIhors' righIs requires a "Irace ol persona or person-
aliIy" ol Ihe auIhor, alIhough Ihere is no unanimiIy in naIional legislaIions in
Ierms ol Ihe degree ol originaliIy IhaI may be required.
The IesI ol Ihe originaliIy ol a work Iends Io have Iwo aspecIs: Ihe lirsI is IhaI
Ihe work musI be original ol Ihe auIhor, in Ihe sense IhaI iI Iruly should have
been creaIed independenIly Ihereby, noI copied lrom oIher work, Ihe second
is IhaI Ihe work musI conIain enough creaIiviIy Io noI be suscepIible ol being
considered someIhing mechanical.
In solIware, iI is dilliculI Io deline when originaliIy exisIs, as iI is a uIiliIy creaIion, where
someIimes Ihere is liIIle room Io manoeuvre. A low-level criIerion has been chosen and,
in general, iI is deemed sullicienI lor Ihe solIware Io be Ihe resulI ol a personal ellorI,
i.e., IhaI iI noI be a copy, lor iI Io be considered original.
The copyrighI sysIem generally requires a lower level ol originaliIy and solely
requires IhaI Ihe creaIion should be Ihe resulI ol a personal ellorI, i.e., IhaI
iI should noI be copy. To Ihe exIenI IhaI Ihe origin ol Ihe solIware may be
aIIribuIed Io Ihe auIhor, i.e., IhaI iI has been creaIed independenIly and has
noI been copied lrom oIher works, iI would be considered original.
2.3. Author'x rghtx and xoItware
IniIially, compuIer programs were noI markeIed separaIely, as Ihey were sold
wiIh Ihe hardware and Iheir proIecIion was conlused wiIh IhaI ol Ihe overall
producI sold, Ihe compuIer (a phenomenon known as bundling, which has
once again acquired imporIance wiIh mobile devices and oIher such iIems).
EurIhermore, Ihere were no Iechnologies IhaI could be used Io copy Ihem or
use Ihem ouIside ol Ihe compuIer in any general way, so Ihere was no greaI
concern lor Iheir proIecIion.
The need lor proIecIion began Io be seen in Ihe laIe sevenIies, when, by rea-
son ol Ihe UniIed SIaIes anIiIrusI legislaIion, IBM was lorced Io separaIe iIs
hardware and solIware businesses. ConsequenIly, compuIer programs began
Io be markeIed in separaIe mediums and Ihe auIonomous proIecIion ol Ihis
Iechnology, exIremely vulnerable Io copy, was warranIed Io proIecI Ihe in-
vesImenIs made in iIs creaIion and also as a means ol encouraging Ihe dis-
seminaIion ol compuIer programs Io larger numbers ol people.
lnLheniLedSLaLes,forin-
sLance,aworkisrequiredLo
beincorporaLedinaLangi-
blemeansofexpression,from
whichiLmaybeperceived,re-
producedorcommunicaLed
byanymeans,wheLherdirecL-
lyorwiLhLheaidofamachine
ordevice.
Hxtor
The leeling ol a need Io proIecI compuIer programs gave way Io a debaIe in Ierms ol Ihe
mosI appropriaIe legal means ol doing so:
In Ihe beginning, Ihe posiIion was susIained IhaI programs could be subjecI Io pro-
IecIion by Ihe legal precepI ol paIenIs (Ihe compuIer program as an invenIion), and
Ihis was upheld by Ihe case law ol Ihe UniIed SIaIes on several occasions. NoneIhe-
less, in Ihe laIe sixIies and early sevenIies, various naIional lawmakers and inIerna-
Iional IreaIies began Io rejecI Ihe proIecIion ol solIware by paIenI. ConsequenIly,
more indusIrialised counIries (subjecI Io greaI pressure by large compuIer companies)
soughI alIernaIive means ol proIecIing Iheir solIware.
A possibiliIy arose Io creaIe specilic or "su eners" proIecIion (Ihe compuIer program
as a new Iype ol creaIion) wiIh a duraIion ol lour Io nine years and mandaIory reg-
isIraIion, alIhough such iniIiaIive never Iook oll (see, lor example, Ihe WIFO Model
Frovisions lor SolIware FroIecIion ol 178 and Ihe DralI InIernaIional TreaIy lor Ihe
FroIecIion ol CompuIer Frograms ol 183).
AnoIher possibiliIy was also seen Io proIecI solIware Ihrough Ihe precepI ol AuIhors'
righIs and copyrighI (Ihe compuIer program as a liIerary work), and Ihis was Ihe
successlul opIion.
Einally, a generally accepIed principle was reached whereby computer pro-
grams would be protected by Authors' rIghts, while Ihe hardware using
compuIer programs or oIher invenIions relaIing Io such programs would be
proIecIed by paIenIs.
The choice ol Ihe sysIem ol AuIhors' righIs lor Ihe proIecIion ol solIware was
based in good parI on Ihe advanIages posed by Ihe proIecIion ol any work
wiIh Ihe AuIhors' righIs sysIem:
AuIomaIism. The righI ol Ihe auIhor derives lrom Ihe mere original cre-
aIion. No novelIy is required.
SimpliciIy. The proIecIion ol a work does noI require regisIraIion aI reg-
isIries, Ihe compliance wiIh lormaliIies or Ihe prior examinaIion ol con-
lormiIy.
Economy. The proIecIion does noI require subsIanIial economic invesI-
menIs.
Coverage. The proIecIion is exIended Io Ihe accessory documenIaIion.
InIernaIionalisaIion. The proIecIion is granIed, Ihrough inIernaIional
IreaIies, IhroughouI almosI Ihe enIire world. The sIandardisaIion ol Au-
Ihors' righIs aI Ihe inIernaIional level is aI a very advanced sIage.
NoIwiIhsIanding Ihese advanIages, Ihe applicaIion ol AuIhors' righIs Io solI-
ware has noI been easy. The sIandardisaIion ol proIecIion aI inIernaIional
level, equaIing compuIer programs Io liIerary works and Iheir proIecIion un-
der Ihe sysIem ol AuIhors' righIs are complicaIed maIIers, applying provisions
IhaI were originally devised lor quiIe dillerenI works. AddiIionally, Ihe laws ol
Ihe conIinenIal counIries have incorporaIed in Iheir AuIhors' righIs sysIems
Ihis soluIion lor Ihe proIecIion ol solIware IhaI is ulIimaIely conceived lor
Ihe copyrighI sysIem ol Anglo-Saxon counIries, giving rise Io dilliculIies wiIh
Ihe IradiIional characIerisIics ol Ihe conIinenIal sysIem, especially Ihe recog-
niIion ol moral righIs.
3. Authorxhg and worRx created n ogen
coIIaboraton
This secIion explains Ihe various acIors IhaI may be involved in Ihe process
ol creaIion and disIribuIion ol works and Ihe various Iypes ol recognised au-
Ihorship. Due Io Ihe numerous lacIors involved in Ihe process ol creaIion ol
solIware, and especially lree solIware, Ihis secIion is especially relevanI.
3.1. Authorx
The auIhor is Ihe individual or human person creaIing a work. In general,
ownership ol righIs in Ihe work corresponds Io Ihe auIhor due Io Ihe mere
lacI ol his}her own original creaIion, by Ihe principle ol auIomaIism, wiIhouI
requiring any addiIional lormaliIy or regisIraIion.
The sIaIus and recogniIion as auIhor ol a work (a moral righI) is inalienable,
iI cannoI be IransmiIIed beIween Ihe living or morts causa, and is noI exIin-
guished wiIh Ihe passing ol Iime. II does noI become a parI ol public domain
and is noI subjecI Io any sIaIuIe ol limiIaIion.
MultIple authors
Works, including in parIicular solIware, may be creaIed Ihrough Ihe ellorI
and labour ol a single person or may be Ihe resulI ol a combined ellorI
ol several. This second scenario is more and more common in pracIice
and, in Ihese cases Ihe aIIribuIion ol auIhorship may prove more complex.
The legal lramework has esIablished various ligures Io deal wiIh Ihese siI-
uaIions, which are noI compleIely saIislacIory, and vary signilicanIly be-
Iween jurisdicIions. The lollowing provides a very general summary.
CollaboratIve or oInt worRs. A collaboraIive or joinI work (work
ol joinI auIhorship, in Ihe copyrighI IradiIion) is IhaI which resulIs
lrom Ihe collaboraIion ol several auIhors Io creaIe a single work, olIen
where Ihe conIribuIions may noI be disIinguished. In Ihis case, righIs
correspond Io all auIhors in Ihe proporIion IhaI Ihey deIermine. In
Ihe absence ol agreemenI, Ihe auIhors are equal-parI owners. While
legal sysIems vary, usually Ihe disseminaIion and modilicaIion ol Ihe
work requires Ihe consenI ol all auIhors. NoneIheless, once Ihe work
has been disclosed, none ol Ihe co-auIhors may unjusIly reluse Iheir
consenI Io iIs exploiIaIion as disclosed. Co-auIhors may exploiI Iheir
conIribuIions separaIely (il separable), provided no damage is caused
Io Ihe joinI exploiIaIion ol Ihe whole.
CollectIve worRs. A collecIive work is generally a work creaIed aI Ihe
iniIiaIive and under Ihe coordinaIion ol an individual or legal person,
who publishes and disseminaIes Ihe work in his}her or iIs own name.
xample
ExLremeprogramming,online
wikiLexLconLribuLedbysever-
alauLhors.
xample
Encyclopaedia,anLhology,cer-
LainfreesofLwaredisLribuLions
suchasMozillacode.
II represenIs Ihe gaIhering ol Ihe conIribuIions ol several auIhors, in
such a manner IhaI iI would be impossible Io aIIribuIe Io any ol Ihem
Ihe righI Io Ihe overall work and each conIribuIion is merged inIo a
single, auIonomous creaIion. The resulI is work wiIh value added Io
Ihe mere aggregaIion ol conIribuIions.
The righIs in Ihe collecIive work are owned by Ihe sponsor or "ediIor", who
publishes Ihe work, wiIhouI prejudice Io Ihe righIs ol each conIribuIor
in his or her conIribuIion. CopyrighI in each separaIe conIribuIion Io a
collecIive work is disIincI lrom copyrighI in Ihe collecIive work as a whole,
and vesIs iniIially in Ihe auIhor ol Ihe conIribuIion.
The concepI ol collecIive work needs Io be IreaIed carelully, as Ihere are
variaIions on how Ihe Ierm is used among dillerenI legal IradiIions. E.g.
wiIhin Ihe US sysIem iI relers Io a combinaIion ol previous works assem-
bled inIo a collecIive whole, usually arranged in such a way IhaI Ihe re-
sulIing work as a whole consIiIuIes an original work ol auIhorship. This
in cerIain European sysIems is called a "composed work" or "compilaIion"
1
(indeed, in Ihe US Ihis Ierm is also used).
(1)
One imporIanI dillerence seems Io sIem lrom wheIher Ihere is an "ediIor" who coor-
dinaIes Ihe work, and wheIher conIribuIions are expressly made lor Ihe collecIive work
(commissioned), or merely combined by a person inIo a compilaIion (e.g. using solIware
libraries).
These ligures do noI necessary cover all lorms ol collaboraIion, especially in
Ihe world ol collaboraIive creaIion ol lree solIware as we commenI below.
Lmployee worRs and worRs Ior hIre
AnoIher siIuaIion Io consider is Ihe creaIion ol works wiIhin Ihe conIexI
ol a legal enIiIy or organisaIion, by employees. In Ihis case, Ihe general
rule and Ihe specilic rule lor solIware (EUCFD ArI. 2.3) is IhaI when
an employee creaIes a work in Ihe exercise ol his or her assigned duIies or
lollowing insIrucIions lrom Ihe employer, Ihe ownership ol Ihe economic
righIs corresponding Io Ihe work corresponds exclusively Io Ihe employer,
unless oIherwise agreed.
NoIe IhaI Ihe employee is sIill Ihe auIhor, buI Ihe economic righIs in Ihe
work are presumed Io be held by Ihe employer.
As regards works creaIed on commission, or "work lor hire" wiIhin Ihe
US IradiIion, Ihe EU lrameworks have chosen noI Io regulaIe Ihe subjecI
maIIer and iI has been Ihe case law IhaI has esIablished IhaI, excepI as
oIherwise agreed, Ihere shall be no auIomaIic Iransmission or assignmenI
ol righIs lrom Ihe original auIhor Io Ihe person who commissioned Ihe
work. The ownership is vesIed in Ihe creaIor and noI Ihe person (individ-
ual or legal person) commissioning Ihe work (Ihe clienI). As an excepIion,
il Ihe clienI is involved in Ihe creaIive process ol Ihe solIware, auIhorship
may become joinI or collecIive.
Usually, lor an employer Io be considered Ihe righIsholder in a compuIer program, Iwo
requiremenIs musI be meI:
The labour relaIion musI be maIerialised by an employmenI conIracI.
The program musI have been creaIed by Ihe employee in Ihe exercise ol Iheir duIies
or lollowing insIrucIions lrom Ihe employer.
Such legal assignmenI ol Ihe equiIy righIs Io Ihe employer does noI preclude Ihe moral
righIs lrom conIinuing Io be Ihe inalienable properIy ol Ihe programmer, in conIinenIal
sysIems.
RIghtsholders and Iree soItware
The parIiculars ol Ihe lree solIware developmenI models, where Ihe con-
IribuIion ol several programmers Io a single work is common, add dilli-
culIies Io IradiIional auIhorship models. To deIermine who Ihe auIhor is,
who has Ihe righIs Io Ihe work and Ihus who can deIermine Ihe license
and has Ihe legiIimaIe righI Io bring acIions lor inlringemenI, iI is neces-
sary Io deIermine Ihe Iype ol work creaIed and iIs owners. The answer will
depend on Ihe specilic developmenI model used, Ihe exisIence or noI ol a
coordinaIor, Ihe possibiliIy ol separaIing Ihe various conIribuIions or noI
and, clearly, Ihe specilic agreemenIs reached.
In a collaboraIive or joinI auIhorship model, lor example, each auIhor is
Ihe owner ol Iheir conIribuIion and ol Ihe whole, Ihe work being exploiIed
collecIively. This implies IhaI il a developmenI model ol Ihe solIware ol
Ihis Iype were chosen, iI would be essenIial lor Ihe auIhors Io reach an
agreemenI, as soon as possible, wiIh respecI Io Ihe licence IhaI would be
applied Io Ihe solIware (as a whole) and Ihe sysIem ol exploiIaIion lor
Ihe resulIing work. In collecIive works, where Ihere is a coordinaIor, Ihe
righIs and exploiIaIion ol Ihe work as a whole should be clearer and iI
is Ihe ediIor who may proIecI Ihe righIs in Ihe collecIive whole (buI noI
necessarily Ihe conIribuIions).
ExamgIe
Examples ol lree solIware applicaIions IhaI could be considered collecIive works (il devel-
oped and disseminaIed under Ihe AuIhors' righIs sysIem) include Ihe Mozilla programs,
coordinaIed by Mozilla.org, or cerIain applicaIions ol Ihe GNU projecI ol Ihe Eree SolI-
ware EoundaIion. There are also "business" applicaIions, such as JBoss, Jasper ReporIs,
OpenOllice.org, SugarCRM, Openbravo, eIc.
To prevenI possible luIure problems, Ihe projecIs lor Ihe developmenI ol
lree solIware elecIing Ihis opIion olIen ensure IhaI each auIhor-conIrib-
uIor licenses or assigns Iheir righIs in wriIing, exclusively or non exclu-
sively, Io Ihe coordinaIing enIiIy, so IhaI iI may correcIly manage Ihe in-
IellecIual properIy righIs Io Ihe applicaIion, specilically, deIermine Ihe
licence sysIem, guaranIee Ihe delence ol any inlracIion, eIc.
ExamgIe
An example ol Ihis prevenIive policy may be lound in Ihe condiIions ol Ihe ESE lor any
conIribuIion made by programmers providing more Ihan Ien lines ol code lor a projecI
coordinaIed Ihereby: Ihey musI Iransler ownership ol Ihe code Io Ihe ESE. A Eiduciary
License AgreemenI has been dralIed wiIhin Ihe EU lor Ihis purpose. OIher esIablished
projecIs (Mozilla, OpenOllice.org, Apache, Eclipse, eIc.) require a license or assignmenI
ol righIs ol one Iype or anoIher. See Ihe siIes ol Apache SolIware EoundaIion and Eclipse.
3.2. Ownerxhg oI rghtx n a dervatve worR
As we have already sIudied, an original work is a work ol auIonomous and
independenI creaIion, even il published collecIively wiIh oIhers. A derivaIive
work, on Ihe oIher hand, is a new work resulIing lrom Ihe IranslormaIion
ol pre-exisIing work, usually wiIhouI Ihe collaboraIion ol Ihe auIhor ol Ihe
laIIer, buI wiIh his}her permission (see below).
As Ihe derivaIive work consIiIuIes a new work, even il iI is based on anoIh-
er, Ihere are Iherelore Iwo dillerenI works and Iwo seIs ol righIs: in Ihe orig-
inal work and Ihe derivaIive work. We will see below IhaI Ihe auIhor ol Ihe
derivaIive work needs Ihe permission ol Ihe original auIhor or righIsholder in
order Io creaIe Ihis new work, and musI exploiI Ihe new derivaIive work in
accordance wiIh Ihe licence granIed by Ihe original righIsholder.
We will also see below IhaI copylelI (in Ihe GFL or oIher copylelI license) is a
lree solIware licensing mechanism enabling oIhers Io creaIe works based on
exisIing solIware, buI lorcing Ihe new auIhor, il he}she redisIribuIes Ihe new
work, Io do so under Ihe Ierms ol Ihe same copylelI lree solIware licence i.e.
mainIaining Ihe lreedom ol Ihe work.
3.3. 1dentIng the author and/or rghtxhoIder
As Ihe original auIhors or righIsholders Io a work are Ihose IhaI can lirsI ex-
ploiI or auIhorise Ihe exploiIaIion ol a work, and may also assign Ihe righIs
Ihereupon (by licence) Io a new righIsholder, iI is clearly imporIanI Io know
Ihe meIhods ol idenIilying Ihe copyrighI holders.
The symbol, inIellecIual properIy regisIraIion and auIhorship recogniIion
noIices in Ihe work iIsell are Ihe mosI common insIrumenIs lor idenIilying
Ihe owner ol Ihe AuIhors' righIs Io any work, alIhough such lormaliIies have
noI been mandaIory since Ihe Berne ConvenIion.
Generally speaking, copyrighI law provides IhaI:
The auIhor shall be presumed Io be whoever appears as such in Ihe work
by name, signaIure or mark idenIilying Ihem (noIice ol auIhorship: Jane
SmiIh, 2007).
Il Ihe work has been disseminaIed anonymously or under a pen name,
Ihe exercise ol Ihe righIs shall correspond Io Ihe person disseminaIing Ihe
work wiIh Ihe consenI ol Ihe auIhor.
The assignmenI ol righIs by Ihe auIhor, as a general rule, is noI presumed:
iI requires a specilic acI in wriIing. In Ihe absence ol such acI, Ihe owner
reserves all righIs.
Eor lree solIware, Ihe idenIilicaIion ol Ihe auIhor may be problemaIic, lor
insIance, in Ihe evenI IhaI Ihere are several anonymous auIhors conIribuIing
code Io a parIicular applicaIion (Mozilla, GNOME, KDE, eIc.). Such dilliculIy
in idenIilying Ihe auIhor may cause problems when requesIing consenI lor a
change in licence or lor acIive auIhenIicaIion in Ihe evenI ol an inlracIion.
To deal wiIh Ihis Iype ol problem, Ihe coordinaIors ol cerIain lree applicaIions
mainIain lisIs ol conIribuIors and have esIablished lisIs ol unidenIilied au-
Ihors. Eor insIance, Ihe Eree SolIware EoundaIion requires IhaI each conIrib-
uIor should idenIily Ihemselves wiIh Ihe projecI coordinaIor. MySQL AB only
accepIs conIribuIions Io iIs lree daIabase engine lrom Ihose IhaI have signed
iIs developer's agreemenI.
One requiremenI common Io all lree solIware licences is Ihe compulsory men-
Iion ol Ihe ownership ol Ihe original work by mainIaining Ihe copyrighI no-
Iice. NoneIheless, each licence esIablishes dillerenI requiremenIs in respecI ol
Ihe public noIices ol auIhorship (lor insIance, in Ihe documenIaIion).
Along Ihese lines, Ihe Apache licence requires IhaI Ihe menIion should be mainIained
in derivaIive works ol Ihe auIhorship ol Ihe original solIware, while Ihe GFL requires
providing indicaIions IhaI Ihe work has been modilied, when and by whom. The MFL
requires indicaIion or descripIion ol Ihe changes (e.g. wiIh a dill lile).
LookaLLhesecondprinLed
pageofanybook,andyouwill
generallyseeLhecopyrighLin-
formaLion,wiLhanoLeofLhe
righLsofLheoriginalauLhor
inLheLexL,andLherighLsof
LhepublisherinLheprinLedor
ediLedediLion.
4. Rghtx n grotected worRx
In Ihis secIion we will sIudy Ihe core ol AuIhors' righIs: Ihe righIs invesIed in
Ihe auIhor or owner ol Ihe righIs Io Ihe work. In Ihe conIinenIal sysIem, Iwo
Iypes ol righIs are disIinguished: personal or moral righIs and paIrimonial or
economic righIs.
4.1. PerxonaI or moraI rghtx
The conIinenIal sysIem ol AuIhors' righIs supporIs Ihe inIimaIe connecIion
beIween Ihe auIhor and Ihe work and, as opposed Io Ihe copyrighI sysIem,
declares IhaI auIhors have a "moral righI Io limiI Ihe modilicaIion and man-
ilesIaIion ol Iheir work", even alIer having Iranslerred iIs economic righIs Io
a Ihird parIy. The moral righI ol auIhors Io Iheir work is made up ol several
righIs and IhaI, Io simplily, serve Io "proIecI Iheir name and Ihe inIegriIy ol
Ihe work" and prohibiI any modilicaIion wiIhouI Iheir prior consenI.
While naIional regimes vary, Ihe lollowing moral righIs are generally granIed
Io Ihe creaIor:
To decide in respecI ol Ihe disseminaIion ol Ihe work.
To deIermine how Ihe disseminaIion is Io be made, in Iheir name, under
a pen name or anonymously.
To Ihe recogniIion ol Iheir name and Ihe respecI lor Iheir sIaIus as auIhors.
To demand IhaI Ihe inIegriIy ol Iheir work be respecIed and Io prevenI
any alIeraIion Ihereol IhaI could imply any damage Io Iheir legiIimaIe
inIeresIs or undermine Iheir repuIaIion.
To modily Ihe work, respecIing Ihe righIs acquired by Ihird parIies and
Ihe requiremenIs lor Ihe proIecIion ol goods ol culIural inIeresI.
To wiIhdraw Ihe work lrom Ihe markeI lor changes in Iheir inIellecIual or
moral convicIions, upon prior indemnilicaIion lor damages Io Ihe owners
ol Ihe exploiIaIion righIs (righI Io repenIance).
To access unique or rare copies ol Ihe work, when in hands ol anoIher, in
order Io exercise disseminaIion righIs or any oIher ol Iheir vesIed righIs.
These personal righIs accompany Ihe auIhor during his}her enIire lile, being
non-waivable, non-Iranslerable, inalienable and some are even perpeIual (i.e.
inheriIed by heirs ol Ihe auIhor).
When regulaIing AuIhors' righIs applied Io solIware, in Ihe CompuIer Fro-
grams DirecIive ol 11 Ihere is very limiIed menIion Io moral righIs and Ihere
is no menIion Io Ihe oIher equiIy righIs ol auIhors (compensaIion righIs, as
we shall discuss). NoneIheless, Ihe majoriIy ol Ihe docIrine undersIands IhaI
moral righIs do apply Io solIware.
The recogniIion ol Ihe moral righIs granIed under Ihe conIinenIal sysIem Io
Ihe auIhors ol compuIer programs may prove inconvenienI lor companies en-
gaged in Ihe manulacIure ol solIware (Ihink ol Ihe repenIance righI). DocIrine
susIains IhaI a way Io avoid Ihem is Io sIrip individuals ol Ihe auIhorship ol
programs. In Ihe developmenI ol proprieIary solIware, companies may Iake
over all Ihe righIs as employers or as publishers or coordinaIors ol a collecIive
work.
In Ihe developmenI ol lree solIware, Ihe maIIer is more complex. To deIermine
Ihe exisIence and Ihe possible owners ol moral righIs, iI is necessary Io sIudy
Ihe specilic developmenI model and Ihe agreemenIs reached by Ihe various
programmers involved in Ihe creaIion.
WhaI is inIeresIing, however, is IhaI nearly Ihe ONLY requiremenI common Io
all lree solIware licences is IhaI ol mainIaining Ihe original copyrighI noIices,
and lor many licences IhaI ol idenIilying il a work has been changed. This is a
documenIary lorm (il noI necessarily conIracIual) ol respecIing moral righIs.
4.2. Economc or gatrmonaI rghtx
Economic or paIrimonial righIs are based on Ihe convicIion IhaI auIhors
should be compensaIed lor exercising Iheir unique creaIive abiliIies, Ihus pro-
moIing Ihe creaIion and disseminaIion ol new works. The law Iherelore granIs
cerIain exclusive righIs Io righIsholders enabling Ihem Io obIain pecuniary
beneliIs derived lrom Ihe work, Ihrough exclusive use or assignmenI or licens-
ing Io Ihird parIies. In exchange lor Ihe Iransler ol righIs, Ihe auIhor shall
receive compensaIion (or noI), which is generally proporIional Io Ihe income
generaIed by Ihe exploiIaIion ol such work.
In some jurisdicIions, like Spain and Erance, Ihese righIs are concepIually di-
vided inIo Ihe righIs Io Ihe exploiIaIion ol Ihe work and righIs IhaI are merely
compensaIory in respecI ol oIhers' use. These are discussed in lurIher deIail
below.
Exclusive exploiIaIion righIs are Ihose recognised by law Io Iheir owner and
granI an exclusive power Io exercise or auIhorise (and, accordingly, Io prohib-
iI) belorehand cerIain lorms or acIs ol exploiIaIion wiIh respecI Io Iheir work.
AcIs ol exploiIaIion include, wiIhouI limiIaIion, reproducIion (copy), disIri-
buIion, public communicaIion and IranslormaIion.
EL Comguter Programx Orectve, ArtcIe 4
SubjecI Io Ihe provisions ol ArIicles S and o, Ihe exclusive righIs ol Ihe righIholder wiIhin
Ihe meaning ol ArIicle 2, shall include Ihe righI Io do or Io auIhorise:
(a) The permanenI or Iemporary reproducIion ol a compuIer program by any means and
in any lorm, in parI or in whole. Insolar as loading, displaying, running, Iransmission
or sIorage ol Ihe compuIer program necessiIaIe such reproducIion, such acIs shall be
subjecI Io auIhorisaIion by Ihe righIholder.
(b) The IranslaIion, adapIaIion, arrangemenI and any oIher alIeraIion ol a compuIer
program and Ihe reproducIion ol Ihe resulIs Ihereol, wiIhouI prejudice Io Ihe righIs ol
Ihe person who alIers Ihe program.
(c) Any lorm ol disIribuIion Io Ihe public, including Ihe renIal, ol Ihe original compuIer
program or ol copies Ihereol.
As may be seen, Ihe exploiIaIion righIs ol Ihe auIhor ol a compuIer program
are basically Ihe same as Ihose lor any oIher work, alIhough Ihey musI be
adapIed Io iIs own characIerisIics.
4.2.1. Regroducton rght
ReproducIion consisIs ol incorporaIing a work or any parI Ihereol on a medi-
um allowing lor iIs communicaIion and obIaining lurIher copies, direcIly or
indirecIly, provisionally or permanenIly, by any means or in any lorm. Even
shorI-lived copies are considered reproducIions.
ELCO, ArtcIe 2. Regroducton rght
Member SIaIes shall provide lor Ihe exclusive righI Io auIhorise or prohibiI direcI or
indirecI, Iemporary or permanenI reproducIion by any means and in any lorm, in whole
or in parI...
Actx regurng authorxaton
In principle, Ihe lollowing acIs require auIhorisaIion, as Ihey consIiIuIe reproducIions:
Downloading lrom Ihe neI and sIorage Io a local hard drive or llash card.
Making copies on CDs, DVDs, or llash memory (subjecI Io Ihe righI Io make privaIe
copies or lair use).
Transmission: Ihe delivery Io anoIher sysIem by IelecommunicaIion, local neIwork,
eIc. or uploading ol liles onIo a web server, or Iheir download Io a local compuIer
(lor insIance, F2F Iranslers) or aIIaching a lile Io an email and sending iI.
Loading a program Io execuIe iI: inIroducing Ihe program inIo Ihe RAM.
FresenIaIion: on-screen visualisaIion ol Ihe graphic inIerlace.
The inIegraIion or incorporaIion ol Ihe code lines ol a Ihird parIy in a new develop-
menI.
NoLeLhaLLheECPDdoesnoL
applyLhepubliccommunica-
LionrighL(e.g.Lransmissions
indigiLalformaLviaLheweb)
LosofLware,howeveriLisgen-
erallyundersLood(eiLherby
docLrineorcaselaw)LhaLsofL-
wareissubjecLLoLhisexclusive
righL.
The righI Io copy or reproduce (excepI lor backup or securiIy copies and pri-
vaIe copies, Ihe lormer being permiIIed and Ihe laIIer prohibiIed in relaIion
Io solIware, as we shall see) is lundamenIal in licences, as iI is necessary Io
have iI Io be able Io run}use Ihe program. We should noneIheless noIe IhaI
a "legiIimaIe user" (say a user wiIh a "usage licence" IhaI does noI necessarily
specily Ihe relevanI righIs, as is Ihe case wiIh many poorly-dralIed licences)
does noI require such auIhorisaIion merely Io use Ihe program (ArIicle 100.1).
The subjecI ol reproducIion is quiIe conIroversial and dilliculI Io resolve in
relaIion Io Ihe solIware, due Io Ihe diverse naIure ol a program: iI is made up
ol Ihe elemenIs ol design (iIs archiIecIure and sIrucIure), code lines (which
may be objecI code or source code) and Ihe resulI ol iIs perlormance. A repro-
ducIion may Iake place aI any level or in relaIion Io any elemenI.
A verbatIm reproductIon ol Ihe code lines wiIhouI auIhorisaIion (cuI and
pasIe) is Ihe mosI common inlracIion in relaIion Io compuIer programs. How-
ever iI is considered IhaI Ihere are oIher lorms ol reproducIion, known as
non-verbatIm reproductIon, which may also consIiIuIe breaches ol Ihe re-
producIion righIs. Non-verbaIim elemenIs ol a program can include iIs sIruc-
Iure and archiIecIure, daIa inpuI and ouIpuI lormaIs, AFI lormaI, graphic in-
Ierlace (look and leel), eIc. Delining wheIher or noI a copy exisIs in Ihe case
ol Iwo programs IhaI are similar in non-verbaIim elemenIs is a complicaIed
maIIer.
ExamgIex oI non-verbatm cogex
An inIeresIing elemenI lor sIudy in relaIion Io non-verbaIim copies would be Ihe case ol
Iwo dillerenI programs IhaI have similar resulIs. II could be Ihe resulI, lor insIance, ol
Ihe re-engineering ol Ihe lirsI (Ihe creaIion ol a new expression ol Ihe underlying ideas),
which would generally be permiIIed by law, provided Ihe resulI ol Ihe re-engineering
were noI done Ihrough sIudying and reviewing Ihe code ol Ihe lirsI solIware.
AnoIher scenario would be IhaI in which, alIhough no verbaIim copy ol Ihe lines ol
Ihe code ol Ihe original were used in Ihe developmenI ol Ihe second program, iI could
be argued IhaI Ihe second is a copy ol Ihe lirsI due Io Ihe luncIions, sIrucIure, daIa
organisaIion and}or Ihe resulI ol iIs process (Ihe graphic inIerlace, lor insIance) being
Ioo similar.
There is a cerIain amounI ol case law on non-verbaIim copies ol compuIer
programs, especially in Ihe UniIed SIaIes, alIhough unlorIunaIely, lor Ihe Iime
being, Ihere is no linal and unanimous answer Io Ihe quesIion. In Ihe UniIed
Kingdom, lor insIance, Ihe IesI currenIly accepIed by Ihe courIs is IhaI a copy
exisIs il, in Ihe developmenI ol Ihe second program, Ihere has been use ol Ihe
"slll anJ juJement oj the ornal authors" in relerence Io Ihe daIa sIrucIure,
Ihe sysIem archiIecIure, Ihe developmenI and implemenIaIion meIhods, Ihe
graphic inIerlace, eIc. Therelore, Io delend lrom unauIhorised copies, iI is noI
always necessary Io prove Ihe exisIence ol a verbaIim copy (a Iask IhaI is usu-
ally dilliculI due Io Ihe lack ol access Io Ihe source code ol Ihe inlringing pro-
gram and iIs developmenI documenIs).
These elemenIs are especially relevanI in Ihe developmenI ol lree solIware as
several lree applicaIions imiIaIe, and olIen improve on, proprieIary applica-
Iions. AddiIionally, proving Ihe exisIence ol copying is easier wiIh Ihe lree
solIware, as iIs source code is disIribuIed openly.
4.2.2. Rght to dxtrbuton
DisIribuIion is undersIood as Ihe making available Io Ihe public ol Ihe original
or copies ol Ihe work by sale, renIal, loan or any oIher means.
ELCO Art 4: Oxtrbuton rght
EUCD ArI 4: DisIribuIion righI. 1. Member SIaIes shall provide lor auIhors, in respecI ol
Ihe original ol Iheir works or ol copies Ihereol, Ihe exclusive righI Io auIhorise or prohibiI
any lorm ol disIribuIion Io Ihe public by sale or oIherwise.
This righI covers lor example Ihe sale ol books or magazines in shops, Ihe dis-
IribuIion ol solIware in boxes (via ecommerce or on Ihe shelves ol compuIer
shops), or Ihe disIribuIion ol works on CDs wiIh magazines.
DisIribuIion requires Ihe use ol Iangible copy, Iherelore, in cyberspace Ihe
concepI ol disIribuIion is disIorIed and, as we shall see, IhaI ol public com-
municaIion is reclaiming iIs relevance.
One ol Ihe mosI complex issues in Ihis maIIer is Ihe exhaustIon oI dIstrIbu-
tIon rIghts. This basically means IhaI once a copy has been disIribuIed, Ihe
righIsholder can no longer conIrol Ihe exploiIaIion (sale, redisIribuIion) ol
IhaI copy.
The exclusive disIribuIion righI ol Ihe owner "is exhausIed" wiIh Ihe "lirsI sale in Ihe
European Union ol a copy by Ihe owner ol Ihe righIs or wiIh Iheir consenI", excepI as
regards Ihe renIals}leasing ol Ihe program (in Ihis case, Ihere is no exhausIion lor disIri-
buIion ouIside Ihe EU). Eacing Ihis possibiliIy, solIware suppliers are carelul Io clearly
esIablish in Iheir end user licence IhaI Ihey are noI "selling" any copies Io Ihe user, as
Ihis would imply Iheir waiver ol Ihe exclusive righI Io conIrol Ihe disIribuIion ol Ihe
copies and Ihe user could lreely disIribuIe Iheir copy (alIhough Ihey could noI make any
subsequenI copies lor disIribuIion), aI leasI in Ihe European Union.
Accordingly, in mosI licences, Ihe owner}supplier "sells" Ihe solIware medium
(Ihe CD-ROM), buI wiIh respecI Io Ihe solIware iI solely granIs Ihe user Ihe
righI Io use iI by licence, prohibiIing Iheir IransmiIIance ol Ihe usage righI.
UnauthorIsed soItware copIes loans7 There is cerIain discussion as Io
wheIher Ihe owner ol Ihe exploiIaIion righIs may prevenI cerIain users lrom
"lending" Ihe copy ol Ihe solIware. A loan is disIinguished lrom renIal in IhaI,
alIhough in boIh cases Ihe user Iemporarily assigns Ihe copy Io a Ihird parIy,
Ihe loan is lree ol charge.
ExamgIe oI Sgan
In Spain, Ihe law provides a general excepIion (lor liIerary and arIisIic works, eIc.) Io Ihe
disIribuIion righI lor cerIain culIural insIiIuIions ol general inIeresI (museums, libraries,
eIc.) who are allowed Io make loans wiIhouI having Io obIain auIhorisaIion lrom Ihe
owners or pay Ihem any compensaIion. II is undersIood IhaI Ihis excepIion does noI
apply Io solIware. Therelore, alIhough we may believe IhaI such prohibiIion is olIen
excessive, under a sIricI inIerpreIaIion ol Ihe law, libraries or Ieaching insIiIuIions cannoI
lend solIware wiIhouI express auIhorisaIion.
4.2.3. Rght oI gubIc communcaton
The concepI ol public communicaIion is originally conceived lor IheaIre,
movies or IradiIional radio, i.e., lor acIs ol public broadcasI ol a work wiIhouI
Ihe disIribuIion ol hardcopies.
ELCO Art 3: PubIc Communcaton
Member SIaIes shall provide auIhors wiIh Ihe exclusive righI Io auIhorise or prohibiI any
communicaIion Io Ihe public ol Iheir works, by wire or wireless means, including Ihe
making available Io Ihe public ol Iheir works in such a way IhaI members ol Ihe public
may access Ihem lrom a place and aI a Iime individually chosen by Ihem.
WiIh Ihe implemenIaIion ol Ihe 2001 EU CopyrighI in Ihe InlormaIion So-
cieIy DirecIive, public communicaIion was exIended lrom "any act wherehy
a pluralty oj persons may access the worl wthout the pror Jstrhuton oj coun-
terparts to each oj them" (excepI wiIhin a sIricIly-domesIic environmenI), Io
"maln avalahle to the puhlc throuh wreJ or wreless proceJures, so that anyone
may access them jrom the place anJ tme oj ther choce", a Ierm devised lor Ihe
disIribuIion ol works over Ihe inIerneI.
Breach oI the rght to gubIc communcaton
A pracIical example ol Ihe breach ol Ihis righI is Ihe uploading ol a program onIo Ihe
inIerneI on a given siIe (Warez, lor insIance) or making iI available Io Ihird parIies lrom
Ihe compuIer iIsell, using F2F programs such as eDonkey, eMule, Kazaa, eIc.
Two clarilicaIions:
This righI does noI encompass privaIe communicaIions and, Iherelore, iI
is noI considered Io be a public communicaIion or making available when
made wiIhin a sIricIly domesIic environmenI, noI inIegraIed or connecIed
Io a broadcasI neIwork ol any sorI.
There is no exhausIion (ArIicle 3.3 ol Ihe DirecIive).
The problem is how Io separaIe whaI are public communicaIions lrom whaI
are privaIe communicaIions on Ihe inIerneI. Eor insIance, is Ihere a privaIe
communicaIion il we send a documenI Io lilIy lriends7 WhaI il we seI up a
"privaIe" peer Io peer program and solely open our compuIer up Io cerIain
people7
4.2.4. TranxIormaton rght
The IranslormaIion ol works includes Iheir IranslaIion, adapIaIion and any
oIher modilicaIion by which a dillerenI work is creaIed. Should Ihe Iranslor-
maIion be made wiIhouI auIhorisaIion (express or impliciI Ihrough Ihe col-
laboraIion ol Ihe auIhor ol Ihe pre-exisIing work), Ihe AuIhors' righIs ol Ihe
righIsholder ol Ihe original work shall have been violaIed.
As we have already noIed, Ihe AuIhors' righIs or copyrighIs in Ihe work re-
sulIing lrom a IranslormaIion correspond Io Ihe new auIhor. This auIhor will
noneIheless require auIhorisaIion lrom Ihe auIhor ol Ihe pre-exisIing work
during Ihe enIire Ierm ol proIecIion ol Iheir righIs Io Ihe original work, Io ex-
ploiI Ihe resulIs by any means (e.g. direcIly or by disIribuIion Io Ihird parIies)
and, especially, Ihrough iIs reproducIion, disIribuIion, public communicaIion
or new IranslormaIion.
There are cerIain limiIs Io Ihis righI in relaIion Io solIware, as we will see below.
TransIormatIon rIghts and Iree soItware
As we have explained in Ihe secIion on original works and derivaIive works,
Ihe model commonly used lor Ihe developmenI ol lree solIware olIen implies
Ihe IranslormaIion ol pre-exisIing works.
Therelore, lree solIware licences consider Ihe licensing ol such IranslormaIion
righI one ol Ihe bases ol solIware lreedom. In oIher words, il a licence does
noI granI any IranslormaIion righIs, iI is noI a lree licence.
While Ihere is signilicanI debaIe abouI Ihe scope ol a derivaIive work, iI gen-
erally resulIs lrom a modilicaIion ol Ihe original work (adding, eliminaIing
or modilying elemenIs lrom Ihe prior work) and}or, more arguably, iIs inIe-
graIion inIo a greaIer work IhaI is based on Ihe componenI (however, Ihis
depends on iIs lorm ol inIegraIion).
DerivaIive works require Ihe auIhorisaIion ol Ihe righIsholder in Ihe prior
work (express via licence, or impliciI Ihrough Ihe collaboraIion ol Ihe auIhor),
and a work incorporaIing pre-exisIing work wiIhouI auIhorisaIion would in-
lringe upon Ihe AuIhors' righIs ol Ihe owner ol Ihe original work, as we will
see below.
DerivaIive works are a conIroversial subjecI wiIh respecI Io lree solIware, due
Io Ihe dilliculIies in disIinguishing beIween derivaIive work, collaboraIive or
joinI work and collecIive or composed work and whaI auIhorisaIions are re-
quired Io creaIe a work including Ihird parIy componenIs, libraries, eIc. The
dilliculIies arise basically in Iwo respecIs:
Blnary software
lorexample,binarysofLwareis
definedasaLransformaLionof
Lhesourcecode,andanimple-
menLaLionofLhecodeforoLh-
erhardware}devices.
In relaIion Io Ihe process oI creatIon ol lree solIware, Ihis disIincIion is
quiIe relevanI lor, as we have seen, lree solIware is based on Ihe incorpo-
raIion, adding and modilicaIion ol pre-exisIing work. The usual lree solI-
ware developmenI model implies a subsIanIial amounI ol conIribuIors Io
Ihe same applicaIion. Some auIhors provide new code (Ihus creaIing col-
laboraIive or collecIive works), oIhers correcI or improve an exisIing code
(Ihus creaIing derivaIive work). Some auIhors also add a noIice ol auIhor-
ship, while oIhers do noI.
A key Io Ihe prevenIion ol auIhorship conllicIs in a lree solIware develop-
menI projecI may lie in Ihe "contrhutve ntent" ol each auIhor and in Ihe
proper managemenI ol inIellecIual properIy:
In Ihe absence ol an express agreemenI in Ierms ol Ihe condiIions lor
collaboraIion, Ihose managing solIware musI rely on an impliciI as-
signmenI ol righIs (which is noI legally valid) or on Ihe absence ol
claims by Ihe conIribuIing programmers lacing any lorm ol exploiIa-
Iion.
Good managemenI ol Ihe process ol collaboraIive creaIion requires an
assignmenI or express license ol righIs by a specilic agreemenI, such as
a conIribuIion agreemenI, or Ihrough Ihe requiremenI IhaI conIribu-
Iions should be made under a "projecI licence" or a compaIible licence.
Regarding Ihe use and exploItatIon oI Iree soItware, Ihis disIincIion be-
Iween original and derivaIive work is also imporIanI. All lree solIware li-
cences allow lor Ihe modilicaIion (adapIaIion, IranslaIion, eIc.) ol appli-
caIions and, Iherelore, Ihe creaIion ol derivaIive works. Some lree solIware
licences impose condiIions on Ihe redisIribuIion and use ol such deriva-
Iive works (Ihe GFL lor insIance), while oIhers do noI (Ihe BSD).
II is Ihus imporIanI Io properly undersIand Ihe deliniIion ol derivaIive work Io know
wheIher a developmenI made based on a lree applicaIion (lor insIance, inIegraIing iI,
modilying iI, using iI, eIc.) may be considered work IhaI is derived lrom Ihe original (and,
Iherelore, Io have respecIed Ihe condiIions ol Ihe licence wiIh regard Io modilicaIion
and redisIribuIion) or an original work using iI wiIhouI modilying iI (an independenI
work, wiIh iIs own licence).
4.2.5. StrctI-comgenxator rghtx
SIricIly-compensaIory righIs are basically Ihe righI Io parIicipaIe in Ihe resale
price ol plasIic works (Jrot Je sute) and Ihe righI Io compensaIion lor privaIe
copies. The righI Io compensaIion lor privaIe copies is held Io be an inalien-
able righI ol Ihe auIhors and arIisIs, inIerpreIers or perlormers, compensaIing
Ihe inIellecIual properIy righIs noI received lor Ihe reproducIion ol Ihe pro-
IecIed works or services Io be used exclusively privaIely by Ihe copyisI.
The Iev on bIanR COx
II is imporIanI Io know Ihe impacI IhaI Ihe righI Io compensaIion lor privaIe copies due
Io Ihe consequences IhaI Ihe applicaIion ol a levy Io virgin CDs will have lor users ol
compuIer programs. In Spain, lor example, Ihe levy has been imposed Io compensaIe
Ihe privaIe copies ol music IhaI may be made by privaIe persons. BuI Ihe same CDs are
used Io make securiIy or backup copies ol compuIer programs, leading Io Ihe argumenI
IhaI Ihis soluIion is unlair, and Ihe courIs have on several occasions required Ihe levy
Io be reIurned.
These levies are managed by collecIing socieIies, bodies like Ihe FFL in Ihe UK,
SACEM in Erance, or SGAE in Spain, which we commenI on below.
4.3. Other rghtx grotected
The legal lramework also resIricIs cerIain "secondary" acIs, in Ihe sense IhaI
Ihey are noI direcI breaches ol exclusive righIs, buI indirecIly allecI Ihem,
associaIed wiIh solIware, and may consIiIuIe inIellecIual properIy violaIions:
FuIIing inIo circulaIion a copy ol a compuIer program knowing, or hav-
ing reason Io believe, IhaI iI is an inlringing copy (Ihis could arguably be
exIended, lor insIance, Io companies basing Iheir business on disIribuIing
F2F solIware expressly sIaIing iIs use lor sharing music liles).
The possession, lor commercial purposes, ol a copy ol a compuIer program
knowing, or having reason Io believe, IhaI iI is an inlringing copy.
FuIIing inIo circulaIion, or Ihe possession lor commercial purposes ol, any
"means" Ihe sole inIended purpose ol which is Io laciliIaIe Ihe unauIho-
rised removal or circumvenIion ol any Iechnical device (a Technical Fro-
IecIion Measure, or TFM) which may have been applied Io proIecI a com-
puIer program (e.g. rippers and cracks).
In cerIain circumsIances, Ihe general regime ol copyrighI law also punishes
Ihose who aid and abeI Ihe commission ol a breach (e.g. by providing services
ol Iransmission, broadcasIing or disIribuIion ol illegal works wiIh knowledge),
and Ihe manulacIure, markeIing or disIribuIion ol arIicles desIined lor Ihe
illegal copying ol proIecIed works.
Anyinfringingcopyofacom-
puLerprogramandanyille-
galmeansforeludingLech-
nicalproLecLionmechanisms
(1PM)shallbeliableLoseizure
inaccordancewiLhLhelegisla-
LionofLheMemberSLaLecon-
cerned.
5. Lmtx oI authorx' rghtx/cogrght ~ Iar uxe
As we have seen, Ihe auIhor or righIsholder ol a work has virIually absoluIe
conIrol over iIs use. NoneIheless, general inIeresI imposes Iemporal and sub-
sIanIive limiIs on such monopoly ol Ihe auIhor or righIsholder, recognised
in Ihe legislaIion on AuIhors' righIs. SeI ouI nexI are Ihe excepIions or limi-
IaIions recognised by law wiIh respecI Io Ihe righIs IhaI we have seen in Ihe
preceding secIion.
5.1. Tme Imtatonx: duraton
Ownership is eIernal, noneIheless, inIellecIual properIy is subjecI Io a Ierm.
ThroughouI Ihe enIire European Union, Ihe general rule applies IhaI alIer
sevenIy years have lapsed lrom Ihe deaIh ol Ihe auIhor or Ihe declaraIion ol
Iheir deaIh, Ihe work becomes parI ol Ihe public domain. Works in Ihe public
domain may be used by anyone, provided Iheir auIhorship and inIegriIy are
respecIed.
NoIwiIhsIanding Ihe general sevenIy-year rule, Ihere are special Ierms lor cer-
Iain Iypes ol work. Eor insIance:
ExploiIaIion righIs lor anonymous or pseudonymous works shall endure
sevenIy years lrom Iheir lawlul disseminaIion.
ExploiIaIion righIs lor collaboraIive works shall endure Ihe enIire lives
ol Ihe co-auIhors, plus sevenIy years lrom Ihe deaIh ol Ihe lasI surviving
co-auIhor.
ExploiIaIion righIs Io collecIive works endure sevenIy years lrom Ihe law-
lul disclosure ol Ihe proIecIed works.
The righIs Io "business" works endure sevenIy years lrom Ihe 1sI ol January
immediaIely lollowing Iheir lirsI publicaIion.
Authorx' rghtx n the Lnted Statex
The duraIion ol AuIhors' righIs in Ihe UniIed SIaIes is complex, as iI is dependenI on
various lacIors, including wheIher or noI Ihe work has been published. The general rule
lor works creaIed alIer 1 January 178, is IhaI Ihey are proIecIed by inIellecIual properIy
righIs during Ihe lile ol Ihe auIhor, plus an addiIional sevenIy years. Eor anonymous,
pseudonymous or commissioned works, copyrighIs lasI nineIy-live years lrom Iheir lirsI
publicaIion, or one hundred and IwenIy years lrom Iheir creaIion, whichever Ierm ex-
pires lirsI. Eor compuIer programs, Ihe duraIion ol copyrighI in Ihe UniIed SIaIes is lilIy
years alIer Ihe deaIh ol Ihe auIhor or sevenIy-live years lrom Ihe publicaIion ol commis-
sioned works.
II is also necessary Io bear in mind IhaI neighbouring righIs have shorIer Ierms
and IhaI moral righIs, such as paIerniIy and inIegriIy, are perpeIual.
5.2. Subxtantve Imtx: excegtonx
As we have seen, exploiIaIion righIs are noI absoluIe, inasmuch as Ihe law
specilies, as excepIions, cerIain acIs which may be perlormed wiIhouI express
auIhorisaIion and someIimes even wiIhouI compensaIion.
The purpose ol Ihe excepIions in mosI works is Io proIecI Ihe public inIeresI,
such as educaIion, access Io culIure, lreedom ol inlormaIion and criIicism,
and lree compeIiIion. All limiIaIions musI be applied in accordance wiIh Ihe
Berne Ihree-sIep IesI, i.e. in cerIain specilied cases which do noI conllicI wiIh
a normal exploiIaIion ol Ihe work and which do noI unreasonably prejudice
Ihe legiIimaIe inIeresIs ol Ihe righIsholder.
This is noI Ihe place Io enIer inIo a long discussion on Ihe excepIions, much
ol which Iook place during Ihe dralIing ol Ihe EUCD, however we lind iI ol
use Io presenI Ihe (summary) lisI below. The lisI seems long, however Ihey are
olIen limiIed in manners which make Iheir use dilliculI (e.g. public educaIion
whaI abouI privaIe or chariIy-based educaIion7).
ELCO ArtcIe 5 ~ Excegtonx and Imtatonx {xummar}
Temporary acIs ol reproducIion .... which are IransienI or incidenIal |and] an inIegral
and essenIial parI ol a Iechnological process and whose sole purpose is Io enable (a)
a Iransmission in a neIwork beIween Ihird parIies by an inIermediary, or (b) a lawlul
use...
ReproducIions on paper or any similar medium, ellecIed by Ihe use ol any kind ol
phoIographic Iechnique or by some oIher process having similar ellecIs, wiIh Ihe
excepIion ol sheeI music, provided IhaI Ihe righIholders receive lair compensaIion...
ReproducIions on any medium made by a naIural person lor privaIe use and lor ends
IhaI are neiIher direcIly nor indirecIly commercial, on condiIion IhaI Ihe righIhold-
ers receive lair compensaIion...
Specilic acIs ol reproducIion made by publicly accessible libraries, educaIional esIab-
lishmenIs or museums, or by archives, which are noI lor direcI or indirecI economic
or commercial advanIage...
Ephemeral recordings ol works made by broadcasIing organisaIions by means ol Iheir
own laciliIies and lor Iheir own broadcasIs, Ihe preservaIion ol Ihese recordings in
ollicial archives...
ReproducIions ol broadcasIs made by social insIiIuIions pursuing non-commercial
purposes...
IllusIraIion lor Ieaching or scienIilic research, as long as Ihe source, including Ihe
auIhor's name, is indicaIed...
Uses, lor Ihe beneliI ol people wiIh a disabiliIy, which are direcIly relaIed Io Ihe
disabiliIy and ol a non-commercial naIure...
ReproducIion by Ihe press, communicaIion Io Ihe public or making available ol pub-
lished arIicles on currenI economic, poliIical or religious Iopics... in cases where such
use is noI expressly reserved, and as long as Ihe source, including Ihe auIhor's name,
is indicaIed.. or reporIing ol currenI evenIs, Io Ihe exIenI jusIilied by Ihe inlormaIory
purpose...
QuoIaIions lor purposes such as criIicism or review, ...
Fublic securiIy or Io ensure Ihe proper perlormance or reporIing ol adminisIraIive,
parliamenIary or judicial proceedings...
FoliIical speeches as well as exIracIs ol public lecIures or similar works...
During religious celebraIions or ollicial celebraIions organised by a public auIhoriIy...
Use ol works, such as works ol archiIecIure or sculpIure, made Io be locaIed perma-
nenIly in public places...
Eor Ihe purpose ol caricaIure, parody or pasIiche...
In connecIion wiIh Ihe demonsIraIion or repair ol equipmenI...
CommunicaIion or making available, lor Ihe purpose ol research or privaIe sIudy, Io
individual members ol Ihe public by dedicaIed Ierminals on Ihe premises ol |public
libraries, educaIion] esIablishmenIs...
OIher cases ol minor imporIance where excepIions or limiIaIions already exisI under
naIional law, provided IhaI Ihey only concern analogue uses and do noI allecI Ihe
lree circulaIion ol goods and services wiIhin Ihe CommuniIy...
We noIe IhaI many ol Ihese limiIaIions are qualilied by "to the extent justjeJ
hy" Ihe purpose in quesIion and "use s n accorJance wth jar practce, anJ to
the extent requreJ hy the specjc purpose", and olIen provided compensaIion is
given Io Ihe righIsholder.
LxceptIons In relatIon to computer programs
The above lisI does noI apply Io compuIer programs, whose excepIions are seI
ouI in Ihe 11 EU CompuIer Frograms DirecIive.
The purpose ol solIware copyrighI excepIions is Io ensure IhaI Ihe legiIimaIe
user ol solIware (who has validly acquired a licence) may use iI in accordance
wiIh iIs purporIed use. OIherwise, Ihe righI ol use would be deemed disIorIed
and Io noI correspond wiIh whaI could legiIimaIely be expecIed by Ihe user. In
non-lree solIware licences, Ihe owner ol Ihe exploiIaIion righIs Io Ihe program
granIs lew righIs. ExcepIions Iherelore play a key role, alIhough Ihe absoluIe
exclusion ol Ihe use ol Ihe program has no excepIion wiIh respecI Io who is
noI a "legiIimaIe user" ol such program.
The AuIhors' righIs sysIem has elecIed Io esIablish a closed sysIem wiIh a spe-
cilic lisI ol excepIions. ExcepIions Io AuIhors' righIs applicable Io solIware are
developed in ArIicle S EUCD and may be summarised as Ihe auIhorisaIion ol
Ihe legItImate user Io:
Reproduce and Iranslorm Ihe program when necessary lor iIs use, includ-
ing debugging (limiIable by conIracI).
Making a securiIy or back-up copy (absoluIe righI).
lnfreesofLwarelicences,Lhe
granLingofexploiLaLionrighLs
issobroadLhaLiLbreaksLhe
monopolyofLheauLhorand
ofLenmakessuchexcepLions
irrelevanL.
Analysis ol Ihe program Io deIermine Ihe ideas and principles on which
iI is based, while loading and running Ihe program.
Reproduce and Iranslorm cerIain necessary parIs ol a program Io obIain
Ihe inlormaIion necessary Io achieve Ihe inIeroperabiliIy ol an indepen-
denIly creaIed compuIer program wiIh oIher programs, on cerIain condi-
Iions.
This lasI is considered a reverse engineering or quasi decompilaIion righI,
however iI may noI be exercised il Ihe owner ol Ihe program has provided Ihe
relevanI inlormaIion.
A "legiIimaIe user", while noI delined, is undersIood Io mean a person wiIh a
"use righI", such as under and EULA or oIher lorm ol solIware licence.
Actx oI reverxe engneerng
Reverse engineering may be delined as all operaIions necessary Io de-
Iermine Ihe ideas underlying Ihe compuIer program. II is noI limiIed
Io decompiling. The esIablishmenI ol an auIhorisaIion Io perlorm acIs
ol reverse engineering is inIended Io guaranIee Ihe developmenI ol a
non-monopolisIic indusIry and inIeroperabiliIy, and aI Ihe same Iime
Io baIIle againsI Ihe reverse engineering IhaI is inIended Io discover Ihe
source code Ihrough Ihe objecI code. This includes Iherelore Ihe righIs
ol:
Analysis during normal use.
DecompilaIion lor inIeroperabiliIy, subjecI Io Ihe lollowing condi-
Iions:
Only Ihe legiIimaIe user or anyone auIhorised Io use Ihe com-
puIer program, or a person duly auIhorised in Iheir name (such
as Ihe company), may perlorm acIs ol decompiling.
The owner ol exploiIaIion righIs has noI made a version ol Ihe
source code (aI leasI Ihe parI IhaI can allow inIeroperabiliIy) or
inIerlace inlormaIion readily available.
The decompiling musI be limiIed Io Ihe parIs ol Ihe program
IhaI are necessary Io achieve inIeroperabiliIy.
Once Ihe inlormaIion is lawlully obIained, resIricIions are esIablished
on iIs use:
lnconLrasL,LhecopyrighLsys-
LemconLainsanopenclause
forfairuse,allowingacerLain
marginLoLhejudgesforeach
specificcase.1hissubjecLshall
beexplainedfurLherahead,in
LhesecLiononcopyrighL.
The inlormaIion cannoI be used lor purposes oIher Ihan Ihose ol
acquiring inIeroperabiliIy lor a compuIer program creaIed indepen-
denIly.
II cannoI be communicaIed Io Ihird parIies, excepI as necessary Io
achieve Ihe inIeroperabiliIy ol Ihe program creaIed independenIly.
Along Ihese lines, Ihe person IhaI has decompiled a program has a
legal obligaIion Io conlidenIialiIy.
II cannoI be used lor Ihe developmenI, producIion or markeIing ol
a program IhaI is subsIanIially similar in iIs expression or any oIher
acI inlringing upon Ihe AuIhors' righIs.
Einally, a general limiIaIion exisIs IhaI indicaIes IhaI Ihe provisions relaIing
Io decompiling cannoI be consIrued in a manner such IhaI Iheir applicaIion
causes "unjusI damage Io Ihe legiIimaIe inIeresIs ol Ihe owner ol Ihe righIs or
is conIrary Io Ihe normal exploiIaIion ol Ihe compuIer program". This limiIa-
Iion, seemingly IheoreIical, has some pracIical applicaIion: when Ihe decom-
piling operaIions Io obIain inIeroperabiliIy wiIh oIher programs may damage
Ihe righIs and expecIaIions ol Ihe owner ol exploiIaIion righIs (exclusively
markeIing solIware, issuing new releases, eIc.), Ihe user musI also relrain lrom
perlorming Ihem, which implies IhaI Ihis righI ol Ihe user may be impracIi-
cable.
5.3. Far uxe
In Ihe UniIed SIaIes copyrighI sysIem, one ol Ihe mosI imporIanI limiIaIions
is Ihe "lair use" docIrine. The relerred docIrine provides IhaI Ihe exclusive
righIs granIed Io Ihe owner ol Ihe AuIhors' righIs do noI include Ihe righI Io
prevenI oIhers lrom lairly using Ihe regisIered work. The docIrine has been
developed based on a subsIanIial number ol judicial decisions over Ihe years
and has been coded in secIion 107 ol Ihe currenI CopyrighI AcI. This conIains
a lisI ol Ihe various purposes lor which iI may be considered "lair Io reproduce
any work in parIicular, such as lor purposes ol criIique, commenIary, news,
inlormaIion, Ieaching, academic sIudies or research".
Secton 17 LS Cogrght Act
SecIion 107 US CopyrighI AcI esIablishes lour lacIors IhaI musI be considered Io deIer-
mine wheIher a parIicular use is lair or noI and, Iherelore, il iI is excluded lrom copyrighI
violaIion:
1) The purpose and naIure ol Ihe use, including wheIher iI is commercial in naIure or
has educaIional, non-proliI purposes.
2) The naIure ol Ihe work proIecIed by AuIhors' righIs.
3) The amounI and degree in which Ihe porIion used is imporIanI in relaIion Io Ihe
overall work proIecIed by AuIhors' righIs.
4) The ellecI ol such use on Ihe poIenIial markeI or Ihe value ol Ihe work proIecIed by
AuIhors' righIs.
A signilicanI amounI ol case law has developed Ihis concepI and applied iI Io
a varieIy ol cases, including in relaIion Io solIware.
. Cogrght
Now IhaI we have seen Ihe basic IeneIs ol AuIhors' righIs, which are also Ihose
ol copyrighI, we can commenI brielly on Ihe dillerences beIween Ihe Iwo
proIecIion regimes.
The objecI. The copyrighI sysIem revolves around Ihe work and Ihe ben-
eliI IhaI iI provides Io Ihe common inIeresI. The auIhors and Iheir righIs
Iherelore assume a secondary role, as opposed Io Ihe IradiIion ol AuIhors'
righIs.
The absence ol lormaliIies. TradiIionally, Ihe copyrighI sysIem esIablished
cerIain lormaliIies lor works Io be proIecIed, specilically Iheir regisIraIion,
and iI was noI unIil Ihe Berne ConvenIion IhaI such requiremenIs were
eliminaIed. The copyrighI sysIem currenIly is compleIely devoid ol lor-
maliIies and procedural requiremenIs, similar Io Ihe sysIem ol AuIhors'
righIs. The UniIed SIaIes noneIheless conIinues Io demand IhaI iIs own
ciIizens, buI noI loreign auIhors, regisIer Iheir works aI Ihe CopyrighIs
Ollice Io be able Io delend Ihemselves aI Ihe lederal courIs.
Low level ol originaliIy. The Ihreshold ol originaliIy (novelIy, creaIiviIy)
required lor works Io be proIecIed by Ihe copyrighI sysIem is quiIe low:
iI is solely required IhaI Ihe work should be new and should have been
creaIed by iIs auIhor, i.e., IhaI iI should noI be a copy.
Moral righIs. The copyrighI sysIem does noI recognise Ihe exisIence ol
moral righIs in compuIer programs, and Iherelore allows Ihe compleIe
Iransler ol Ihe AuIhors' righIs Io an applicaIion or a code line Io a Ihird
parIy.
DuraIion. In Ihe copyrighI sysIem, Ihe duraIion ol proIecIion ol Ihe works
is generally longer. In Ihe UniIed SIaIes, lor insIance, duraIion is a complex
issue, which may be sevenIy, nineIy-live or one hundred and IwenIy-live
years. In Ihe UniIed Kingdom, as Ihe maIIer has been harmonised aI a
European level, iIs duraIion is Ihe same as in Spain: generally sevenIy years
lrom Ihe deaIh ol Ihe auIhor.
AuIhorship sysIems. In Ihe copyrighI sysIem, when Ihere are several au-
Ihors, and Iheir conIribuIions cannoI be disIinguished (which is equiva-
lenI Io collecIive works), auIhors are considered co-owners under a joinI-
ownership sysIem. There is noneIheless no concepI ol collaboraIive work
when Ihe conIribuIions Io works may be disIinguished lrom one anoIh-
er, and in such cases, we would be dealing wiIh a mere compilaIion ol
individual works. Il Ihe compilaIion is original in any way, iI is deemed
collecIive work.
FermiIIed acIs. In addiIion Io Ihe aloremenIioned limiIs Io Ihe exclusive
righIs ol solIware owners, copyrighI provides a "lair use" delence IhaI we
have commenIed on above.
Transmission or Iransler ol righIs. The copyrighI sysIem allows several
means ol Iransmission ol righIs Io proIecIed works:
Eull and exclusive assignmenI: conIrary Io IhaI esIablished in conIi-
nenIal law, Ihe copyrighI sysIem allows Ihe Iransler ol all Ihe righIs ol
Ihe owner ol a work. The assignmenI musI be made in wriIing and be
signed by Ihe assignor. The assignee shall have all righIs Io Ihe work,
wiIhouI resIricIion.
AddiIionally, Ihe assignmenI ol luIure works (alIhough noI "all" luIure
works) is possible (lor insIance, under a service agreemenI beIween a
clienI and an auIonomous programmer): upon creaIion, Ihe owner-
ship ol Ihe work shall be vesIed auIomaIically in Ihe clienI.
Licence: Ihe mosI common means ol Iransmission ol righIs.
Work lor hire: an auIomaIic assignmenI ol righIs applies in lavour
ol Ihe person commissioning a Ihird parIy lor Ihe developmenI, as
opposed Io Ihe Spanish sysIem. The agreemenI musI indicaIe IhaI Ihe
commission is ol such naIure.
DaIabases. To daIe, in Ihe UniIed SIaIes legislaIion similar Io Ihe European
lor Ihe proIecIion ol daIabases has been rejecIed due Io Ihe pressure by
Ihe scienIilic and educaIional communiIy, which claim IhaI proIecIion
such as IhaI granIed in Europe would prevenI lree access Io inlormaIion.
NoneIheless, Ihe ellorI (sweaI) devoIed Io daIabases is proIecIed, wiIhouI
Ihe lormaliIy ol Ihe European regime.
7. Oatabaxe / Su Gcncts Rghtx
To obIain a broader vision ol all aspecIs ol AuIhors' righIs relaIing Io solIware,
we believe iI is convenienI Io brielly address Ihe legal proIecIion ol daIabases.
DIrectIve //CL by the Luropean ParlIament and the CouncIl, regardIng
the legal protectIon oI databases, regulaIes Ihe maIIer wiIhin Europe.
To undersIand Ihe various proIecIions exisIing, iI is necessary Io Iake inIo
accounI IhaI daIabases may or may noI be considered original works.
7.1. Oatabaxex deemed orgnaI worRx
The basis lor Ihe proIecIion ol daIabases lies in Ihe righI ol Ihe auIhor Io pro-
IecI noI only absoluIe originaliIy, buI also derivaIive originaliIy, i.e., creaIion
based on oIher creaIions. InIellecIual properIy and originaliIy may be in Ihe
selecIion ol conIenI and iIs layouI.
Therelore, a daIabase may be considered original work and be subjecI Io Au-
Ihors' righIs (assignmenI IF, which we sIudied above). In Ihis case, Ihe sIruc-
Iure (choice and arrangemenI) expressing Ihe creaIiviIy ol Ihe auIhor in Ihe
daIabase is proIecIed, noI iIs conIenI.
7.2. Oatabaxex that are not orgnaI
Is Ihere any originaliIy in a lisI ol Ielephone numbers or ol associaIes in an or-
ganisaIion7 Hardly. NoI il Ihe selecIion is based on criIeria ol comprehensive-
ness and arrangemenI is based on luncIional criIeria (alphabeIic or chrono-
logical order, lor insIance). This does noI mean IhaI such daIabases, creaIed
wiIh greaI ellorI, should noI be proIecIed, buI iI seems clear IhaI iI should noI
be Ihrough AuIhors' righIs.
FroIecIion may be provided by unlair compeIiIion regulaIions or Ihe granIing
ol exclusive righIs, arguing IhaI Ihe risk ol copy is Ioo high and IhaI iI is
necessary Io have Ihe righIs Io exploiI such daIabases. We should noIe IhaI
unlair compeIiIion law does noI proIecI Ihe acIs ol privaIe parIies wiIh no
commercial purpose or ol non-rival companies. Below we shall see IhaI Ihe su
eners righIs Io daIabases and inIellecIual properIy are noI allecIed by such
limiIaIion.
Su gcncrx rIghts to databases
The opIion ol creaIing a special, su eners righI in lavour ol Ihe "manulacIur-
ers" ol daIabases is embraced by DirecIive o}}CE, regarding Ihe legal proIec-
Iion ol daIabases.
To daIe, legislaIion similar Io Ihe European lor Ihe proIecIion ol daIabases has been re-
jecIed in Ihe UniIed SIaIes due Io Ihe pressure by Ihe scienIilic and educaIional com-
muniIies, which claim IhaI proIecIion such as IhaI granIed in Europe would prevenI
lree access Io inlormaIion. Europe delends Ihe su eners righI Io daIabases aI Ihe WIFO
Ihrough an inIernaIional IreaIy, which has noneIheless been laced by opposiIion lrom
Ihe UniIed SIaIes and Ihe developing counIries.
This specilic regulaIory lramework has Ihe lollowing characIerisIics:
ObjecI ol proIecIion. The su eners righI does noI proIecI creaIiviIy, buI
a substantIal Investment, wheIher iI be economic or in ellorI, made by
Ihe manulacIurer ol a daIabase.
RighIs and inlracIions. The manulacIurer ol Ihe daIabase is aIIribuIed
whaI is known as a su eners righI, consisIing ol Ihe power Io prohibiI:
The exIracIion and}or Ihe reuse ol all or a subsIanIial parI, evaluaIed
quanIiIaIively and qualiIaIively, ol Ihe conIenI ol such daIabase.
The repeaIed or sysIemaIic exIracIion and}or reuse ol non subsIanIial
parIs ol Ihe conIenI, represenIing acIs conIrary Io Ihe normal exploiIa-
Iion ol Ihe aloremenIioned daIabase or causing unjusI damage Io Ihe
legiIimaIe inIeresIs ol Ihe manulacIurer.
DuraIion. In appearance, we are dealing wiIh a shorI-Ierm righI (lilIeen
years lrom Ihe compleIion ol Ihe daIabase), alIhough considering Ihe le-
gal lramework, any subsIanIial new invesImenI would open a new lilIeen-
year Ierm.
8. CoIIectve management organxatonx and dgtaI
Ievex
We have seen IhaI auIhors are granIed exclusive righIs in Iheir works. These
righIs enable Ihem Io markeI Ihe work, by assignmenI or licence, Io Ihird par-
Iies, in exchange lor remuneraIion. This commercialisaIion and regulaIion ol
Ihe use ol works needs Io be managed, and Ihis can be done eiIher individu-
ally or collecIively.
When righIsholders manage Ihe righIs Ihemselves, Ihey license Ihe works Io
commercial users such as publishers or producers or such as disIribuIors. This
is usually done by way ol conIracIual licence (exclusive or non-exclusive),
which may auIhorise a Iype ol use only or all uses. However, due Io Ihe num-
ber ol uses and users as well as righIholders involved, licensing cerIain righIs
individually has been impracIical, parIicularly righIs ol remuneraIion.
The lollowing is jusI a very briel overview ol a complicaIed and conIroversial
Iopic, which we only summarise as collecIive managemenI does noI apply Io
solIware, our main Iheme in Ihis work.
8.1. CoIIectve management
CollecIive righIs managemenI is Ihe sysIem under which a "collecIing soci-
eIy" joinIly adminisIers righIs and moniIors, collecIs and disIribuIes Ihe pay-
menI ol royalIies on behall ol righIsholders. This sysIem is used in parIicular
Io manage remuneraIion righIs, such as compensaIion lor privaIe copies, and
commercial use ol works enIrusIed Io Ihe socieIies (broadcasIing, public per-
lormance, use in bars and hoIels, eIc.).
While Ihe collecIive managemenI ol righIs is noI aI all harmonised aI inIernaIional lev-
el (Ihough mosI naIional legislaIion provides lor some lorm or oIher ol collecIive man-
agemenI), Ihe sysIem is Iouched upon in inIernaIional IreaIies. E.g.: Ihe Berne Conven-
Iion sIaIes IhaI Member SIaIes may deIermine Ihe condiIions under which cerIain righIs
may be exercised and managed Ihrough collecIing socieIies. DirecIive 2}100}EEC, when
harmonising Ihe righI Io equiIable remuneraIion, provides lor collecIive managemenI
as a model lor iIs managemenI in ArIicle 4. Under ArIicle ol Ihe DirecIive 3}83}EEC
collecIive managemenI is obligaIory lor cable redisIribuIion righIs.
AI naIional level, signilicanI dillerences exisI wiIh respecI Io boIh legislaIion
and pracIice, and Ihe lramework is in consIanI developmenI. Several legisla-
Iures (e.g. Spain) require mandaIory collecIive managemenI, i.e. such righIs
may only be adminisIered by collecIing socieIies.
WiIh Ihe advenI ol Ihe digiIal environmenI, Ihere is more and more cross-bor-
der Irade in goods and services based on copyrighI and relaIed righIs, noIably
lor Ihe righIs ol reproducIion and communicaIion Io Ihe public and Ihe mak-
lnlrance,8elgium,Lhe
NeLherlands,Luxemburgand
PorLugal,forinsLance,new
legislaLionhasbeenadopL-
edoriniLiaLedwiLhLheaimof
renderingrighLsmanagemenL
bycollecLingsocieLiesmore
LransparenLandofimproving
LheiraccounLabiliLy.
ing available righI. This has led Io sell-organisaIion ol collecIive socieIies wiIh
an inIernaIional lramework (e.g. lnternatonal leJeraton oj the lhonoraphc ln-
Justry, Busness Sojtware Allance).
8.2. CoIIectng Socetex
Erom Ihe righIsholders poinI ol view, collecIing socieIies are agenIs Io manage
Ihe licensing ol Iheir works. Erom Ihe users' poinI ol view, Ihey are a single
poinI ol conIacI when seeking a licence Io exploiI a varieIy ol works (audio-
visual, eIc.).
CollecIing socieIies usually adminisIer, moniIor, collecI and disIribuIe Ihe
paymenI ol royalIies lor an enIire group ol righIholders, on Ihe basis ol Ihe na-
Iional law ol iIs IerriIory, wiIh respecI Io IhaI IerriIory. They enIer inIo agree-
menIs wiIh oIher collecIing socieIies aI an inIernaIional level lor Ihe muIual
paymenI ol levies Io arIisIs represenIed by loreign socieIies (cross-licensing).
CollecIing socieIies manage righIs in relaIion Io music, liIerary and dramaIic
works as well as audiovisual works, producIions and perlormances. The righIs
IhaI are managed cover a varieIy ol acIs IhaI a user may wish Io exercise, such
as mechanical reproducIion and reprography (e.g. prinIing Io a CD), commu-
nicaIion Io Ihe public in general (shops, gyms, bars, hoIels, IerresIrial TV),
cable reIransmission ol broadcasIing programmes (cable TV, inIerneI broad-
casIing), public lending, arIisI's resale righIs, privaIe copying or cerIain edu-
caIional uses.
Erom a righIsholders poinI ol view, olIen only one socieIy operaIes lor
each group ol righIholders in Ihe IerriIory in quesIion (auIhors, perlorm-
ing arIisIs, direcIors and producers) and iI is Ihe sole access in Ihe markeI
Io purchase a licence Io use Ihe works. In oIher counIries, Ihey may be
represenIed by compeIing socieIies (e.g. Spain).
Erom Ihe users' viewpoinI, collecIing socieIies are a one-sIop shop, repre-
senIing a wide, il noI worldwide reperIoire and have an exclusive mandaIe
lor Ihe adminisIraIion ol righIs in relaIion Io Iheir lield ol acIiviIy. They
enable Ihe licensing ol a varieIy ol righIs and providing access Io a global
porIlolio ol works.
A number ol models exisI lor esIablishing a collecIing socieIy, which may be
corporaIe, chariIable, lor proliI or noI lor proliI enIiIies. They may also be
mandaIory (Spain) or recommended (UK). In exchange, collecIing socieIies
may be subjecI Io conIrol by public auIhoriIies or specilic bodies, covering Ihe
behaviour ol Ihe socieIies, Iheir luncIioning, Ihe conIrol ol Iarills and licens-
ing condiIions and also Ihe dispuIe seIIlemenI. WiIh respecI Io Ihe licensing
condiIions, in some Member SIaIes Ihe obligaIion ol collecIing socieIies Io
granI licences is combined wiIh Ihe rule IhaI such licences should be granIed
under appropriaIe or reasonable condiIions.
8.3. Crtcxm
There is broad criIicism ol Ihe collecIive managemenI sysIem.
CriIicism lrom users is aimed aI Ihe Iarills and Ihe inellicienI supervision
ol collecIing socieIies and access Io Ihe courIs or arbiIraIion Io proIecI
users' righIs. II has also locussed on adminisIraIive lees charged by Ihe so-
cieIies, Ihe lengIh and dilliculIy ol negoIiaIions wiIh respecI Io licences,
alleged deliciencies in Iheir inIernal decision-making process and an ap-
parenI lack ol Iransparency regarding Ihe pricing policy.
RighIholders are also complaining. Those wiIh a cerIain degree ol bargain-
ing power, such as major record and lilm producers, increasingly seek noI
Io depend on collecIing socieIies Io manage Iheir righIs, and direcIly li-
cense Iheir righIs Io Ihird parIies. This has been enabled by Iechnology,
wiIh waIermarking, righIs inlormaIion idenIilicaIion and Iracking ol Ihe
use ol works, poIenIially enabling powerlul companies Io conIrol Ihe roy-
alIy paymenI process. Smaller righIsholders complain IhaI Ihe disIribu-
Iion ol levies is noI IransparenI. All in all, righIholders would like collecI-
ing socieIies Io be more llexible in respecI ol Ihe membership conIracIs
(acquisiIion ol righIs) and lor Ihemselves Io have more inlluence in Ihe
disIribuIion ol royalIies.
8.4. CoIIectve management and xoItware
There is no collecIive managemenI ol righIs in solIware producIs, and no col-
lecIing socieIy lor developers. FrivaIely, Ihe Business SolIware Alliance repre-
senIs Ihe major privaIe solIware manulacIurers such as MicrosolI, Adobe, eIc.
and engages in Ihe moniIoring and privaIe policing ol use ol Iheir producIs.
1helevyonblankharddisks,
CDsandDvDsisspecifically
seenasunfair,asLheseiLems
areofLenusedLocopyprivaLe
phoLosorenLerprise'sown
sofLware,whichisnoLsubjecL
LoremuneraLionrighL.
9. LegaI grotecton oI authorx' rghtx/cogrght
The inlormaIion socieIy, wiIh digiIisaIion and insIanI Iransmission ol works
over public and privaIe neIworks, has seI Ihe scenario lor greaIer access Io
inlormaIion, culIure and knowledge. BuI iI has also led Io greaIer levels ol
inlringemenI ol AuIhors' righIs}copyrighI. In parIicular, use ol solIware by
someone oIher Ihan iIs owner, wiIhouI Iheir express permission, is a use IhaI
is prohibiIed by Ihe law iIsell.
When AuIhors' righIs were conceived as a means ol proIecIing works and, even
currenIly, in Ihe world ol disIribuIion on paper lormaI, publishing houses
and AuIhors' righIs had a luncIion, as auIhors needed Iheir inlrasIrucIure Io
broadcasI Iheir works and copies were virIually nonexisIenI or were limiIed
Io Ihe privaIe scope ol Ihe copyisI.
Over Ihe years, Ihe Iechnological evoluIion has broadened Ihese horizons and
oIher Iypes ol works, languages and means ol exploiIaIion have appeared, re-
quiring Ihe adapIaIion ol AuIhors' righIs. NoneIheless, Ihe inlormaIion soci-
eIy and Ihe new Iechnologies have caused a radical change by making Ihe
IradiIional works (IexI, music, phoIographs, eIc.) available Io all, using a new
medium, and by Iraining everyone Io become a publisher and disIribuIe works
wiIhouI Ihe need lor middlemen, in greaI parI Ihanks Io Ihe inIerneI.
ThaI same Iechnological revoluIion implies IhaI Ihe capaciIy Io copy and re-
produce, lor proliI or oIherwise, has become generalised. A lew years ago, a
CD recorder was only available aI a recording sIudio, buI Ioday we almosI all
have one aI home, on our personal compuIer. NoI Io speak ol peer-Io-peer
sysIems lor sharing liles.
Therelore, Ihe sysIem ol disIribuIion ol works and Ihe elemenIs upon which
Ihe auIhors and middlemen base Iheir proliIs has been quesIioned. This has
implied an irreversible change, in Ihe lace ol which all inIellecIual properIy
legislaIion musI be redelined Io reIurn Ihe balance Io Ihe parIies aI conllicI.
The owners ol Ihe allecIed exploiIaIion righIs (mainly Ihe music, movies and
solIware indusIry) seek Io use AuIhors' righIs, no longer as a weapon ol one
business againsI anoIher, as Ihey were originally devised, buI as a delence by
a business}owner againsI Ihe public violaIing Iheir righIs.
PurchasingamusicCDfrom
asLreeLvendor,downloading
sofLwarefromLheinLerneLor
insLallingcompuLerprograms
wiLhouLpayingforlicencesare
examplesofpracLicesLhaLmay
infringeuponLheinLellecLual
properLyrighLsofoLhers.
P2P
A case ol parIicular inIeresI is F2F lile-sharing. II is a common percepIion IhaI iI is law-
lul Io copy a CD Io anoIher CD or llash card}hard disk, or Io converI a song lrom CD
inIo MF3 lormaI, and in parIicular Io share Ihem wiIh Ihird parIies on F2F lile sharing
sysIems. In lacI, Ihese acIions are olIen in breach ol copyrighI, and, aI leasI in Iheory,
(2)
SeeonAC1A,LheEsiLeaLEu-
ropeanCommission1radeaswell
asProf.MichaelCeisL'sblogaL
MichaelCeisLblog(MichaelCeisL
blog)
give grounds lor civil acIion. Depending on Ihe jurisdicIion, cerIain delences may be
available, in parIicular IhaI ol privaIe copy.
F2F solIware and neIworks are Ihemselves perlecIly legal, as Ihey have legiIimaIe lunc-
Iions lor sharing works among users works IhaI may have no copyrighI proIecIion,
works under lree solIware or conIenI licences, eIc. WhaI is noI so clear is Ihe sharing ol
proIecIed works on Ihese neIworks, especially as regards Ihe public communicaIion righI.
In Ihe middle ol Ihis debaIe is Ihe posiIion ol Ihe ISFs in relaIion Io F2F neIworks or oIher
sharing mechanisms (rapidshare, eIc.), who lor Ihe momenI do noI police or moniIor
Ihe acIiviIy and daIa IhaI is being IransmiIIed in Iheir neIworks. They have access Io
Ihe names and addresses (including IF addresses) ol lile-sharers, and are Ihe IargeI ol
Ihe conIenI and solIware indusIry eiIher lor providing evidence as Io who is responsible
lor illegal online acIiviIy, buI also as privaIe "policemen", warning and shuIIing down
neIwork access when Ihey have sullicienI evidence ol such illegal acIiviIy. This is Ihe
aim ol ACTA
2
(AnIi-CounIerleiIing Trade AgreemenI), a proposed inIernaIional IreaIy Io
reinlorce Ihe proIecIion ol IFR on Ihe neI, and oblige ISFs Io Iake Ihis role.
This posiIion is awkward lor ISFs as regards Ihe privacy ol inIerneI users, Iheir righIs
ol access Io Ihe neIwork (noI yeI considered a universal righI, buI geIIing Ihere) and
imposing on Ihem quasi-judicial obligaIions as Io policing Ihe neIwork.
In Ihis secIion, Iherelore, we look aI Ihe means and measures provided Io de-
lend copyrighI holders' righIs againsI abuse: Ihe legal measures ol proIecIion
lor works and Ihe reacIions in possible inlracIions ol AuIhors' righIs. To clarily
Ihe subjecI, we will divide Ihem inIo prevenIive measures (legal and Iechno-
logical) and reacIive measures or soluIions Io inlracIions Io copyrighIs. We
shall also brielly relerence criminal and adminisIraIive legislaIion.
9.1. LegaI meaxurex oI grotecton
We reler here Io Ihe prevenIive mechanisms IhaI Ihe law recognises Io
proIecI Ihe righIs ol Ihe owners ol AuIhors' righIs. As we have sIudied, in
counIries parIy Io Ihe Berne ConvenIion and Ihe TRIFS AgreemenI, copyrighI
proIecIion does noI require any lormaliIy. There are noneIheless lormaliIies
or mechanisms IhaI, alIhough noI mandaIory, are olIen convenienI Io pre-
venI Ihe inlringemenI ol AuIhors' righIs or lor subsequenI use as evidence ol
auIhorship.
RegIstratIon oI Intellectual property
AlIhough Ihe regisIraIion ol Ihe work is noI mandaIory, in mosI counIries
iI is a quiIe direcI and economical procedure, granIing imporIanI addi-
Iional beneliIs as regards Ihe burden ol prool ol auIhorship and daIe ol
creaIion (or aI leasI, regisIraIion). In Spain, lor insIance, regisIraIion gen-
eraIes a legal presumpIion whereby Ihose appearing as auIhors ol a regis-
Iered work are Io be deemed by Ihe courIs Io be iIs auIhors, unless proved
oIherwise.
Some counIries, such as Ihe UniIed SIaIes, may require IhaI Iheir own ciIizens, buI noI
loreign auIhors, regisIer Iheir works aI Ihe CopyrighI Ollice (lor insIance, Io bring a
claim belore Ihe lederal courIs). In some counIries, a regisIraIion ol AuIhors' righIs also
represenIs prima lacie evidence ol Ihe validiIy and ownership ol AuIhors' righIs.
NotarIsatIon
As an alIernaIive or complemenIary opIion Io regisIraIion wiIh Ihe InIel-
lecIual FroperIy RegisIry, iI is someIimes advisable Io have Ihe compleIe
source code noIarised in magneIic medium (CD, DVD) conIaining Ihe ob-
jecI code, Ihe user's manual, design ol screens, analysis, preparaIory doc-
umenIaIion and oIher elemenIs idenIilying Ihe program, which may be
ol viIal imporIance when ollering experI evidence.
NoIarisaIion may provide ollicial evidence in a Irial on Ihe daIe ol creaIion
or deposiI ol a work. II has also been seen as a sysIem IhaI is more appro-
priaIe Ihan regisIraIion, as iI is more conlidenIial and lasIer, involving less
bureaucracy and providing a beIIer descripIion ol Ihe program.
The use oI the symbol or IndIcatIon oI reserved rIghts
By applicaIion ol Ihe Berne ConvenIion, in mosI counIries, a noIice is no
longer required lor Ihe work Io be proIecIed by AuIhors' righIs. NoneIhe-
less, iI is common Io use symbols or noIices Io warn users IhaI Ihe inlor-
maIion is proIecIed. The proper lorm ol such noIice is as lollows: "|copy-
righI |daIe] by |auIhor}owner]". The symbol is someIimes used as a rel-
erence Io Ihe copyrighI sysIem.
9.2. OgtaI Rghtx Management
The aloremenIioned digiIalisaIion and advances in new Iechnologies noI on-
ly pose risks lor Ihe owners ol inIellecIual properIy righIs, buI also make iI
easier Io manage and conIrol acIs ol exploiIaIion Ihrough access, idenIilica-
Iion and copy prevenIion sysIems. Thus on Iop ol Ihese lairly weak measures
lor proIecIing a work, Ihe larger conIenI owners (including boIh solIware and
audiovisual indusIries) have sIarIed Io rely on Iechnology Io do so: Ihe imple-
menIaIion ol technologIcal protectIon measures (TFM), as parI ol "DigiIal
RighIs ManagemenI" sysIems (DRM).
These new sysIems lor Ihe managemenI ol inIellecIual properIy righIs are sup-
posed Io revoluIionise Ihe relaIions beIween users and owners ol exploiIaIion
righIs Io musical works, audiovisual works and solIware, mainly.
DRMS are Iechnological processes lor Ihe managemenI ol AuIhors' righIs al-
lowing a cerIain conIrol by Ihe owner over Iheir work. They are used Io iden-
Iily Ihe works and Iheir owners, Io requesI prior consenI lrom Ihe owners by
users or Io make micropaymenIs lor la carIe services, among oIher luncIions.
DRM sysIems can be used Io clear righIs, Io secure paymenI, Io Irace behaviour
and Io enlorce righIs.
Below we shall discuss Ihe main Iechnological measures ol proIecIion ol works
and Iheir legal IreaImenI.
1hesemanagemenLsysLems
clearlyalsocarryimplicaLions
forLhefreesofLwarecommuni-
Ly.AverycurrenLexamplelies
inafreesLudenLprogramon
DvDLhaLcouldallowLhecap-
LuringofLheoriginaldaLafor
copyonLoLheharddrive.
9.2.1. TechnoIogcaI Protecton Meaxurex
Various Iechnologies and meIhods have been invenIed Io proIecI works, in-
cluding compuIer programs and Ihe associaIed compuIerised objecIs (daIabas-
es, eIc.).
Erom a legal viewpoinI, measure ol proIecIion may be delined as "any Jevce or
meJum JestneJ jor preventn or restrctn copes oj a worl or reJucn the qualty
oj any copes maJe".
Protecton meaxurex
Some examples IhaI are already lound on Ihe markeI are:
Access codes: olIen, Io insIall a program, a unique idenIilicaIion key is required. Ad-
diIionally, Io access daIabases, especially online, iI is usually necessary Io inIroduce
a user name and code (password).
Unique idenIilicaIion sysIems: waIermarks.
Ciphering and encrypIion ol works.
Copy proIecIion sysIems: measures Io prevenI Ihe copying ol digiIal works (lor in-
sIance, Ihe CSS sysIem lor DVDs).
The sysIems used by Adobe in iIs e-books, prevenIing prinIing or copying. CurrenIly,
Io lace Ihe prolileraIion ol Iechnologies and groups seeking Io avoid or break such
devices (DeCSS, lor insIance), Ihe law covers Iechnological measures lor Ihe proIec-
Iion ol inIellecIual properIy righIs, as we shall see herealIer.
Using Ihese mechanisms, a righIsholder can conIrol Ihe access and use ol a
work: Iechnology can subsIiIuIe and even exceed Ihe law in Ihe proIecIion ol
Ihe works. "Exceed" Ihe law as Ihis Iechnology can also deny legiIimaIe users
and individuals Ihe exercise ol Ihe righIs under Ihe excepIions provided by
copyrighI law.
BuI TFMs, Io be lawlul and Iruly uselul, also requires Ihe proIecIion and recog-
niIion ol Ihe righI. To lace Ihis siIuaIion, one ol Ihe key reasons ol Ihe WIFO
CopyrighI TreaIy (WCT) in 1o is Ihe legal proIecIion (againsI elusion, or
cracking) ol TFMs.
The WCT TreaIy requires IhaI counIries subscribing Io iI should modily Iheir
legislaIions Io provide Iwo Iypes ol legal proIecIion ol Iechnological measures:
The lirsI requires IhaI Ihe counIries should provide appropriaIe legal pro-
IecIion and ellecIive resources againsI Ihe elusion ol Ihe Iechnological
measures used by owners Io proIecI Iheir righIs.
The second requires IhaI Ihe counIries should prohibiI Ihe modilicaIion
or deliberaIe suppression ol elecIronic inlormaIion regarding Ihe manage-
menI ol righIs, i.e., Ihe inlormaIion accompanying any proIecIed maIeri-
al and IhaI permiIs idenIilying Ihe work, iIs auIhor, inIerpreIing arIisI or
perlormer or owner, and Ihe condiIions lor iIs use.
The WCT TreaIy has been implemenIed in Ihe SolIware and CopyrighIs DirecIives and
now naIional laws. The legal lramework in which DRM sysIems are adminisIered is seI
ouI in Ihe EUCD (DirecIive 2001}2}EC). ArIicles o and 7 deal wiIh Ihe proIecIion ol
Iechnological measures and righIs managemenI inlormaIion respecIively.
9.2.2. LegxIaton
SecIion 1201 ol Ihe DigiIal Millennium CopyrighI AcI (DMCA) ol 18 in
Ihe UniIed SIaIes and, laIer, ArIicles o and 7 ol Ihe European AuIhors' righIs
DirecIive in Ihe InlormaIion SocieIy have elecIed Io make legiIimaIe and oller
legal proIecIion Io Ihe DRMS sysIems by prohibiIing devices and pracIices IhaI
allow lor Iheir elusion (deacIivaIion, cracking, whaIever).
This is a conIroversial subjecI as Ihe resulI ol Ihe legal proIecIion ol Ihese
Iechnological measures may be abusive il Ihe owners ol exploiIaIion righIs
may compleIely conIrol Ihe use ol Ihe conIenI raIher Ihan only inIellecIual
properIy righIs. AddiIionally, Ihe Iechnological measures proIecIed by law noI
only increase Ihe capaciIy ol conIrol ol Ihe owner ol Ihe righIs Io Ihe work,
wiIhouI limiIaIions, buI may also allecI Ihe righIs ol Ihe users as regards Ihe
inIeroperabiliIy capaciIy ol Ihe compuIer programs or privaIe copy or educa-
Iional use.
9.3. Meaxurex oI deIence aganxt the nIrngement oI rghtx
Once Ihe preceding prevenIive measures have proven unsuccesslul and Ihe
AuIhors' righIs Io a work have been inlringed upon, whaI we reler Io as "mea-
sures ol delence" come inIo play. Eacing Ihese inlringemenIs ol AuIhors' righIs,
Ihe legislaIion ol boIh Spain and mosI ol Ihe sIaIes signing Ihe inIernaIional
IreaIies oller a series ol mechanisms lor Ihe proIecIion ol inIellecIual properIy
righIs, wiIh Ihe possibiliIy exisIing ol appealing Io adminisIraIive, civil and
criminal acIions.
In Ihe EU, naIional legislaIion usually provides civil proIecIion ol inIellecIual
properIy, based on Ihe idea ol Ihe repairing ol a privaIe righI, raIher Ihan arIic-
ulaIing an exclusive proIecIion under criminal law, alIhough Ihis proIecIion is
noIwiIhsIanding any oIher acIion corresponding Io Ihe owner. Fressure lrom
indusIry has widened acIions Io Ihe criminal jurisdicIion, as we shall see nexI.
Generally speaking, Ihe naIional laws ol EU Member SIaIes regulaIe Ihe in-
lringemenI ol Ihe righIs in copyrighI proIecIed works and acIion musI be Iak-
en in naIional courIs againsI copyrighI inlringemenI: claim lor breach ol copy-
righI, damages and inIeresI. A righIsholder who wins Ihis claim may requesI
seizure and desIrucIion ol Ihe inlringing work, and damages on Ihe basis ol
earnings losI due Io Ihe illegal acIiviIy (olIen seen as a % royalIy on Ihe in-
come ol Ihe inlringing parIy).
In addiIion, Ihe 2004 EnlorcemenI DirecIive has increased and harmonised
Ihe measures aI Ihe disposal ol righIsholders.
Note
The DirecIive is inIeresIing because iI also provides IhaI Members SIaIes can be sanc-
Iioned by Ihe European CourI ol JusIice il Iheir civil procedures on Ihe inlringemenI ol
inIellecIual properIy righIs are "unnecessarily complicaIed or cosIly, or enIail unreason-
able Iime-limiIs or unwarranIed delays".
The EnlorcemenI DirecIive, now implemenIed in Ihe EU jurisdicIions, basi-
cally provides lor Ihe lollowing:
All Member SIaIes musI apply ellecIive, dissuasive and proporIionaIe
remedies and penalIies againsI Ihose engaged in counIerleiIing and piracy.
The collecIing and preservaIion ol evidence ol breach: righIsholders can
ask boIh aI Irial buI also as a preliminary measure, and wiIhouI Ihe de-
lendanI being presenI lor evidence regarding inlringemenIs Io be col-
lecIed, preserved and provided in courI, including, il on a large scale, li-
nancial and bank documenIaIion.
AI Ihe requesI ol a righIsholder, Ihe courIs may issue an inIerlocuIory in-
juncIion (prohibiIion or order Io do someIhing) againsI Ihe alleged in-
lringer and relevanI inIermediaries, Io prevenI an "imminenI inlringe-
menI" ol IFR or Io prevenI a conIinuing inlringemenI, wiIh penalIy pay-
menIs. This includes seizure ol goods, lreezing ol bank accounIs and oIher
asseIs.
Once a decision on Ihe meriIs ol Ihe case has been obIained (inIer parIes,
i.e. wiIh Ihe alleged inlringer having presenIed his}her delence), Ihe courI
can order desIrucIion ol Ihe inlringing producIs, recall and removal lrom
commercial channels, and prohibiIion regarding luIure conducI, damages
and cosIs.
These righIs can be exercised by righIsholders, collecIive managemenI so-
cieIies, and "prolessional delence bodies which are regularly recognised
as having a righI Io represenI holders ol inIellecIual properIy righIs" (e.g.
BSA).
This direcIive was hoIly debaIed during iIs dralIing, due Io a varieIy ol rea-
sons, noI Ihe leasI because many ol Ihe measures were deemed exorbiIanI and
iI soughI Io impose obligaIions on inIermediaries Io cooperaIe wiIh auIhori-
Iies lor providing evidence (e.g. evidence ol online uploads and downloads
ol proIecIed works).
9.4. AddtonaI meaxurex n reIaton to xoItware
In relaIion Io compuIer programs in parIicular, Ihe EUCFD esIablishes cerIain
specilic acIs IhaI wiIhouI Ihe auIhorisaIion ol Ihe owner, are deemed Io in-
lringe upon AuIhors' righIs:
Flacing in circulaIion one or more copies ol a compuIer program, knowing
or having Ihe possibiliIy ol presuming Iheir illegiIimaIe naIure.
Having one or more copies ol a compuIer program lor commercial pur-
poses, knowing or having Ihe possibiliIy ol presuming Iheir illegiIimaIe
naIure.
Flacing in circulaIion or having lor commercial purposes any insIrumenI
whose sole use is Io laciliIaIe Ihe unauIhorised suppression or neuIralisa-
Iion ol any Iechnical device used Io proIecI a compuIer program.
The law provides lor acIions and procedures IhaI noI only may be applicable
Io cases ol inlringemenI ol exclusive exploiIaIion } paIrimonial righIs, buI also
cover and encompass moral righIs, addiIionally, proIecIion is ollered boIh il
Ihe righIs in quesIion correspond Io Ihe auIhor and il Ihey correspond Io a
Ihird parIy IhaI has acquired Ihem (exclusive licensee, assignee).
The owner ol Ihe righIs may demand IhaI Ihe unlawlul acIiviIy by Ihe ollender
cease, requesI proIecIive measures and claim compensaIion lor Ihe maIerial
and moral damages caused.
9.5. Other meaxurex oI deIence
AparI lrom Ihe proIecIion under copyrighI law, Ihe owner ol Ihe exploiIaIion
righIs Io a work whose righIs are breached by a Ihird parIy may have oIher
courses ol acIion.
The mosI relevanI among Ihese are:
Contractual law. In Ihe evenI ol a breach ol Ihe AuIhors' righIs derived
lrom a breach ol a solIware user licence agreemenI (e.g. an EULA), iI is also
possible Io resorI Io Ihe law ol conIracI (obligaIions), as sue Ihe licensee
lor breach ol conIracI. The courI will Ihus noI only look aI Ihe breach ol
copyrighI, seI ouI in Ihe law, buI also Ihe wording and inIerpreIaIion ol
Ihe conIracIual disposiIions (e.g. express prohibiIions on copying, disIri-
buIion, reverse engineering, or obligaIions Io make paymenIs).
CrImInal law. DocIrine has IradiIionally considered IhaI Ihe AuIhors'
righIs, recognised Io Ihe auIhor or owner, are also suscepIible Io criminal
law proIecIion. This has been reinlorced wiIh Ihe implemenIaIion ol Ihe
EUCD. While provisions vary among jurisdicIion, criminal law esIablishes
boIh lines and prison Iime lor breaches ol copyrighI lor lucraIive (com-
mercial) purposes.
ExamgIex n Sgan and the LK
ArIicle 270 ol Ihe Spanish Criminal Code expressly esIablishes penalIies ol up Io Iwo
years in prison lor Ihose IhaI "lor a proliI and Io Ihe deIrimenI ol a Ihird parIy, reproduce,
plagiarise, disIribuIe or publicly communicaIe works wiIhouI Ihe auIhorisaIion ol Ihe
owners ol Ihe relevanI righIs".
In Ihe UK, penalIies range lrom imprisonmenI lor up Io Iwo years, Io lines and lorleiIure
ol inlringing maIerial and equipmenI lor making inlringing maIerial. The relevanI pro-
vision in relaIion Io public communicaIion sIaIes: "A person who inlringes copyrighI in
a work by communicaIing Ihe work Io Ihe public (a) in Ihe course ol a business, or (b)
oIherwise Ihan in Ihe course ol a business Io such an exIenI as Io allecI prejudicially Ihe
owner ol Ihe copyrighI, commiIs an ollence il he knows or has reason Io believe IhaI,
by doing so, he is inlringing copyrighI in IhaI work."
The same penalIy is applied Io Ihose IhaI "imporI, exporI or sIore copies ol such works"
and Io Ihose "manulacIuring, placing in circulaIion or possessing mediums specilically
desIined lor laciliIaIing Ihe unauIhorised suppression or neuIralisaIion ol any Iechnical
device used Io proIecI compuIer programs", as we have seen above.
The acIiviIy in quesIion seems now solely Io require IhaI a proliI be soughI,
i.e., Ihe pursuiI ol a moneIary advanIage, which may be simply noI having
Io pay markeI price lor such producIs. II should also be noIed IhaI iI is also
unnecessary Io pay a price Io incur Ihe crime. II may be a maIIer ol a mere
exchange or lree assignmenI.
This is a subjecI IhaI should noI be underesIimaIed, as Ihe public powers are
beginning Io acI againsI pracIices inlringing upon AuIhors' righIs due Io Ihe
pressure exercised by groups ol righIsholders.
ExamgIe
Eor insIance, in 2008 Ihere were IhirIy arresIs in Spain ol purchasers ol illegal programs
disIribuIed on CD-ROM. The operaIion has been Ihe resulI ol Ihe invesIigaIion ol Ihe
lisIs ol clienIs obIained by Ihe police lollowing Ihe dismanIling ol a neIwork IhaI ollered
unauIhorised copies ol solIware over Ihe inIerneI and IhaI was denounced by Ihe BSA
(Business SolIware Alliance).
1. ConcIuxon
ThroughouI Ihis module, we have reviewed Ihe concepI ol AuIhors' righIs and
copyrighI, and iIs specilic applicaIion Io solIware as work wiIh very parIicu-
lar characIerisIics. We have inIroduced concepIs, analysed auIhorship models
and sIudied in deIail Ihe righIs granIed by Ihe sysIem Io auIhors. Versus Ihe
monopoly ol Ihe auIhor or righIsholder, we have commenIed on Ihe excep-
Iions and limiIaIions inherenI in solIware. We have also commenIed on Ihe
measures againsI inlringemenIs ol AuIhors' righIs.
ThroughouI Ihis journey, we have conducIed an analysis in parallel ol Ihe
implicaIions IhaI Ihe AuIhors' righIs have lor Ihe lree solIware developmenI
model. Remember IhaI lree solIware, and copylelI in parIicular, is a means ol
licensing IhaI becomes a "paIch" on Ihe copyrighI sysIem, devolving Io users
Ihe lreedom IhaI Ihe exclusive righIs granIed under copyrighI regimes Iake
away.
However copyrighI is lundamenIal lor Ihe proIecIion and saleguarding ol
copylelI: only on Ihe basis ol AuIhors' righIs}copyrighI will a lree solIware de-
veloper be able Io prevenI Ihe misuse ol his}her work, in breach ol Ihe licence
Ierms (e.g. privaIising GFLed solIware).
Legal acIions Iaken by Ihe righIsholders ol NeIlilIers or Busybox againsI inlringers are
lully grounded in copyrighI law and Ihe delence ol Ihe auIhors' exclusive righI Io de-
Iermine how a work is exploiIed. See: gpl-violaIions.org and Second Round ol GFL In-
lringemenI LawsuiIs Eiled on Behall ol BusyBox Developers
We hope IhaI, upon compleIing Ihis module, Ihe objecIives seI aI iIs onseI
have been meI: mainly, acquiring a comprehensive vision ol Ihe currenI sys-
Iem ol proIecIion ol works and solIware in parIicular by AuIhors' righIs and
copyrighI. AlIhough Ihis is noI all: iI is ol special imporIance Io us IhaI noI
only IheoreIical knowledge have been acquired, buI also Ihe undersIanding ol
Ihe philosophy underlying Ihe meIhod ol proIecIion ol works by Ihe AuIhors'
righIs sysIem and Ihe enormous relevance iI has lor sIudying Ihe whole lree
solIware and conIenI movemenI.
Einally, we believe IhaI Ihe reader musI bear in mind IhaI AuIhors' righIs}
copyrighI are noI isolaIed lrom Ihe large changes allecIing Ihe modern world.
As we have seen IhroughouI Ihe module, buI especially in Ihe secIion on le-
gal proIecIion ol Iechnological measures and righIs managemenI sysIems, Au-
Ihors' righIs are being adapIed Io Ihe Iechnical revoluIion, and TFMs are be-
coming an essenIial elemenI in Ihe proIecIion and managemenI ol Ihe righIs
ol Ihe owners Io Ihe works.
The luIure ol AuIhors' righIs}copyrighI as a proIecIion sysIem lor solIware is
dilliculI Io predicI. As we shall sIudy in lurIher deIail in relaIion Io paIenIs,
in Europe Ihe large mulIinaIionals (who are in pracIice Ihe main owners ol
exploiIaIion righIs) consider IhaI Ihe copyrighI proIecIion sysIem is noI ap-
propriaIe and are requesIing Ihe applicaIion ol Ihe solIware paIenIs sysIem.
They believe IhaI Ihe problem lies in Ihe very naIure ol Ihe AuIhors' righIs}
copyrighI sysIem, which, as we have seen, does noI proIecI Ihe underlying
ideas and invenIions ol a compuIer program, allowing lor Ihe coexisIence on
Ihe markeI ol compuIer programs wiIh dillerenI source codes buI wiIh iden-
Iical luncIions.
Trademarks and
paIenIs

GNUEDL 1rademarks and paLenLs
lcense"
1ndex

1ntroducton............................................................................................... S

1. TrademarRx.......................................................................................... 7
1.1. Trademark basics ......................................................................... 7
1.2. DuraIion and exclusive righIs ....................................................
1.3. AcquisiIion ol Irademarks ........................................................... 10
1.3.1. NaIional Irademarks ...................................................... 10
1.3.2. InIernaIional applicaIions ............................................. 11
1.3.3. CommuniIy Irademark .................................................. 12
1.4. Trademark assignmenI and licensing ......................................... 12
1.S. Trademark inlringemenI ............................................................. 13
1.o. Trademarks and inIerneI ............................................................. 14
1.o.1. Use ol Irademarks on websiIes ...................................... 1S
1.o.2. Use ol Irademarks in domain names ............................ 1o

2. Patentx................................................................................................... 18
2.1. ConcepI and scope ol paIenIs .................................................... 18
2.2. RequiremenIs lor paIenIabiliIy: invenIions ................................ 20
2.2.1. FaIenI requiremenIs ...................................................... 20
2.2.2. ExcepIions Io paIenIabiliIy ........................................... 21
2.2.3. Classes ol paIenIs .......................................................... 21
2.3. Frocedure lor obIaining a paIenI ................................................ 22
2.3.1. ExaminaIion ................................................................... 22
2.3.2. InIernaIional sIandardisaIion ol lormaliIies in
paIenIs applicaIion ........................................................ 23
2.3.3. The paIenI documenI and "claims" ............................... 24
2.4. Owners, duraIion and conIenI ol Ihe paIenIs ............................ 2S
2.4.1. RighIsholders ................................................................. 2S
2.4.2. LimiIaIions: Iime and IerriIory ..................................... 2o
2.4.3. RighIs granIed under Ihe paIenI ................................... 2o
2.S. Transmission and paIenI licences ............................................... 27
2.o. CombinaIion paIenIs .................................................................. 2
2.7. Dillerences beIween auIhor's righIs and paIenIs ........................ 2

3. The controverx on xoItware gatentabIt................................ 31
3.1. HisIory ol Ihe legal proIecIion ol solIware ................................. 31
3.2. FaIenIabiliIy ol solIware ............................................................. 33
3.2.1. SolIware paIenIabiliIy in Europe ................................... 34
3.2.2. FaIenIabiliIy ol solIware in Ihe UniIed SIaIes and
oIher counIries .............................................................. 37
3.2.3. Eailed EU DirecIive on CompuIer ImplemenIed
InvenIions ...................................................................... 3
3.3. AdvanIages and disadvanIages ol paIenI proIecIion ol
solIware ....................................................................................... 40
3.3.1. AdvanIages ..................................................................... 40
3.3.2. DisadvanIages ................................................................ 41
3.3.3. AIIiIudes ol Ihe solIware indusIry ................................. 42
3.4. Eree solIware and paIenIs ........................................................... 43

4. ConcIuxonx.......................................................................................... 4
GNUEDL 5 1rademarks and paLenLs
1ntroducton
In Ihis module we will presenI Ihe legal proIecIion ol oIher Iypes ol inIangi-
ble properIy: Irademarks and paIenIs. In conIinenIal legal sysIems, Ihese are
generally relerred Io as "IndusIrial FroperIy righIs".
EirsI, we will look aI how Irademark law proIecIs Ihe use ol disIincIive signs
on a general basis, how Irademarks are used and proIecIed on Ihe inIerneI, in
parIicular in relaIion Io domain names, and in relaIion Io solIware.
Second, we will look aI paIenIs and how Ihey are used Io proIecI "invenIions",
and Ihe problemaIic issue ol solIware paIenIs and Iheir relaIionship wiIh lree
solIware.
1. TrademarRx
Trademark law wiIhin Ihe European Union consisIs ol boIh naIional laws,
IhaI are harmonised Io a cerIain degree on Ihe basis ol Ihe EU Trademark
DirecIive (EirsI DirecIive 8}104}EEC ol Ihe Council, ol 21 December 188,
Io ApproximaIe Ihe Laws ol Ihe Member SIaIes RelaIing Io Trade Marks), and
Ihere is also a CommuniIy Trademark sysIem IhaI covers all Ihe counIries
ol Ihe Union (Council RegulaIion (EC) No 40}4 ol 20 December 13 on
Ihe CommuniIy Irade mark and Commission RegulaIion (EC) No 28o8}S ol
13 December 1S implemenIing Council RegulaIion (EC) No 40}4 on Ihe
CommuniIy Irade mark).
1.1. TrademarR baxcx
A Irademark is any sign suscepIible ol graphic represenIaIion serving Io dis-
Iinguish Ihe producIs or services ol one company lrom Ihose ol Ihe oIhers in
Ihe markeI.
TrademarRx
FroducIs: solIware, such as Linux
, Mozilla
Eirelox
or MSWindows
, or hardware, such
as MacinIosh
, HewleII Fackard
, eIc.
Services: compuIer program developmenI services, Ihe Red HaI
solIware supporI service,

IBM
consulIing and inIegraIion services, eIc.

The principal luncIion ol a Irademark is Io idenIily Ihe value ol producIs and
Ihe organisaIions IhaI produce and commercialise Ihem and Io disIinguish
Ihem lrom oIhers in Ihe markeI ("disIincIiveness" or disIinguishing qualiIy ol
Ihe Irademark). A Irademark noI only proIecIs iIs owner buI also consumers
and Ihe proper luncIioning ol Ihe markeI in general: consumers disIinguish
producIs due Io Ihe idenIilying luncIion ol a mark, and iIs associaIion wiIh
an organisaIion. ConsequenIly, Ihe value ol Ihe Irademark is IhaI acquired
in commerce, i.e., IhaI received lrom Ihe consumers and recognised by Ihe
players in Ihe markeI. Taking advanIage ol Ihe presIige ol anoIher mark and
Ihe associaIed company is Iherelore prohibiIed. UlIimaIely, Irademarks seek Io
avoid Ihe "rsl oj conjuson" ol producIs and services in Ihe markeI, including
Ihe "rsl oj assocaton" beIween companies.
AlIhough Ihe main luncIion ol Ihe Irademark is Io indicaIe Ihe busIness orIgIn ol a
compuIer program, Irademark law may oller a basis lor Ihe indirecI proIecIion ol Ihe
product IdentIIIed. This would be Ihe case, lor insIance, in Ihe siIuaIions shown below,
where Ihe lollowing may be prohibiIed:
The modilicaIion ol a program and iIs subsequenI markeIing wiIh Ihe same disIin-
guishing mark.
The commercialisaIion ol solIware removing Ihe Irademark ol Ihe owner IhaI was
included wiIh Ihe programs and puIIing on anoIher (passing oll).
MoredeLailsaLLhesiLeofLhe
OfficeforHarmonizaLionin
LhelnLernalMarkeL.
A company such as Red HaI can use iIs Irademark Io exercise a monopoly over Ihe ver-
sions ol Ihe lree solIware iI disIribuIes. By doing so, iI can oller cerIain guaranIees ol
qualiIy lor iIs versions (lor insIance, a guaranIee IhaI Ihere are no viruses in Ihe Red
HaI
Linux EnIerprise) and would disIinguish iIs insIallaIion and inIegraIion Iools and
supporI services.
Trademarks may be ol dIIIerent types:
DenomInatIve (one or more words).
GraphIc or "liguraIive" (a drawing, leIIers or ligures or combinaIions Ihere-
ol).
MIxed (a mixIure ol words and drawings).
TrIdImensIonal (Ihe lorm ol an objecI: lor insIance, Ihe Coca-Cola boIIle
or Ihe Michelin man).
Sounds (Ihe Nokia sound ol a mobile phone).
Any combinaIion ol Ihese.
Trademarks musI be dIstInctIve. On regisIering, Ihere are cerIain absoluIe and
relaIive grounds lor relusing Ihe granI ol Irademark righIs:
Normally,LheLrademarksas-
sociaLedwiLhacompuLerpro-
gramwouldbedenominaLive,
graphic}figuraLiveormixed,
asLheyareLobevisualisedon
screen.
Absolute grounds: denominaIions which are generic or descripIive (i.e.
noI disIincIive), decepIive, consisI ol ollicial emblems, or are againsI pub-
lic policy.
RelatIve grounds: applicaIions lor a mark which is Ihe same or similar
Io oIher previously regisIered (or oIherwise valid) marks in respecI ol Ihe
same or similar producIs. In Ihis case, Ihe regisIraIion process enables pri-
or mark holders Io objecI Io Ihe regisIraIion ol Ihe new mark, and Ihis
objecIion can be eiIher negoIiaIed or appealed by Ihe parIies.
Trademark proIecIion is granIed in respecI ol certaIn categorIes oI products
and servIces, as indicaIed in Ihe applicaIion documenIs lor regisIered Irade-
marks or as claimed, in relaIion Io unregisIered Irademarks in Ihe UK}US.
There is a classilicaIion ol producIs IhaI has been agreed aI an inIernaIional
level (Ihe Nce Classjcaton
1
).
(1)
The Nice ConvenIion lor Ihe inIernaIional classilicaIion ol producIs and services lor
Irademark purpose seeks Io provide inlormaIion on Irademarks aI a naIional and inIer-
naIional level, so IhaI Ihe signaIory counIries use a sole classilicaIion lor adminisIraIive
purposes in Ihe Irademarks liled aI Iheir regisIries.
The mosI common classes lor solIware are (lor solIware as a producI), 42 (lor solIware
services) and 4S (solIware licensing). Business services on Ihe inIerneI, such as ecom-
merce, can lall under Ihe classes 3S (a caIch-all lor business in general) or 38 (Ielecom-
municaIions services), Ihough iI is olIen more relevanI Io apply lor Ihe classes ol Ihe
producIs IhaI are acIually sold online (books, solIware, holidays, eIc.).
Worldwide,lawsLendLopro-
hibiLLheregisLraLionofgener-
ic marks(suchasLheLrade-
mark"SofLware")andgeo-
graphicaI names(wiLhLheex-
cepLionofappellaLionsofori-
gin,whichhaveaveryspecific
regime).
Therelore Irademark legislaIion Iends Io allow Iwo idenIical marks Io exisI si-
mulIaneously il Ihey apply Io dillerenI producIs or services, in order noI Io
exhausI usable words (Ihe Nice classilicaIion relerred Io above is imporIanI lor
Ihese purposes). In Ihis sense, Ihe "IBM" Irademark lor programming services
is noI Ihe same as iI would be lor dairy loods, il Ihis exisIed. Frecisely, in order
1heEuropeanCommuniLy
LrademarkregisLraLionprocess
allowsapplyingforupLoLhree
classesforLhesameprice.
IhaI a disIinguishing mark noI be limiIed Io a single series ol producIs or ser-
vices, iI is advisable, in Ihe case ol doubI, Io include a greaIer number ol prod-
ucI classes, alIhough Ihis would imply greaIer cosIs in lees and procedures.
Trademark righIs are terrItorIal. As wiIh paIenIs and as opposed Io auIhor's
righIs, legislaIion Iends Io esIablish IhaI a Irademark musI be regisIered aI Ihe
relevanI Irademark ollices in a given IerriIory Io be able Io claim exclusive
righIs, and iI is necessary Io pay a series ol adminisIraIive lees lor iI Io be el-
lecIive over Iime. UnregisIered Irademark righIs may arise in cerIain jurisdic-
Iions Ihrough use, such as Ihe UK and Ihe USA.
1.2. Ouraton and excIuxve rghtx
The duraIion ol a regisIered Irademark is usually ten years Irom regIstra-
tIon, noIwiIhsIanding iIs renovaIion in subsequenI Ien-year blocks, which
may be done indeliniIely provided lees are paid and legal requiremenIs are
meI. NoneIheless, Irademarks musI in pracIice be used (under penalIy ol "laps-
ing" in case Ihey are noI used lor live years).
TrademarRs grant owners an exclusIve rIght to use a marR to dIstInguIsh
theIr products or servIces In the marRet wIth respect to sImIlar products
or servIces oI other companIes. These exclusive righIs auIhorise Ihe owners
Io prohibiI Ihird parIies lrom markeIing similar producIs or services under Ihe
same mark or under a similar mark IhaI could mislead Ihe public.
The Irademark owner may Iherelore prohibiI, among oIher Ihings, Ihe lollowing, wiIh-
ouI Iheir prior consenI:
Flacing Ihe mark on producIs or Iheir packaging.
Ollering producIs, markeIing Ihem or sIoring Ihem lor such purposes, or ollering or
providing services under Ihe mark.
ImporIing or exporIing producIs wiIh Ihe mark.
Using Ihe mark on commercial documenIs and in adverIising.
Using Ihe mark in communicaIion neIworks and as a domain name.
Flacing Ihe mark on wrappers, packaging, labels or oIher means ol idenIilicaIion or
decoraIion ol Ihe producI or service, or manulacIuring or providing Ihese wrappers,
eIc. IhaI may be used Io perlorm any acIs prohibiIed in accordance wiIh Ihe preceding
poinIs.
Removing Ihe mark (alIhough Ihey cannoI prevenI Ihem lrom adding Iheir own
disIinguishing marks or signs separaIely, as long as doing so does noI undermine Ihe
disIinguishing capaciIy ol Ihe main Irademark).
NoneIheless, Ihird parIies may use, wiIhouI Ihe consenI ol Ihe owner ol a
mark provided iI is done "in good laiIh" and does noI consIiIuIe "use as a
Irademark":
Their lull name and address.
IndicaIions relaIing Io Ihe Iype, qualiIy, amounI, use, value, geographical
source, Iime ol producIion ol Ihe producI or service rendered, or oIher
characIerisIics.
A Ihird parIy Irademark, il Ihe purpose is Io indicaIe Ihe use wiIh respecI
Io a producI or service, especially in Ihe case ol accessories or loose parIs,
provided such use conlorms Io lair indusIrial or commercial pracIices.
As wiIh paIenIs and auIhor's righIs, Irademarks are also subjecI Io Ihe con-
cepI ol exhaustIon oI rIghts lor producIs markeIed in Ihe IerriIory where Ihe
Irademark has been regisIered. In oIher words, when a producI idenIilied wiIh
a Irademark is sold, Ihe owner cannoI demand iIs reIurn based on a monopoly
ol Ihe Irademark or prevenI iI being resold (e.g. in second hand markeIs).
1.3. Acguxton oI trademarRx
In some counIries, Ihe righIs granIed by Ihe Irademark are acquired Ihrough
regisIraIion, wiIh cerIain excepIions relaIing Io well-known Irademarks (Irade-
marks known in Ihe relevanI secIor ol Ihe public Io which Ihe producIs or
services are direcIed) and renowned Irademarks (Irademarks known by Ihe
public in general).
In oIher counIries, on Ihe oIher hand (lor insIance, in English-speaking coun-
Iries), Irademarks can be acquired wiIh use, regisIraIion iIsell is a mere lormal-
iIy wiIh evidenIiary and documenIary ellecIs.
As Irademarks are IerriIorial, various Iypes ol Irademark may be obIained: na-
Iional Irademark, inIernaIional applicaIion or communiIy Irademark.
1.3.1. NatonaI trademarRx
Every counIry has iIs own Irademark ollice (excepI Ihe counIries ol Ihe
Benelux, which share a common ollice) and iI is necessary Io submiI Irade-
mark applicaIions separaIely in each ollice lor Ihe proIecIion ol Ihe Irademark
in IhaI counIry. This usually requires some simple lormal requiremenIs Io be
meI, and Ihe paymenI ol an adminisIraIive lee (applicaIion lee, concession
lee, renewal lee, eIc.).
The applicaIion procedure varies depending on Ihe Irademark ollice ol each
counIry. Basically, Ihey Iry Io lilIer ouI applicaIions IhaI do noI meeI Ihe re-
quiremenIs esIablished by law. The process sIarIs wiIh Ihe liling ol documenIs,
lollowed by Ihe publicaIion ol Ihe applicaIion in Ihe relevanI Irademark bul-
leIin. LaIer, a Ierm lor objecIions commences and, linally, Ihe Irademark is
eiIher granIed or denied.
lLwouldbefairLouseLheLin-
ux
LrademarkLosayLhaLa
producLis"builLLorunonLhe
CN}LinuxoperaLingsysLem"
asLhisismerelydescripLiveof
LheproducL,andnoLusedLo
commercialiseLheCN}Linux
sysLem.
MarksareofLenidenLifiedby
Lhe
signwhenregisLeredand
LhesignwhenunregisLered.
Trademark righIs arise lrom Ihe daIe ol applicaIion lor Ihe mark, and a Irade-
mark applicanI is also enIiIled, when requesIing Ihe same Irademark in oIher
counIries signaIories ol Ihe Faris ConvenIion, Io ask lor "inIernaIional priori-
Iy", going back Io Ihe daIe ol original granI in Ihe lirsI IerriIory. InIernaIional
prioriIy is given lor a period ol six monIhs, and is noI subjecI Io exIension.
1.3.2. 1nternatonaI aggIcatonx
InIernaIionalisaIion ol a mark counIry by counIry is expensive and compli-
caIed (iI implies lollowing a separaIe procedure lor each counIry). Therelore,
in 181 Ihe Madrid ConvenIion was execuIed in relaIion Io Ihe inIernaIional
regisIraIion ol Irademarks.
An inIernaIional applicaIion is an inIernaIional adminisIraIive cooperaIion
sysIem direcIed Io simplilying Ihe sIeps required Io regisIer a Irademark simul-
Ianeously in several counIries. Such a process is less expensive Ihan separaIe
and individualised processes in each counIry.
The process is managed in SwiIzerland by Ihe World InIellecIual FroperIy Or-
ganizaIion (WIFO), a special agency ol Ihe UniIed NaIions. The procedure
sIarIs lrom an exisIing regisIered Irademark or applicaIion (naIional, commu-
niIy, eIc.) and exIends iIs ellecIs Io oIher counIries (allowing requesIs Io pro-
IecI Ihe mark in several counIries aI Ihe same Iime) Ihrough a single docu-
menI: Ihe inIernaIional applicaIion.
The resulI is a "collecIion ol IiIle deeds" Io a Irademark IhaI are individual and
independenI.
Eees in relaIion Io Ihe inIernaIional process vary lrom one counIry Io anoIher.
The lees would be added lor each designaIed counIry. This amounI would
always be less Ihan Ihe corresponding number ol separaIe applicaIions.
The inconvenience wiIh Ihis sysIem is IhaI, during a period ol live years lrom
Ihe daIe ol regisIraIion, an inIernaIional regisIraIion depends on Ihe original
Irademark regisIered or applied lor in Ihe counIry ol origin. And il Ihe ap-
plicaIion is denied or il Ihe base regisIraIion ceases Io be ellecIive (eiIher by
cancellaIion or as a resulI ol decision by Ihe original ollice or courI order, or
due Io volunIary cancellaIion or lailure Io renew), Ihe inIernaIional regisIra-
Iion would no longer be proIecIed during such live-year period and may be
cancelled.
AlIer Ihe live-year Ierm, Ihe inIernaIional regisIraIion loses all dependency in
respecI ol Ihe base regisIraIion or base applicaIion and each IerriIorial Irade-
mark righI is a separaIe righI.
1.3.3. Communt trademarR
The inIernaIional adminisIraIive cooperaIion procedure was noI IhoughI sul-
licienI lor Ihe ellicienI operaIion ol Ihe European Union and Ihe inIernal mar-
keI.
ConsequenIly, RegulaIion (CE) 40}4 by Ihe Council, ol 20 December 13,
regarding Ihe communiIy Irademark, esIablishes Ihe possibiliIy ol applying lor
a communIty trademarR (olIen called "CTM"), eiIher direcIly wiIh Ihe Ojjce
oj Harmonzaton jor the lnternal Marlet (OHIM, in AlicanIe, Spain), or Ihrough
Ihe respecIive Irademark ollices ol Ihe EU member sIaIes (Io be lorwarded
subsequenIly Io OHIM).
The resulI is a single cerIilicaIe IhaI is valid simulIaneously IhroughouI Ihe
enIire IerriIory ol Ihe European Union. Eees are greaIer Ihan Ihose lor a na-
Iional Irademark, buI less Ihan Ihe sum ol all ol Ihem.
The seIback wiIh Ihis sysIem is IhaI, il Ihe Irademark is denied in a counIry based on a
prior naIional Irademark, Ihe applicaIion lees would be losI and iI would be necessary
Io sIarI again Io requesI anoIher dillerenI Irademark or requesI Ihe relevanI remaining
naIional Irademarks in which Ihere are no equal or similar precedenIs.
Procedure
The procedure ol examinaIion ol a CTM applicaIion may be schemaIically
summarised in Ihe lollowing seven sIages:
1) FresenIaIion ol applicaIion.
2) Freliminary examinaIion and agreemenI on presenIaIion daIe.
3) ExaminaIion ol oIher lormaliIies (lees, classilicaIion, prioriIy, aging, eIc.).
4) Search lor precedenIs.
5) ExaminaIion ol absoluIe grounds lor denial.
) Fublic announcemenI ol applicaIion and period lor opposiIion.
7) Issue ol cerIilicaIe and regisIraIion wiIh communiIy Irademarks regisIry.
Ol course, Ihe risk ol denial ol granI is higher because Ihe holders ol any prior
idenIical or conlusingly similar Irademark regisIered or recognised in any ol
Ihe EU sIaIes can objecI Io Ihe CTM applicaIion.
1.4. TrademarR axxgnment and Icenxng
Trademarks may be "sold" (or assIgned, as we say) Io oIhers, like oIher proper-
Iy, so IhaI Ihe recipienI becomes Ihe new holder ol Ihe Irademark righIs. This
happens, lor example, when a company sells oll a business division Io anoIh-
er, IogeIher wiIh Ihe Irademarks associaIed Io Ihe producIs (and producIion
line) IhaI are sold Io Ihe buyer.
Trademark Iransmission may be carried ouI separaIely lrom IhaI ol a company (Ihis is Ihe
case ol mosI EU naIional Irademarks or Ihe communiIy Irademark). NoneIheless, in some
counIries, Ihe delaulI rule may be Ihe opposiIe: Irademarks may only be IransmiIIed
along wiIh Ihe corporaIe sIrucIure, whaI is known as assignmenI in gross.
However, in order Io enable a Ihird parIy Io use a Irademark (e.g. a reIailer or
reseller ol your goods), iI is more olIen Ihe case IhaI righIs Io use Ihe Irade-
mark are lIcensed, subjecI Io conIrols ol producI qualiIy and use ol Ihe mark.
Indeed, iI is an obligaIion ol Ihe Irademark owner Io "police" Ihe use ol his}her
Irademark in Ihe markeI, Io proIecI iI againsI diluIion by Ihird parIies (use ol
Ihe mark by Ihird parIies IhaI reduces Ihe idenIilying luncIion ol Ihe mark).
So Irademark licences Iend Io esIablish sIricI condiIions on how Ihe mark is
used, wiIh IerminaIion ol Ihe licence in Ihe evenI ol breach.
Think ol Ihe use ol Ihe Linux
Irademark in disIribuIions ol inIermediaries such as Red

HaI, Suse, Mandriva, Knoppix, eIc. in Ihe use ol "OSI CerIilied" lor a licence or Ihe use
ol Ihe "Apache" Irademark on web-servers, eIc. This Iype ol use requires a licence.
Licences may be:
Eor all or some ol Ihe producIs or services lor which Ihe Irademark is reg-
isIered.
Eor all or parI ol Ihe Irademark IerriIory.
Exclusive or nonexclusive.
BoIh assignmenIs and licenses may be regisIered belore Ihe Irademark ollices,
so as Io provide noIice Io Ihird parIies ol Ihe righIs IhaI have been granIed.
Eor Ihe regisIraIion ol Ihe respecIive licence wiIh Ihe Irademarks ollice Io be
ellecIive wiIh regard Io Ihird parIies, iI musI be submiIIed in wriIing, Io access
such public regisIry. AnnoIaIions may also be made Ihere in respecI ol Irade-
marks, successions, esIaIes, eIc.
In relaIion Io lree solIware, as iI is disIribuIed worldwide wiIhouI a lormal
licensing process (lor mosI lree solIware packages), lree solIware projecIs Iend
Io publish a Irademark policy Io regulaIe Ihe use ol Ihe associaIed Irademark,
wiIhouI iI being necessary Io requesI a parIicular auIhorisaIion.
OIher projecIs include Irademark-relaIed agreemenIs in Ihe licence iIsell (lor
insIance, in Ihe Academic Eree License, or Ihe prohibiIion ol using Ihe Irade-
mark "Apache" in Ihe Apache 1.1 licence).
1.5. TrademarR nIrngement
In Ihe evenI ol inlringing use ol someone's Irademark, as wiIh oIher inIangible
(inIellecIual or indusIrial) properIy, Ihe righIsholder may apply Io Ihe courIs
lor an injuncIion Io cease using Ihe mark and accounI lor proliIs made by
Ihe inlringer. In addiIion, Io supporI Ihe case and conserve evidence, goods
exhibiIing Ihe mark and oIher evidence ol Ihe misuse may be seized, and bank
accounIs ol Ihe inlringing parIy may be lrozen.
SeelOSSprojecLLrademark
policiessuchasMozilla,os-
CommerceandMySQL.
Belore applying Io Ihe courIs, Ihe Irademark holder should and usually does
send a leIIer Io Ihe inlringer, olIen called a "cease and desisI" leIIer, requesIing
Ihe inlringer Io do jusI IhaI: cease Ihe currenI inlringing use ol Ihe mark and
desisI lrom any luIure inlringing use.
We have commenIed, in secIion .4 ol Module 2 on auIhors' righIs}copyrighI,
on Ihe European lramework lor proIecIing Ihese righIs, which are applicable
Io all lorms ol "inIellecIual properIy righIs", including copyrighI, paIenIs and
Irademarks.
We have already seen above Ihe lisI ol exclusive righIs ol Ihe Irademark hold-
er, and unauIhorised use ol Ihe mark by a Ihird parIy in relaIion Io Ihese acIs
would consIiIuIe inlringemenI. However, iI is noI always clear whaI is con-
sidered "inlringing use". To analyse any inlringemenI Ihrough Ihe use ol an-
oIher mark IhaI is Ihe same or "conlusingly similar" Io a proIecIed mark, and
Ihe likelihood ol conlusion, dillerenI criIeria are usually Iaken inIo accounI,
including Ihe similariIy in Ihe overall impression creaIed by Ihe Iwo marks
(Ihe marks' words}leIIers, Ihe graphic impression or look, phoneIic similari-
Iies, and underlying meanings) and Ihe similariIy}ies ol Ihe goods and services
in quesIion.
OIher criIeria IhaI are considered include:
The sIrengIh ol Ihe plainIill's mark, including iIs disIincIiveness and noIorieIy.
Evidence ol acIual conlusion by consumers.
The inIenI ol Ihe alleged inlringer in using Ihe poIenIially inlringing mark.
The degree ol knowledge ol Ihe user}consumer and care likely Io be exercised by Ihe
consumer in choosing a producI.
On Ihe oIher hand, cerIain jurisdicIions such as Ihe UK and Ihe US have esIab-
lished proIecIion lor users againsI inappropriaIe and unlounded allegaIions ol
Irademark misuse (e.g. making unwarranIed IhreaIs, such as sending a cease
and desisI leIIer in cases where Ihe use is legiIimaIe).
1.. TrademarRx and nternet
InIerneI and new Iechnologies in general have given rise Io a whole new series
ol quesIions in relaIion Io Irademarks. In Ihis secIion, we locus brielly on
a specilic issue in relaIion Io Irademarks, which is Iheir use and proIecIion
online.
1..1. Lxe oI trademarRx on webxtex
Use ol a Irademark on a websiIe generally consIiIuIes "use in commerce". The
owner or licensee ol a Irademark would usually use Ihe mark on a websiIe lor
adverIising an idenIilied producI or services relaIing Io Ihe producI.
Use on websiIe IhaI has no economic naIure may escape Irademark prohibi-
Iions, however because iI is noI always clear when a siIe has economic impli-
caIions or noI (side banners, sell promoIion, eIc.), Ihis issue should be IreaIed
wiIh care.
In cerIain cases use will be purely descripIive (or "nominaIive") basically
when Ihe mark is used lor idenIilying a producI and is permiIIed (e.g., "l
use XXXX proJucts" or "XXX proJucts are usejul jor YYY"). However Ihere is
a line line beIween a permiIIed descripIive use and "use as a Irademark" lor
promoIing eiIher one's own producIs or services or Ihose ol Ihe Irademark
owner.
A use which is noI always clear is sIaIing IhaI a person or company has skills and expe-
rience in cerIain Iechnologies or has carried ouI cerIain projecIs using deIermined prod-
ucIs depending on how Ihis is done, Ihis could be seen as unlairly using Ihe mark Io
promoIe Ihe consulIanI's services.
1ypicalwebsiLeLrademarkus-
ageincludes:
inLhedomainname(see
below),
inadverLisemenLsonLhe
websiLe,
inhyperlinks,
inmeLaLagsandoLher(in-
visible)meLadaLaand
inadwordsandsimilarad-
verLisingprograms.
xample
1heuseofaLrademarkina
personalblog,providediLwas
noLadverLisingLhaLorany
oLherproducL(e.g.iLisused
LodescribeoridenLifyaprod-
ucL),wouldnoLinfringeLhe
righLsholder'srighLs.
UnauIhorised use on a websiIe would inlringe Ihe righIsholder's righIs, enIi-
Iling him}her Io requesI Ihe websiIe owner Io cease (and desisI) use ol Ihe
mark, and, il economic gains had been made, a percenIage ol Ihe proliIs made
by misuse ol Ihe proIecIed mark, as we have menIioned above.
One parIicular issue here is IhaI ol IerriIory: Ihe inIerneI has no boundaries,
while Irademark proIecIion is IerriIorial. So a person could use a sign IhaI is
noI proIecIed in his}her IerriIory (or lor which he}she has proIecIed righIs in
IhaI IerriIory) buI IhaI siIe is accessible all round Ihe world. So il anoIher per-
son has righIs in Ihe same mark in anoIher IerriIory, he or she may claim IhaI
Ihe websiIe use is inlringing Ihose righIs in IhaI IerriIory. This has given rise Io
a signilicanI number ol conllicIs beIween Irademarks on Ihe inIerneI, some ol
which are resolved amicably, while oIhers have given rise Io legal procedures,
complicaIed by Ihe issue ol deIermining applicable law and compeIenI courIs
lor deciding on Ihe issue.
While Ihis is noI Ihe place Io enIer inIo Ihis Iopic in deIail, we noIe IhaI a
cerIain amounI ol case law and pracIical recommendaIions
2
have arisen in
respecI ol Ihese cases.
(2)
In parIicular, WIFO has ollered a "JoinI recommendaIion concerning provisions on
Ihe proIecIion ol marks, and oIher indusIrial properIy righIs in signs, on Ihe inIerneI"
which can be lound aI Ihe WIFO siIe. II inIends Io laciliIaIe:
"DeIermining wheIher, under Ihe applicable law, use ol a sign on Ihe inIerneI has
conIribuIed Io Ihe acquisiIion, mainIenance or inlringemenI ol a mark or oIher in-
dusIrial properIy righI in Ihe sign, or wheIher such use consIiIuIes an acI ol unlair
compeIiIion.
ChillingeffecLs.orgmainLains
apubliclisLof"ceaseandde-
sisLleLLers"broughLLoiLsaL-
LenLion.oucanseeanexam-
pleaLchillingeffecLs.org.
Enabling owners ol conllicIing righIs in idenIical or similar signs Io use Ihese signs
concurrenIly on Ihe inIerneI.
DeIermining remedies."
FarIicular poinIs or criIeria IhaI courIs Iend Io Iake inIo accounI are wheIher
Ihe siIes have a commercial inIeresI and acIiviIy, Ihe inIeracIiviIy ol Ihe web-
siIe (online sales, mere adverIising), Ihe use ol language, currencies and oIher
localisaIion lacIors IhaI could indicaIe IhaI Ihe websiIe is "aiming" aI users
wiIhin Ihe proIecIed IerriIory.
1..2. Lxe oI trademarRx n doman namex
Domain names are seen as a new lorm ol inIangible "indusIrial" properIy, inas-
much as Ihey have a specilic economic and social value, and can be Iraded. As
a means lor idenIilying Ihe "place" where Io lind a company or iIs producIs
online, a domain name acquires quasi "Irademark" value lor IhaI company.
This is noI Ihe place Io review Ihe governance and oIher regulaIory issues relaI-
ed Io domain names, Ihe role ol ICANN and naIional regisIries, and Iheir poli-
cies as Io domain name managemenI. We do, however, wanI Io locus brielly
on Ihe relaIionship beIween Irademarks and domain names.
Insolar as a domain name incorporaIes a proIecIed Irademark, we lind a con-
llicI beIween Ihe owner ol Ihe domain name and Ihe Irademark holder. Ob-
viously, in mosI cases Ihese are Ihe same person, as companies buy Ihe do-
main name corresponding Io Iheir company or producI mark (Cocacola.com,
sun.com, lBM.com, eIc.). However, Ihis is noI always Ihe case: Ihird parIies reg-
isIer domain names using oIhers' Irademarks
3
, eiIher Io Iake commercial ad-
vanIage or Io criIicise, or lor many oIher purposes.
In anoIher scenario, persons wiIh Ihe same Irademark in dillerenI jurisdicIions
came head Io head when looking lor an online idenIiIy.
As Ihe domain name sysIem is quasi-privaIely run by ICANN, iI Iook a while
lor naIional and inIernaIional bodies Io come up wiIh a process lor sorIing
ouI domain name conllicIs. Today, Ihis is generally dealI wiIh by "Ospute Res-
oluton lroceJures" eiIher aI inIernaIional level under WIFO sponsored rules
(Ihe Unjorm Ooman Name Ospute Resoluton lolcy or "UDRF
4
") lor generic
domain names (.com, .org, .neI, .biz...) or naIionally in respecI ol Iop level
counIry domains (.de, .lr .es, eIc.).
(3)
1hisledLo"cybsquaLLing","Ly-
posquaLLing",andoLherformsof
useofLhirdparLymarks,somele-
giLimaLe,somenoL.
(4)
"The Unilorm Domain Name DispuIe ResoluIion Folicy (Ihe UDRF Folicy) seIs ouI Ihe
legal lramework lor Ihe resoluIion ol dispuIes beIween a domain name regisIranI and a
Ihird parIy (i.e., a parIy oIher Ihan Ihe regisIrar) over Ihe abusive regisIraIion and use ol
an inIerneI domain name in Ihe generic Iop level domains".
These DRFs seI up a process lor an (independenI) panel Io deIermine il some-
one is using a domain in breach ol generally a Irademark holder's righIs.
They are olIen based on Ihe WIFO UDRF, which seIs Ihree criIeria lor deIer-
mining illegiIimaIe regisIraIion (and Ihus order Ihe inlringer Io Iransler Ihe
domain name Io Ihe complainanI):
Ihe domain name regisIered by Ihe domain name regisIranI is idenIical
or conlusingly similar Io a Irademark or service mark in which Ihe com-
plainanI (Ihe person or enIiIy bringing Ihe complainI) has righIs, and
Ihe domain name regisIranI has no righIs or legiIimaIe inIeresIs in respecI
ol Ihe domain name in quesIion, and
Ihe domain name has been regisIered and is being used in bad laiIh.
This has led Io a large number ol requesIs Io "recover" domain names regis-
Iered by Ihird parIies, and a signilicanI number ol decisions on Ihe meriIs ol
each case (), by a panel ol one Io Ihree arbiIraIors. These decisions are noI
wiIhouI criIicism lrom Ihe legal and business communiIy, olIen lor being Ioo
"Irademark-holder lriendly", despiIe being, on Ihe mosI parI, pracIical and
commonsensical.
In cerIain cases, Ihe regisIraIion ol Ihe domain name has been upheld, even il iI uses
a Ihird parIy mark, primarily because Ihe regisIranI has a bone lide purpose Io use Ihe
domain name (e.g. lor criIicism and}or parody) or because he or she has a separaIe buI
valid righI Io use Ihe mark.
The arbiIraIors' decision is subjecI Io appeal, in Ihe courIs ol compeIenI jurisdicIion (noI
always easy Io deIermine) so as Io provide an appropriaIe righI ol legal delence (i.e. belore
Ihe courIs).
2. Patentx
Module 2 ol Ihis course, on AuIhors' RighIs, indicaIed IhaI auIhors' righIs or
copyrighI proIecI Ihe manilesIaIion or "lormal expression" ol a work, lor in-
sIance a compuIer program. They do noI proIecI Ihe concepI or "ideas" behind
Ihe work e.g. Ihe algoriIhms ol Ihe solIware which are separaIe lrom iIs
expression.
A paIenI, on Ihe oIher hand, is said Io proIecI Ihe "idea" in and ol iIsell, being
a Iechnical soluIion IhaI is independenI lrom Ihe "manner" in which Ihe idea
may be implemenIed. In oIher words, a paIenI an exclusive righI Io use an
invenIion granIs a monopoly over an absIracI IhoughI or idea, noI Ihe con-
creIe "expression" ol Ihe "idea".
In lacI, Ihis sIaIemenI is slighIly exaggeraIed, as a paIenI really proIecIs a (Iech-
nical) soluIion Io a (Iechnical) problem i.e. Ihe so-called "idea" in lacI musI
have a degree ol applicabiliIy and implemenIaIion, and noI jusI be purely ab-
sIracI ("anIi-graviIy llying machine"). In more general Ierms, Ihe paIenI pro-
IecIs Iechnical conIribuIions invenIive ideas enriching Ihe possibiliIies ol
persons in Ihe domain ol naIural lorces, lor Ihe saIislacIion ol Iheir social
needs.
This secIion describes Ihe basic IeneIs ol paIenI law, belore we go on Io
commenI on iIs applicabiliIy Io solIware and Ihe conIroversy ol solIware
paIenIabiliIy.
2.1. Concegt and xcoge oI gatentx
In general Ierms, iI may be said IhaI paIenI righIs are monopoly righIs over
Ihe exploiIaIion ol implemenIaIions ol Ihe paIenIed invenIion, granIed Io
Ihe person (invenIor) who has creaIed an "nventon" lrom which an "nJustr-
al henejt" may be obIained. The righIs are subjecI Io limiIaIion in Ierms ol
IerriIory and Iime.
The righIs granIed Io Ihe invenIor are enlorced by a documenI, a cerIilicaIe
requesIed by Ihe invenIor and granIed by Ihe sIaIe, known as a "patent".
FaIenIs require regisIraIion: Ihe monopoly righIs solely exisI upon applicaIion
lor a paIenI, and clearly only il Ihis is ulIimaIely granIed by Ihe relevanI paIenI
ollice. Ideas IhaI are noI regisIered by Iheir creaIors belore being disclosed Io
Ihe public are noI proIecIed by law.
This is a signilicanI dillerence in respecI ol auIhor's righIs or copyrighI, which granI
direcI and auIomaIic proIecIion Io Ihe corresponding work, recognised IhroughouI Ihe
world, simply upon creaIion, Ihus wiIhouI any regisIraIion being necessary (alIhough in
some cases iI is convenienI, as menIioned in Ihe preceding chapIer, Io regisIer auIhor's
righIs or Ihe copyrighI Io provide evidence ol Ihe daIe ol creaIion ol Ihe work and a
presumpIion ol auIhorship).
In general Ierms, Iherelore, a paIenI seIs ouI Ihe conIracIual relaIion exisIing
beIween Ihe invenIor and Ihe sIaIe, whereupon Ihe sIaIe granIs Ihe inven-
Ior exclusive exploiIaIion righIs wiIh respecI Io Ihe invenIion, normally lor
a period ol IwenIy years, during which Ihe laIIer may obIain reIurn on Ihe
invesImenI made Io produce Ihe invenIion and proliIs Io compensaIe Ihe risk
assumed.
In exchange lor Ihese righIs, Ihe sIaIe publically discloses Ihe invenIion so
as Io enrich Ihe Iechnological paIrimony ol Ihe counIry and compels Ihe in-
venIor Io exploiI iI under cerIain condiIions, Io guaranIee IhaI Ihe paIenIed
Iechnology should acIually be used.
Anyone inIeresIed in Ihe paIenIed Iechnology would probably consider iI more conve-
nienI Io obIain a licence lrom Ihe invenIor in exchange lor levies or royalIies (i.e., an
economic compensaIion lor Ihe owner) raIher Ihan risk inlringing Ihe paIenI and pay
lines and penalIies. This compensaIion would be noI only Io pay lor Ihe paIenI iIsell,
buI also lor Ihe addiIional know-how noI described in Ihe paIenI documenIs (necessary
Io implemenI Ihe paIenI) and lor Ihe cerIain Iechnical assisIance.
The inIenIion behind Ihe concepI ol paIenI is Io encourage Ihe disclosure
ol invenIions Io socieIy. FaIenIs are noI jusI abouI rewarding invenIors buI
also lor encouraging Ihem noI Io keep Iheir invenIions secreI. WiIhouI Ihis
legal proIecIion, Ihe invenIor would Iend Io keep Ihe invenIion secreI, noI
disclosing anyIhing abouI iI oIher Ihan iIs resulIs (i.e., Ihe producIs iI would
place on Ihe markeI), and Ihus prevenIing oIhers lrom building on Ihis idea
Io creaIe beIIer producIs and services.
As applied Io solIware, Ihis would imply IhaI a solIware paIenI would need Io disclose
publicly Ihe idea and means lor implemenIing a given algoriIhm, including evenIually
iIs source code. However, solIware source code or algoriIhms Iend noI Io be published
in Ihe descripIion ol Ihe paIenI, precisely Io mainIain Ihe secrecy ol Ihe mosI valuable
parI ol compuIer programs: Iheir source code.
The disclosure ol Ihe invenIion, alIhough required Io be in sullicienI deIail Io
allow an average experI in Ihe maIIer Io undersIand and implemenI iI (one
Ialks ol "Ieachings" ol a paIenI), does noI imply IhaI iI should make iI easy
Io abuse or avoid Ihe paIenI, inasmuch as Io enable iIs correcI and proper
exploiIaIion (under licence).
In view ol Ihe wide scope ol Ihe paIenI righIs, Io avoid Ihe proIecIion ol obvi-
ous invenIions IhaI do noI imply any invenIive acIiviIy, a series ol (minimum)
legal requiremenIs have been esIablished. The more Irivial an invenIion pro-
IecIed by a paIenI is, Ihe more deIrimenIal iI would be lor Ihe sIaIe Io granI a
monopoly on iIs exploiIaIion. In such case, Ihe owner ol Ihe paIenI would be
granIed an unwarranIed monopoly. II is Iherelore necessary lor governmenI
(Ihe respecIive paIenI ollice) Io verily and evaluaIe Ihe paIenI applicaIion re-
quesIed by Ihe invenIor belore iIs concession.
The decision Io proIecI an invenIion wiIh a paIenI involves a calculaIion ol cosIs and
beneliIs as obIaining a paIenI involves subsIanIial cosIs (upwards ol 10,000-1S,000 Eu-
ros in cerIain cases) and, once iI has been obIained, annual paymenIs musI be made
Io Ihe respecIive paIenIs ollice Io mainIain ellecIive Ihe righIs Io Ihe respecIive paIenI
regisIraIion.
As wiIh Irademarks, paIenI law is naIional and proIecIion is IerriIorial. In Eu-
rope (buI noI wiIhin Ihe scope ol European Union law) Ihere is an inIerna-
Iional IreaIy called Ihe European FaIenI ConvenIion ol 173 ("EFC") which
regulaIes Ihe granIing ol whaI is generally known as a "European FaIenI". The
European FaIenI is regulaIed and managed by Ihe European FaIenI Ollice, in
Munich, which evaluaIes and granIs European FaIenIs. Once granIed, Ihese
are in pracIice a porIlolio ol naIional paIenIs and invalidiIy procedures musI
be Iaken belore naIional courIs.
2.2. Regurementx Ior gatentabIt: nventonx
A paIenI proIecIs "invenIions". BuI modern legislaIions Iend noI Io deline Ihe
Ierm "invenIion": Ihey merely esIablish IhaI invenIions meeIing all lormal and
maIerial requiremenIs are paIenIable. The deliniIion ol invenIion is Iherelore
vague.
In Ihe UniIed SIaIes, an invenIion musI be "new", "non obvious" and "uselul". In Europe,
on Ihe oIher hand, an invenIion musI be "new", involve an "invenIive sIep" and have
"indusIrial applicaIion". The European FaIenIs Ollice has in pracIice developed Ihe con-
cepI ol "indusIrial applicaIion" as iI has undersIood invenIion Io be a Iechnical soluIion
Io a Iechnical problem.
FaIenI proIecIion Ihus requires an elemenI ol "creaIiviIy" (similar Io copy-
righIs), in Ierms ol "invenIive novelIy" delined as a Iechnological advance over
prior knowledge. Therelore, whaI is acIually proIecIed Ihe invenIion, so Io
speak is Ihe Iechnical or Iechnological improvemenI ol a sIaIe ol knowledge.
2.2.1. Patent regurementx
Eor an invenIion Io be granIed paIenI righIs, iI musI meeI Ihe lollowing re-
quiremenIs, which are common Io mosI legislaIion:
Novelty. An invenIion is novel when noI included in Ihe "sIaIe ol Ihe arI"
on Ihe daIe ol applicaIion. The sIaIe ol Ihe arI is represenIed by all IhaI
which has been disclosed Io Ihe public belore Ihe daIe ol presenIaIion ol
Ihe paIenI applicaIion, on a worldwide basis (i.e. in Ihe counIry where iI
is requesIed or abroad), by wriIIen or oral descripIion, by use or by any
oIher means.
Only "prior arI" or disclosed knowledge aI Ihe daIe ol Ihe paIenI applicaIion desIroys
novelIy, including, wiIh cerIain excepIions in some counIries, Ihe mere local publicaIion
in a Iiny college in any counIry around Ihe world, even a lew minuIes earlier, or Ihe
disclosure in Ihe press by Ihe invenIor Ihe previous day. Some counIries allord a "grace
period" Io avoid invenIors lrom being deprived ol Iheir invenIions when Ihey are made
public shorIly alIer applying lor a paIenI, normally Io IesI Ihe aIIracIiveness IhaI Ihe
invenIion may have on Ihe markeI. BuI IhaI is always Ihe excepIion.
InventIve step. An invenIion implies an "invenIive sIep" when iI is noI
obvious, on Ihe basis ol Ihe closesI prior arI, lor an "experI" in Ihe maIIer.
Such experI musI have an average educaIion in Ihe secIor ol Ihe invenIion
and have average knowledge and qualiIies. He or she doesn'I have Io be
EinsIein...
IndustrIal nature. Einally, and as linal subsIanIive paIenI requiremenI,
an invenIion is deemed suscepIible ol "indusIrial applicaIion" when iIs
objecI may be manulacIured or used in any Iype ol indusIry, including
agriculIure and, poIenIially, services.
An imporIanI dillerence lies in IhaI, in Ihe UniIed SIaIes, invenIions are noI legally re-
quired Io have an indusIrial applicaIion or imply a "Iechnical conIribuIion" or have a
"Iechnical ellecI", as we shall laIer see. Along Ihese lines, Ihe case law ol Ihe UniIed SIaIes
has admiIIed IhaI invenIions may be paIenIed Io Ihe exIenI IhaI Ihey have specIIIc,
useIul and tangIble results.
2.2.2. Excegtonx to gatentabIt
In Europe Ihere are a series ol excepIions or scenarios ol non paIenIabiliIy,
limiIing whaI may be paIenIed ("patentahle suhject matter"). The mosI impor-
IanI excepIions are:
ScienIilic discoveries and maIhemaIical meIhods (Io Ihe exIenI IhaI Ihey
are all already exisIenI or could noI be considered suscepIible ol indusIrial
use).
LiIerary or arIisIic works or any oIher aesIheIic creaIion, such as scienIilic
works, plans, rules and meIhods ol perlorming inIellecIual acIiviIies, lor
games or commercial-economic acIiviIies, and computer programs and
means ol presenIing inlormaIion (Io Ihe exIenI IhaI Ihey are already pro-
IecIed by inIellecIual properIy).
InvenIions whose publicaIion or exploiIaIion is conIrary Io public policy
or good cusIoms.
As regards solIware, Ihe excepIion (which does noI exisI in Ihe UniIed SIaIes
or Japan, buI does in Europe) strcto sensu is Io Ihe exIenI IhaI Ihe program is
considered on iIs own ("solIware as such"), buI noI as a whole and combined
wiIh Ihe hardware. In secIion 3, we will delve lurIher inIo Ihis maIIer and
will discuss Ihe requiremenIs lor Ihe poIenIial paIenIabiliIy ol Ihe solIware
implemenIed on a compuIer (i.e., in combinaIion wiIh Ihe hardware).
2.2.3. CIaxxex oI gatentx
The invenIion musI always indicaIe whaI a given maIIer or energy should be,
or how iI should be acIed upon Io achieve Ihe desired resulI. In Ihis sense,
we may speak ol:
Product InventIons. These show how a given maIIer or energy (a ma-
chine, lor insIance) can be.
Procedural InventIons or methods. These show how Ihe acIiviIy should
be in relaIion Io maIerial realiIy, i.e. how a person should acI in respecI
Ihereol.
To Ihe exIenI IhaI a procedure is paIenIable when perlormed by a Iechnical producIion
procedure (a compuIer, a compuIer neIwork or device direcIed by running a program),
we would be dealing wiIh "compuIer-implemenIed invenIions, claimed as procedural
paIenIs".
Examples are seen in Ihe paIenIs ol Acacia Media Technologies, relaIing Io Ihe Iransmis-
sion and receipI ol compressed audio and video liles over Ihe inIerneI. Eor lurIher read-
ing, see InlormaIion Week.
2.3. Procedure Ior obtanng a gatent
There are a series ol lormal sIeps Io be Iaken in order Io obIain a paIenI.
2.3.1. Examnaton
A paIenI applicaIion is liled wiIh Ihe paIenI ollice corresponding Io Ihe coun-
Iry or area in which proIecIion is soughI. The ollice Ihen verilies paIenIabiliIy
requiremenIs in accordance wiIh Ihe lollowing possibiliIies (which Iend Io
vary lrom one counIry Io anoIher):
Formal requIrements. The relevanI paIenI ollice checks il Ihe lormal re-
quiremenIs have been meI when Ihe applicanI provides Ihe documenIs
esIablished by law and meeIs Ihe lormaliIies deIermined by such ollice.
SubstantIve requIrements (or paIenIabiliIy requiremenIs). The paIenI ol-
lice verilies compliance wiIh Ihe requiremenIs ol "novelIy", "invenIive ac-
IiviIy" and "indusIrial naIure".
WiIh cerIain dillerences beIween paIenI legislaIion in Ihe various counIries,
in pracIice, Ihe sIage ol verilicaIion ol "subsIanIive paIenIabiliIy" Iends Io be
Iwolold:
ExaminaIion ol "novelIy". During Ihis sIage, ideas lacking invenIion are
deIecIed quickly and cheaply, and Ihe work ol Ihe experIs ol Ihe relevanI
paIenI ollice is Irimmed down. IniIially, whaI is known as a pror art search
is perlormed. A valuaIion lollows, also known as a Iechnical examinaIion
ol Ihe applicaIion, ending in Ihe decision ol wheIher or noI novelIy exisIs.
Those preparing a Iechnical examinaIion are much more qualilied Ihan
Ihose conducIing Ihe search lor prior arI. The novelIy ol Ihe invenIions is
valued on a worldwide scale (leading Io Ihe sIandardisaIion ol lormaliIies
beIween paIenI ollices).
1oLheexLenLLhaLiLispermiL-
LedLopaLenLaprogrammed
compuLer,aprogrammed
compuLerneLworkoroLh-
erprogrammeddevice,we
wouldbedealingwiLh"com-
puLer-implemenLedinvenLions,
claimedasproducLpaLenLs",
i.e.,aprogrammeddevice.
ExaminaIion ol "invenIive sIep". During Ihis sIage, once iI has been deIer-
mined IhaI Ihe idea is noI parI ol Ihe "sIaIe ol Ihe arI", Ihe ollice verilies
wheIher iI has a cerIain invenIive naIure, a creaIive and personal value,
and IhaI iI is noI Ihe logical resulI ol prior knowledge.
Once Ihe requiremenIs have been verilied, Ihe conIenI ol Ihe paIenI docu-
menI is classilied in accordance wiIh Ihe InIernaIional FaIenIs ClassilicaIion
(resulIing lrom Ihe SIrasburg ConvenIion ol 171), and Ihe applicaIion may be
published in Ihe relevanI ollicial paIenIs bulleIin lor Ihe lormal knowledge ol
all people. This granIs Ihird parIies an opporIuniIy Io objecI Io Ihe granIing ol
Ihe paIenI belore linal concession. AI Ihe European FaIenIs Ollice (EFO), ap-
plicaIions are published upon conducIing a Iechnical reporI, i.e., belore Ihey
are granIed by Ihe European FaIenIs Ollice, exIending Iheir publicaIion lor
some Iwo years as a resulI ol Ihe pleas and observaIions ol Ihird parIies. This
exIends Ihe procedure quiIe a biI unIil Iheir concession.
In Ihe UniIed SIaIes, paIenIs are only published alIer Ihey have been granIed, making
Ihe process lor Iheir granI lasIer (less Ihan Iwelve monIhs, buI currenIly up Io S years due
Io over work), inasmuch as, during Ihe granI process, Ihere are no pleas or observaIions
by Ihird parIies. In Ihis sense, Ihe EU naIional and European procedures are among Ihe
slowesI due Io Ihe increased amounI ol bureaucracy, wiIhouI Ihis necessarily improving
Ihe qualiIy ol Ihe Iechnical examinaIion.
In principle, a paIenI is invalid when iI lails Io meeI Ihe above requiremenIs.
However, only a judge may declare Ihe nulliIy ol a paIenI (alIer liling Ihe
relevanI appeal belore Ihe courIs).
2.3.2. 1nternatonaI xtandardxaton oI IormaItex n gatentx
aggIcaton
The sIandardisaIion ol lormaliIies has allowed Ihe signaIure ol a series ol in-
IernaIional adminisIraIive cooperaIion IreaIies in relaIion Io paIenIs, Ihe pur-
pose ol which is varied:
Based on a single documenI ("inIernaIional applicaIion"), several paIenIs
may be obIained simulIaneously in several counIries (lor insIance, using
Ihe European paIenIs procedure under Ihe European FaIenI ConvenIion
S
,
belore Ihe European FaIenIs Ollice). The resulI is Ihe obIaining ol Ihe var-
ious cerIilicaIes ol ownership (naIional) in Ihe counIries where proIecIion
is specilically requesIed lor Ihe same objecI.
(S)
EFC members: The ConvenIion member sIaIes are Ihe lollowing IwenIy-seven coun-
Iries: Germany, AusIria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Spain, Slovakia, Slovenia,
EsIonia, Einland, Erance, Greece, Ihe NeIherlands, Hungary, Ireland, IIaly, LiechIensIein,
Luxembourg, Monaco, ForIugal, UniIed Kingdom, Czech Republic, Rumania, Sweden,
SwiIzerland and Turkey.
To reduce lixed procedural cosIs, Ihe worldwide search lor precedenIs is
solely perlormed once. This is Ihe purpose ol Ihe FaIenI CooperaIion
TreaIy (FCT
o
), signed in WashingIon on 1 June 170. This includes par-
Iial regulaIion ol Ihe procedure (Ihe "search" and "examinaIion"), and on-
ly Ihe procedures perlormed by Ihe larger counIries, beIIer equipped wiIh
Iechnical human resources, such as Ihe UniIed SIaIes, Japan and Ihe Eu-
ropean FaIenIs Ollice are accepIed.
(o)
As wiIh Ihe Munich ConvenIion, Ihe WashingIon TreaIy does noI creaIe an "inIerna-
Iional paIenI", buI an "inIernaIional applicaIion" ollering Ihe possibiliIy ol obIaining as
many naIional paIenIs as appellaIions made Io Ihe sIaIes encompassed by such IreaIy.
Einally, we musI sIress Ihe promoIion (noI yeI ellecIive) in Europe

7
ol Ihe
"communiIy paIenI", a single cerIilicaIe lor several sIaIes, as occurs in Ihe
UniIed SIaIes lor all lederal sIaIes. In Ihese cases, we are dealing wiIh a
Irue "inIernaIional paIenI", and noI jusI an "inIernaIional applicaIion".
2.3.3. The gatent document and "cIamx"
The lacI IhaI Ihe novelIy ol Ihe invenIions is valued aI a worldwide level has
led Io Ihe inIernaIional homologaIion ol lormaliIies, along wiIh Ihe IemplaIes
used lor Ihe applicaIion ol Ihe paIenI, Ihe conIenI ol Ihe adminisIraIive paIenI
documenIs and Ihe lorm ol dralIing Ihem.
The paIenI documenI holds Ihe lollowing elemenIs:
The IIrst page ol Ihe paIenI documenI Iends Io be common among all
counIries and musI rellecI Ihe relevanI inlormaIion ol Ihe invenIor and
Ihe owner, Ihe IiIle ol Ihe invenIion, Ihe daIe ol "inIernaIional prioriIy
8
",
naIionaliIy, adminisIraIive daIa lrom Ihe paIenIs ollice iIsell and a sum-
mary ol Ihe invenIion (up Io Iwo hundred words).
The summary has no value wiIh Ihe courIs, buI iI does in Ihe conIexI ol
Ihe world-scale Iechnical daIabases conIaining all invenIions regisIered
wiIh Ihe mosI imporIanI paIenI ollices.
(8)
InIernaIional prioriIy is Ihe essenIial means ol cooperaIion beIween several counIries
in maIIers ol indusIrial properIy and means IhaI a paIenI applicaIion, when liled by
more Ihan one applicanI, is allorded prioriIy and chosen above oIhers lor being Ihe lirsI
Io meeI all adminisIraIive lormaliIies (in oIher words, iI does noI sullice Io be Ihe lirsI
Io come up wiIh Ihe idea).
Under Ihe "union prioriIy" ol Ihe Faris ConvenIion, Ihe Ierm lor exercising inIernaIional
prioriIy, where applicable, is Iwelve monIhs. NoneIheless, according Ihe FaIenI Cooper-
aIion TreaIy, "union prioriIy" can be exIended lor a Ierm ol up Io IwenIy monIhs.
A technIcal descrIptIon ol Ihe invenIion or reporI. This reporI musI de-
scribe Ihe invenIion (Ihe problem and Ihe soluIion) precisely, clearly and
comprehensively, jusIilying Ihe requesI lor a monopoly. IIs luncIion is Io
help inIerpreI Ihe meaning ol Ihe claims and musI conIain sullicienI in-
sIrucIions lor an experI in Ihe specilic lield ol Ihe invenIion Io be able Io
reproduce iI wiIhouI requiring any addiIional invenIive acIiviIy.
Eor compuIer programs, Ihis would imply providing enough inlormaIion in respecI ol
Ihe program specilicaIion, buI wiIhouI necessarily conIribuIing Io Ihe source code. Al-
Ihough Ihe descripIion is Ihe cenIral parI ol Ihe paIenI documenI, iI does noI deIermine
(7)
1heEuropeannionseeksLo
avoidiLscurrenLsiLuaLioninrela-
LionLoLhegranLingofpaLenLs,
characLerisedbysimulLaneouscer-
LificaLesofnaLionalpaLenLswhich
mayblockimporLsandexporLsbe-
LweenLerriLoriessubjecLLoadiffer-
enLmonopoly.
Ihe conIenI ol Ihe legal monopoly, precisely as Ihe descripIions are long and complex.
They are, however, used by Ihe courIs Io deIermine, under Ihe "Iheory ol equivalenIs", lor
insIance, wheIher Ihere may be equivalenIs beIween a paIenIed invenIion and anoIher
claimed Io be in violaIion ol a paIenI.
DrawIngs. Drawings are complemenIary ol Ihe descripIion ol Ihe inven-
Iion. As wiIh Ihe IiIle and summary, Ihey are noI binding on Ihe courIs,
Ihey merely serve an auxiliary inlormaIive luncIion (some paIenI ollices
require IhaI drawings always be aIIached lor Iheir publicaIion in Ihe re-
specIive ollicial paIenI bulleIins).
ClaIms. The claims are Ihe core ol Ihe paIenI: Ihe claims are devised Io
condense Ihe legally-binding conIenI ol Ihe paIenI in a lew lines, brielly
and concisely. These are Ihe sIaIemenIs whereby Ihe invenIor deIermines
which new elemenIs make up Ihe invenIion. In oIher words, in each claim,
Ihe invenIor precisely delines whaI has been invenIed, conIaining only
such new aspecIs and elemenIs as make up Ihe invenIion.
2.4. Ownerx, duraton and content oI the gatentx
2.4.1. RghtxhoIderx
In principle, Ihe legiIimaIe righI Io requesI and obIain a paIenI is invesIed in
Ihe "invenIors" and Iheir successors, who may be individuals or legal persons.
As wiIh auIhor's righIs, Ihe various naIional legislaIions esIablish a series ol rules lor
loreigners Io be granIed legiIimaIe righIs, pursuanI Io Ihe Faris ConvenIion (lor insIance,
when having no residence, or no indusIrial or commercial esIablishmenI in Ihe counIry).
In oIher cases, reciprociIy criIeria are also applied.
We would also be speaking ol:
Co-ownership: when Ihe invenIion is made collecIively by several per-
sons. In such case, Ihey would all be responsible lor obIaining joinI paIenI
righIs.
IndividualiIy: il, on Ihe oIher hand, Ihe invenIion is made by various peo-
ple, buI independenIly, Ihe paIenI shall usually correspond Io Ihe person
liling Ihe applicaIion on Ihe earliesI daIe (provided iI is ulIimaIely granI-
ed).
Work invenIions: Ihe paIenI sysIem is somewhaI similar Io Ihe copyrighI
sysIem (invenIions made wiIhin Ihe course ol employmenI belong Io Ihe
employer) wiIh dillerences depending on Ihe counIry:
InvenIor employees. Il Ihe purpose ol Iheir work conIracI is precise-
ly invenIing (sysIemaIic research and prolessional dedicaIion), Ihe
paIenI will usually belong Io Ihe employer. The auIhor ol Ihe inven-
Iion shall generally noI be enIiIled Io supplemenIary compensaIion,
unless Ihe invenIion were Io exceed Ihe conIenI ol Ihe employmenI
conIracI or relaIion, or provide ouIsIanding beneliI Io Ihe employer.
Normal employees. Il a worker makes an invenIion in relaIion in Ihe
course ol his}her normal prolessional acIiviIy aI Ihe company and Ihe
invenIion has been inlluenced predominanIly by knowledge acquired
wiIhin Ihe company or by using means provided by Ihe company, Ihe
employer is olIen enIiIled Io assume ownership ol Ihe invenIion, or
aI leasI Io a righI Io iIs use. In such cases, workers are usually enIiIled
Io lair economic compensaIion.
An employer may also olIen claim invenIions made by workers wiIhin one
year ol Ihe severance ol Ihe labour relaIion.
Some legislaIions granI invenIors a personal righI binding Ihem inseparably as
authors ol Iheir invenIions (we could speak ol a "moral righI" ol Ihe invenIor).
2.4.2. Lmtatonx: tme and terrtor
DuratIon oI the patent. FaIenIs usually have a legal Ierm ol IwenIy years,
alIhough in some counIries, iI is possible Io exIend Ihem in cases where greaIer
cosIs and risks are assumed. Normally, paIenIs expire when
Their IwenIy-year Ierm lapses.
They are relinquished by Iheir owners.
The relevanI annuiIy goes unpaid.
Eor lack ol use.
Once Ihe proIecIion period has lapsed, Ihe invenIion is incorporaIed inIo Ihe
body ol Iechnical soluIions available Io all and may be lreely exploiIed.
TerrItory. The proIecIion provided by a paIenI is IerriIorial in naIure: proIec-
Iion is only granIed in Ihe IerriIory corresponding Io Ihe ollice where Ihe ap-
plicaIion is liled. The lacI IhaI Ihe paIenI is IerriIorial in naIure makes iI nec-
essary lor invenIors Io requesI Ihe concession ol paIenIs in all counIries in
which Ihey wish Io proIecI Iheir invenIion
2.4.3. Rghtx granted under the gatent
A paIenI usually granIs Ihe righI Io prevenI Ihird parIies lrom perlorming,
wiIhouI Ihe consenI ol Ihe owner, Ihe lollowing acIs:
ManulacIuring, ollering, markeIing, using and imporIing or possession ol
Ihe subjecI ol Ihe paIenI.
1heEuropeanPaLenLConven-
LionprovidesLherighLofLhe
invenLorLobemenLionedin
suchcapaciLyinLhepaLenL,
incasesinwhichownershipis
LransmiLLed.
The use ol a procedure or Ihe ollering ol iIs use when Ihe Ihird parIy knows
or when Ihe circumsIances evidence IhaI Ihe use ol Ihe procedure is pro-
hibiIed lor lack ol consenI by Ihe owner.
The ollering, markeIing, using or possession lor such purposes ol Ihe prod-
ucI obIained direcIly lrom Ihe paIenI procedure.
The delivery or ollering Io deliver means implemenIing Ihe paIenIed in-
venIion, in relaIion Io an essenIial elemenI Ihereol, Io persons noI auIho-
rised Io exploiI iI, when Ihe Ihird parIy knows or Ihe circumsIances make
iI obvious IhaI such means are suiIable Io implemenI Ihe invenIion and
are desIined lor such purpose (unless Ihe relevanI mediums are represenI-
ed by producIs IhaI are normally available on Ihe markeI, provided Ihe
Ihird parIy does noI insIigaIe Ihe person Io whom such mediums are de-
livered Io commiI Ihe acIs prohibiIed under Ihe preceding Ihree iIems).
Exhauxton oI rghtx
ExhausIion. The owner cannoI prevenI subsequenI acIs ol exploiIaIion (IhaI iI has re-
served: markeIing, use, eIc.) by Ihose acquiring producIs proIecIed by Ihe paIenI, licensed
by Ihe owner or by a Ihird parIy wiIh Iheir consenI, in a cerIain IerriIory. This is whaI is
known as Ihe exhausIion ol righIs, a legal precepI IhaI is also applicable Io Irademarks.
There are Ihree Iypes ol exhausIion ol righIs:
When Ihe exhausIion ol Ihe righI relers Io a single sIaIe, iI is known as naIional
exhausIion.
The luIure communiIy paIenI regulaIed by Ihe Luxembourg ConvenIion provides
IhaI once Ihe producI has been Iraded in one ol Ihe Member SIaIes ol Ihe Conven-
Iion by Ihe owner ol Ihe paIenI or wiIh Iheir consenI, Ihe exhausIion ol Ihe righI
exIends Io Ihe IerriIories parIy Io Ihe relerred convenIion. This is whaI is known as
communiIy exhausIion.
When Ihe exhausIion relers Io Ihe enIire world (i.e., all sIaIes on all live conIinenIs),
Ihis is whaI is known as inIernaIional exhausIion.
2.5. Tranxmxxon and gatent Icencex
As is Ihe case wiIh auIhor's righIs, only Ihe prerogaIives ol Ihe invenIor-owner
ol a moneIary naIure are suscepIible ol Iransmission. NoI only paIenIs "already
granIed" can be IransmiIIed, buI also paIenI applicaIions.
FaIenIs Iend Io be Iransmissible by any legal means, specilically by sale, Irans-
ler, license (ol righIs) or conIribuIion Io a business. The paIenI may also be
used as collaIeral in a morIgage.
TransmIssIon
Some legislaIions impose a series ol requiremenIs lor Ihe Iransmission ol
paIenIs, lor insIance Ihey musI be evidenced in wriIing and be noIilied Io Ihe
FaIenI Ollice.
FaIenIs are indivisible, which means IhaI Ihey may noI be IransmiIIed (as
opposed Io licensed) in parI. Accordingly, iI is impossible Io IransmiI a single
claim, or IransmiI Ihe paIenI or applicaIion lor only parI ol Ihe proIecIed
IerriIory.
LIcences
Due Io Ihe "negaIive naIure" ol paIenI righIs wiIh respecI Io Ihird parIies (Ihe
righI Io prohht someIhing), more Ihan acIs ol "assignmenI" or "Iransmission"
ol righIs, iI is olIen said IhaI a paIenI licence is an agreemenI by Ihe paIenI
righIsholder noI Io do someIhing: noI Io sue lor paIenI inlringemenI. In Ihis
manner, Ihe licensee has Ihe beneliI ol exercising all or some ol Ihe righIs
making up Ihe exclusive paIenI righI sale in Ihe knowledge IhaI Ihe righIsh-
older will noI sue. Accordingly, Ihere are auIhors IhaI undersIand IhaI paIenI
licences are noI merely an auIhorisaIion (as we have seen wiIh auIhor's righIs),
buI a waiver ol persecuIion lor inlringing Ihe paIenI.
FaIenI licences may be:
Eor Ihe enIire IerriIory or lor a parIial IerriIory. OlIen, by delaulI, licences
are deemed Io exIend IhroughouI Ihe enIire naIional IerriIory.
Exclusive or non exclusive. ExcepI as oIherwise agreed, paIenI licences are
usually deemed non exclusive and, when Ihey are exclusive, Ihe licensees
are auIhorised Io direcIly exercise Ihe righIs derived lrom Ihe paIenI and
Ihe licensors cannoI granI oIher licences or even exploiI Ihe invenIion
Ihemselves.
By operaIion ol law. These occur when Ihe owner volunIarily ollers Ihe
paIenI via Ihe relevanI ollice so IhaI iI may be used by anyone who wishes
Io do so, as a licensee (Ihis implies Ihe paymenI ol lower annual raIes lor
Ihe paIenI). Such oller may be wiIhdrawn and is presumed Io have been
wiIhdrawn when Ihe owner ol a paIenI changes.
Eor some or all ol Ihe righIs making up Ihe righI ol exclusion (manulac-
Iure, commercialisaIion). ConIrary Io whaI we have seen wiIh auIhor's
righIs, in paIenIs Ihe licensee is presumed Io have Ihe righI Io perlorm all
acIs making up Ihe exploiIaIion in all iIs applicaIions.
Temporal. Again, as opposed Io auIhor's righIs, a paIenI licence is pre-
sumed Io lasI Ihe enIire Ierm ol Ihe paIenI.
Compulsory or mandaIory. Il Ihe owner ol a paIenI reluses Io granI a li-
cence volunIarily, in cerIain excepIional cases a compulsory or mandaIory
licence may be obIained aI Ihe courIs or Ihrough an adminisIraIive organ-
isaIion (Faris Union ConvenIion). ExcepI wiIh "legiIimaIe excuses" (legal,
lorce majeure, eIc.), releasing Ihe owner lrom such obligaIion, exploiIa-
Iion ol a paIenI musI be sullicienI Io saIisly markeI demands.
2.. Combnaton gatentx
WhaI happens il Ihe owner or a Ihird parIy linds an improvemenI Io Ihe
invenIion7 The lollowing can happen:
The owners ol Ihe original paIenI improve Iheir invenIion. They may re-
quesI an annexed deed ol ownership, known as a paIenI ol addiIion. This
does noI exIend Ihe paIenI in Iime (IwenIy years) or space (Ihe IerriIory),
buI Io enlarge iIs conIenI.
A Ihird parIy improves Ihe invenIion, or a new applicaIion ol Ihe same
objecI, or develops a new invenIion in Ihe combinaIion ol Iwo producIs}
processes IhaI have already been paIenIed. An independenI paIenI may be
requesIed on Ihe prior original paIenI or paIenIs. ConIrary Io "addiIion",
in Ihis case, Ihe paIenIs are always dillerenI and independenI. Their ex-
ploiIaIion Iakes place Ihrough cross licensing, which is granIed auIomaI-
ically.
A Ihird parIy discovers a new idea in relaIion Io parI ol Ihe prior paIenI.
A paIenI would rarely be granIed in such cases, buI could be when iI has
enough enIiIy in iIsell Io jusIily cross licensing.
The impacI ol "prior" paIenIs is such IhaI large lirms lind iI increasingly nec-
essary Io join inIernaIional paIenI daIabases Io have access Io Ihe lollowing
daIa (by order ol prioriIy):
Verily wheIher an invenIion is paIenIed.
Check lor poIenIial paIenI violaIions.
Learn which paIenIs have been requesIed by Ihe compeIiIion (i.e., lollow
up).
ObIain markeI inlormaIion.
SIay up Io daIe in respecI ol Iechnological changes.
Eind a soluIion Io a specilic Iechnological problem.
The loregoing is necessary Io plan Ihe research iIsell and, where applicable, Io abandon
or redirecI a projecI in Ihe evenI IhaI a Ihird parIy were Io requesI a paIenI similar or
idenIical Io Ihe invenIion subjecI Io research and developmenI. Indeed, large compuIer
companies, Ihe developers ol proprieIary solIware, consIanIly resorI Io cross licensing
in Ihe exploiIaIion ol Iheir producIs. IBM, lor insIance, is Ihe company wiIh Ihe largesI
number ol paIenIs in Ihe world. Ear behind is MicrosolI, which has had Io join Ihe race
laIe, as in iIs early days, iI had relied solely on auIhor's righIs and copyrighI. Being unable
Io "cross license" paIenIs lrom Ihe beginning, MicrosolI has had Io pay ouI subsIanIial
amounIs Io Ihe respecIive paIenI owners, and currenIly has changed policy in hopes
ol obIaining a large number ol solIware paIenIs and aggressively joining in Ihe cross
licensing game and, ulIimaIely, engaging iIs compeIiIion.
2.7. OIIerencex between author'x rghtx and gatentx
There are several dillerences:
Asplrln
Aspirin,forinsLance,wasdis-
coveredLohavecardiovascu-
lareffecLs,inaddiLionLoiLs
analgesiceffecLs.Analgesicas-
pirinandcardiovascularaspirin
couldnoLbeLradedseparaLe-
lyonLhemarkeLasLheircon-
sumerisoneandLhesame.
xample
Anexamplewouldbeanen-
ginepaLenLedforaLhermal
oscillaLionofbeLweenXand
degreesCelsius,ifsomeone
wereLodiscoverLhaLa75%
fuelsavingscouldbeobLained
aLZdegreesCelsius.
Obect oI protectIon: Ihe mosI imporIanI dillerence is lound beIween Ihe
auIhor's righIs sysIem and Ihe paIenIs sysIem lor Ihe objecI ol proIecIion.
While Ihe paIenIs sysIem proIecIs Ihe ideas or new creaIion wiIh respecI
Io Ihe sIaIe ol Ihe arI, auIhor's righIs reler Io Ihe embodimenI ol liIerary,
arIisIic or scienIilic creaIions (i.e. expressed on any medium).
In relaIion Io solIware, in Ierms ol compuIer programs, paIenIs would Iherelore proIecI
Ihe luncIions, resulIs, operaIion or sequences ol a compuIer program, iIs algoriIhms,
while auIhor's righIs would proIecI Ihe lorm in which Ihe program is expressed (Ihe
insIrucIions perlorming a given luncIion), i.e., Ihe source code and objecI code.
RequIrements: The paIenI requiremenI ol "invenIion" is Iherelore seI
againsI copyrighI requiremenI lor "originaliIy".
TImIng: AuIhor's righIs arise lrom Ihe very momenI ol creaIion ol Ihe
work, wiIhouI requiring a declaraIive acI or cerIilicaIe, as is Ihe case wiIh
paIenIs. AlIhough we have seen IhaI regisIraIion is a means ol proIecIion
lor auIhor's righIs (lor insIance, noIarisaIion or regisIraIion wiIh an inIel-
lecIual properIy regisIry) iI is mainly as prool ol auIhorship or a procedure
lormaliIy lor Iaking legal acIion.
The consequence ol Ihis is IhaI Ihe proIecIion ol auIhor's righIs or copyrighIs is weaker,
noI only due Io Ihe lacI IhaI Ihe auIhorship ol Ihe work may be challenged more easily
in Ihe case ol paIenIs, buI also by reason ol Ihe righIs and acIions granIed Io Ihe owner.
DuratIon: The duraIion ol auIhor's righIs is much longer Ihan IhaI ol
paIenIs, alIhough in relaIion Io compuIer programs, in eiIher case iI is ex-
cessive, due Io Ihe shorI duraIion IhaI compuIer programs have in prac-
Iice.
This means IhaI when Ihe paIenI is exIinguished (normally alIer IwenIy years), any Ihird
parIy may exploiI a program based on Ihe same ideas expressed dillerenIly (i.e., wiIh
a dillerenI source code) lrom Ihe program ol Ihe owner ol Ihe auIhor's righIs, which
remain in lorce.
ProhIbItIon: A paIenI allows Ihe owner Io prevenI anoIher compuIer pro-
grammer lrom wriIing any oIher source code implemenIing Ihe same in-
venIion (regardless ol how dillerenIly iI is expressed). AuIhor's righIs }
copyrighIs do noI prevenI anoIher compuIer programmer lrom wriIing
new code IhaI is similar or enIirely dillerenI and leads Io Ihe same lunc-
IionaliIies.
3. The controverx on xoItware gatentabIt
The applicaIion ol paIenIs Io solIware "solIware paIenIabiliIy" is a dispuIed
maIIer. Under iIs sysIem ol case law, since 181 in Ihe UniIed SIaIes iI has been
possible Io paIenI "anythn maJe hy man unJer the sun". This may be changing
on Ihe basis ol Ihe recenI "n re. Blsl" case (200), cerIainly in relaIion Io
business meIhod paIenIs implemenIed in compuIer programs.
In Europe, however, solIware "as such" is excluded lrom paIenIable subjecI
maIIer under Ihe European FaIenI ConvenIion and mosI European naIional
legislaIions. There has been some discussion in Ierms ol Ihe possibiliIy ol re-
quiring IhaI an invenIion musI exerI a controlleJ use oj the jorces oj nature Io
be considered parI ol a "lield ol Iechnology" and, Iherelore, Io be paIenIable.
This does noI necessarily imply IhaI anyIhing IhaI includes solIware may noI
be paIenIable in Europe, as we shall see below, and Ihis has led Io greaI con-
Iroversy.
We shall now brielly look inIo Ihe origins ol paIenI proIecIion ol solIware, Io
laIer delve in deIail inIo Ihe currenI conIroversy arising in relaIion Io solIware
paIenIs.
3.1. Hxtor oI the IegaI grotecton oI xoItware
UnIil Ihe sevenIies, because large manulacIurers ol compuIer hardware (in
which Ihe programs were markeIed inseparably bundled wiIh Ihe compuIer)
wanIed Io avoid Ihe public lrom knowing Ihe inIerior workings ol Ihe Iech-
nology, business secreIs and conlidenIialiIy clauses were applied Io compuIer
equipmenI, especially as regards solIware.
During Ihese early Iimes, as Ihe compuIer program is converIed, during iIs linal sIage,
inIo machine code (objecI program), which is merely Ihe elecIromagneIic signals acIing
physically upon Ihe hardware (Ihe compuIer equipmenI) and have a new resulI, obIained
on a physical medium, iI was considered IhaI Ihey could be subjecI Io proIecIion by
Ihe legal precepI ol paIenIs. II was so consIrued by UniIed SIaIes case law on several
occasions.
AI Ihe end ol Ihe sixIies and during Ihe early sevenIies, Ihe various naIional
lawmakers and inIernaIional IreaIies began Io rejecI paIenI proIecIion ol solI-
ware. AddiIionally, as ol 1o8, Ihe UniIed SIaIes anIiIrusI legislaIion conducI-
ed a progressive separaIion ol hardware and solIware, leading Io Ihe dismissal
aI an inIernaIional level ol Ihe possibiliIy ol solIware "in iIsell" being subjecI
Io paIenIs lor Ihe lollowing reasons, which are sIill valid Ioday:
Legal. SolIware was noI seen Io meeI Ihe characIerisIics esIablished lor
being Ihe "objecI ol proIecIion" under Ihe paIenI. Eor such purpose, iI is
deemed necessary lor Ihere Io be human work implying Ihe use oj the jorces
oj nature to reach a materal anJ concrete result. A program, in iIsell, is repre-
senIed by an acIiviIy IhaI is purely inIellecIual, wiIh no direcI applicaIion
Io Ihe lield ol indusIrial Iechnique
II is generally IhoughI IhaI compuIer programs do noI represenI a soluIion achieving a
given resulI Ihrough Ihe use ol naIural lorces, buI are ol an essenIially inIellecIual con-
IenI. In oIher words, Ihey devise possible soluIions Io a logical and maIhemaIical prob-
lem, concreIed in Ihe algoriIhm, manilesIed in lisIs ol operaIions (insIrucIions), Irans-
laIed inIo elecIrical signals acIing upon Ihe compuIer. AddiIionally, Ihe ideas conIained
by Ihe programs are noI always, or necessarily, "new", which is a lundamenIal condiIion
lor obIaining a paIenI. EurIhermore, very lew compuIer programs would pass Ihe IesI ol
"sullicienI invenIive acIiviIy" (according Io WIFO esIimaIes, a scarce 1% would).
BureaucraIic. Eor an invenIion Io be subjecI Io a paIenI, iI musI be ob-
Iained alIer an adminisIraIive process IhaI, in many counIries, Iends Io
be quiIe proIracIed up unIil iIs concession. The shorI pracIical lile ol Ihe
solIware implies an imporIanI obsIacle lor iIs creaIors and owners, who
would solely have Iheir producIs proIecIed alIer a considerable period ol
Iime as ol Iheir applying lor Ihe paIenI.
There is also Ihe lacI IhaI Ihe possibiliIy ol Ihe programs being proIecIed by paIenI im-
plied pracIical dilliculIies lor Ihe respecIive paIenI ollices and Iheir collapse, inasmuch
as one ol Ihe aspecIs accounIing lor a greaI parI ol Ihe work ol such ollices is Ihe veri-
licaIion ol novelIy and invenIive sIep. In view ol Ihe boom ol Ihe compuIer indusIry,
adding anoIher caIegory ol invenIion lor solIware was noI desirable, as paIenIs would
be granIed even laIer.
Economic. The procedure lor granIing a paIenI is, quiIe lrankly, expensive.
NoI only due Io Ihe expenses implied by Ihe regisIraIion ol Ihe paIenI, iIs
renewal and Ihe paymenI ol an annual lee, buI also Ihe cosI implied by
Ihe lees ol Ihe prolessionals (engineers, lawyers, eIc.) parIicipaIing in Ihe
maIIer. This noneIheless does noI imply an obsIacle lor Ihe larger com-
puIer companies.
FoliIical. In Europe, Ihere was a Irue disIrusI in leaving open Ihe means
ol proIecIion ol solIware Ihrough paIenIs Io Ihe UniIed SIaIes, as Ihey
already dominaIed Ihe producIion ol hardware.
The siIuaIion led Io an iniIial decision aI Ihe inIernaIional level Io exclude
paIenI proIecIion ol solIware, considering iI inadequaIe or undesirable. BuI
IhaI only lasIed a lew decades.
In spiIe ol Ihe lirsI relerences in UniIed SIaIes case law lavouring Ihe paIenIabiliIy ol
compuIer programs in Ihemselves, Ihe courIs in Ihe UniIed SIaIes unanimously agreed
IhaI a meIhod IhaI may be developed by Ihe human brain (menIal sIeps) cannoI be
subjecI Io paIenI. As compuIer programs do noI relaIe Io physical maIIers and may be
developed by Ihe human brain, Ihey were deemed noI paIenIable.
OIher counIries (as was Ihe case ol Erance in iIs FaIenIs Law ol 1o8) esIablished in Iheir
laws a clear and ouIrighI exclusion ol Ihe possibiliIy ol proIecIing a compuIer program
Ihrough Ihe legal precepI ol a paIenI. In parallel, Ihe case law ol oIher counIries also
rellecIed Ihe posiIion assumed by Ihe legislaIion (among Ihe relevanI ol Ihese are Ihe
Erench case ol Mobil Oil in 173 and Ihe German case ol Ihe DisposiIion Frogram ol
17o).
EurIhermore, Ihe Munich ConvenIion on Ihe European FaIenI, ol S OcIober
173, already examined herein, excluded solIware lrom paIenIabiliIy under
iIs ArIicle S2.2
.
()
Specilically, ArIicle S2.2 reads as lollows: "NoI Io be considered invenIions lor Ihe pur-
poses ol paragraph 1, specilically, are: |...] c) plans, principles and meIhods lor Ihe exercise
ol inIellecIual acIiviIies, lor games or lor economic acIiviIies, and compuIer programs".
This led Io Ihe European counIries adopIing similar wording in Iheir naIional
legislaIions.
Spain specilically esIablished, in ArIicle 4.4 c) ol Ihe FaIenIs Law ol 18o, Ihe lollowing
IexI: "Specilically noI Io be considered invenIions in Ihe sense ol Ihe preceding secIion
|delining whaI is paIenIable], are plans, rules and meIhods lor Ihe exercise ol inIellecIual
acIiviIies, lor games or lor economic-commercial acIiviIies, and compuIer programs".
The posiIion assumed by Ihe aloremenIioned legal IexIs has also been rellecIed in Ihe
cases broughI belore Ihe courIs ol Ihe various European counIries parIy Io Ihe Munich
ConvenIion.
In Ihe eighIies, Ihe hisIorical debaIe on wheIher iI was convenienI Io proIecI
solIware wiIh paIenIs resurlaced, due Io Ihe worldwide pressure ol Ihe large
UniIed SIaIes solIware developmenI companies (lacing Ihe losses IhaI Ihey
had already susIained by Ihen due Io Ihe piraIing ol Iheir programs) and Iheir
inIenIion Io obIain Ihe greaIesI proIecIion possible lor solIware Ihrough Ihe
various legal precepIs applicable in each case.
The counIries soughI proIecIion ol Ihe solIware iIsell, lirsI Ihrough specilic
proIecIion (which lailed), and linally Ihrough auIhor's righIs or copyrighIs, as
we have already discussed in Module 2.
AlIhough Ihe inIellecIual properIy legal lramework (copyrighI) does noI pro-
vide an ideal soluIion Io prevenI Ihe unauIhorised use ol solIware, iI did oller
a prompI legal and inIernaIional response Io Ihe desires ol Ihe large compuIer
companies. CopyrighI law was also adapIed Io limiI Ihe possibiliIies ol using
reverse engineering (imiIaIion ol ideas wiIhouI copying Ihe code Io obIain
Ihe same resulI, modilying or inverIing Ihe senIences or logical insIrucIions),
which was considered an unlair pracIice.
3.2. PatentabIt oI xoItware
BuI are compuIer programs really "liIerary" works7 WhaI problems are posed
by proIecIing compuIer programs wiIh auIhor's righIs7 CreaIors and owners
ol compuIer programs wish Io obIain Ihe greaIesI possible proIecIion lor Iheir
righIs and proIecIion by auIhor's righIs does noI cover Ihe "ideas" inherenI
in Ihe compuIer program (ulIimaIely, Ihe mosI creaIive and valuable parI ol
Ihe programs: Ihe algoriIhm), because auIhor's righIs solely limiI proIecIion
Io "Ihe expression".
Besides, we musI noI lorgeI IhaI compuIer programs seek a Iechnical resulI,
i.e., Ihey are Ihe Iechnology required Io use Ihe compuIers and are noI creaI-
ed Io communicaIe inlormaIion or IhoughIs Io human beings (which is Ihe
ulIimaIe essence ol liIerary works), buI raIher are designed Io communicaIe
wiIh Ihe machines.
So, in spiIe ol iI all, Ihe pressure lrom Ihe large solIware developing compa-
nies on Ihe paIenI ollices led Io Iheir granIing many paIenIs on compuIer pro-
grams considered in isolaIion, when, sIricIly speaking, Ihese should noI have
been granIed. This is occurring noI only in Ihe paIenI ollices ol Ihe UniIed
SIaIes, AusIralia and Japan, buI also, more recenIly, in Europe, where Ihere are
more clear legislaIive limiIaIions relaIing Io Ihe paIenIabiliIy ol solIware.
AlIhough paIenIs on compuIer programs in Ihemselves are noI permiIIed in Europe, see
lor example:
A compuIer-implemenIed paIenI where, in IruIh, Ihe only Ihing novel is Ihe com-
puIer program iIsell (See Ihe EEII siIe).
A paIenI ol solIware in iIsell, granIed by Ihe European FaIenIs Ollice.
In Ihe lollowing secIions we shall see Ihe exIenI Io which solIware paIenIabil-
iIy is accepIed around Ihe world.
3.2.1. SoItware gatentabIt n Euroge
In Europe, compuIer programs Ihemselves have been excluded by law lrom
Ihe scope ol proIecIion by paIenIs. However Ihis exclusion is iIsell limiIed.
Munch Conventon
ArIicle S2.3 ol Ihe Munich ConvenIion iIsell esIablishes Ihe lollowing: "The provisions
ol paragraph 2 shall exclude paIenIabiliIy ol Ihe subjecI-maIIer or acIiviIies relerred Io
in IhaI provision only to the extent to whIch a Luropean patent applIcatIon or Lu-
ropean patent relates to such subect-matter or actIvItIes as such".
Therelore, Ihe exclusion ol Ihe paIenIabiliIy ol Ihe solIware solely relers Io Ihe
elemenIs in which Ihe proIecIion ol Ihe compuIer program in iIsell is claimed:
when Ihe compuIer program is Ihe only elemenI making up Ihe paIenI appli-
caIion. BuI iI does noI exclude indusIrial procedures implemenIed wiIh Ihe
aid ol a compuIer program.
Thus, Ihe paIenIabiliIy ol an enIire Iechnical procedure in which a parI has
been implemenIed by a compuIer program seems noneIheless Io be accepIed.
In oIher words, aI presenI, legislaIion seems Io allow solIware Io be paIenIable
when It Iorms part oI what Is the obect oI larger technologIcal Innova-
tIons. These are relerred Io as "compuIer-implemenIed invenIions". FaIenI
proIecIion may noI be granIed lor Ihe compuIer program iIsell, buI Io iIs com-
binaIion wiIh oIher elemenIs ol Ihe invenIion, which has "Iechnical" ellecIs.
This is parIicularly conIroversial and dilliculI Io apply.
DrawIng the lInes
In realiIy, Ihe European exclusion ol Ihe proIecIion ol solIware "as such"
Ihrough Ihe precepI ol paIenIs is noI so simple. Frecisely, Ihe problem lies in
where and how Io draw Ihe lines ol when solIware is paIenIable and when
iI is noI. In oIher words, when is solIware Io be deemed implemenIed in an
invenIion7 When is Ihe excepIion being abused Io achieve Ihe paIenIabiliIy
ol solIware IhaI, in IruIh, does noI lorm parI ol a paIenIable invenIion, buI
raIher is independenI lrom such invenIion7
When Ihe iIem claimed is noI Ihe program iIsell, iIs presence in Ihe claim
is noI in iIsell sullicienI grounds Io deny paIenIabiliIy, il Ihe claimed iIem
has "Iechnical ellecIs". This means IhaI, lor insIance, machines and man-
ulacIuring or conIrol processes run by a compuIer program musI be con-
sidered paIenIable iIems.
A program may be inIegraIed inIo Ihe compuIer iIsell, an elecIronic appli-
ance or device, so IhaI Ihey become inseparable. Examples ol Ihis are seen
in Ihe lirsI compuIers, which already incorporaIed Iheir operaIing sysIem,
in some modems (Ihose based on digiIal signal processing devices) or lile
programmable gaIe array (EFGA) Iype hardware. Therelore, in cases where
Ihe program is seen as anoIher elemenI ol Ihe invenIion, Ihe paIenIabiliIy
ol Ihe compuIer program is, in principle, accepIed in Europe.
This is also capIured in Ihe case law inIerpreIaIions reached in Ihe specilic cases broughI
belore Ihe judges. In several naIional cases (lor insIance, Ihe case ol Schlumberger in
181, Erance, or Ihe case ol SeiIenpuller in 11, Germany) and belore Ihe European
FaIenIs Ollice (Viacom, 18o, IBM, 17), iI was undersIood, on Ihe one hand, IhaI as
mosI imporIanI recenI invenIions required compuIer programs, Iheir exclusion lrom Ihe
scope ol paIenIabiliIy would imply some ludicrous resulIs in pracIice. AddiIionally, iI was
considered IhaI a claim relaIing Io a Iechnical procedure perlormed under Ihe conIrol ol
a program cannoI be considered as relaIing Io a compuIer program "in iIsell".
In principle, building on Ihe excepIion esIablished by ArIicle S2.3 ol Ihe Mu-
nich ConvenIion and based on Ihe TRIFS AgreemenI, Ihe EFO undersIood
IhaI il Ihe claimed objecI were Io oller a "Iechnical conIribuIion" Io Ihe "sIaIe
ol Ihe arI", i.e., il iI were Io have a "Iechnical ellecI" beyond Ihe inIerrelaIion
beIween Ihe program and Ihe compuIer, iIs paIenIabiliIy should noI be ques-
Iioned merely lor Ihe program being impliciI in iIs implemenIaIion.
Under ArIicle 27 ol Ihe TRIFS AgreemenI, adopIed by Ihe World Trade OrganizaIion in
14, Ihe lollowing are paIenIable: "all invenIions, wheIher producIs or procedures, in
all lields ol Iechnology, provided Ihey are new, imply an invenIive acIiviIy and are sus-
cepIible ol indusIrial applicaIion". And adds IhaI: "|...] lor Ihe purposes ol Ihis ArIicle,
any member may consider IhaI Ihe expressions invenIive acIiviIy" and "suscepIible ol
indusIrial applicaIion" are respecIively synonymous wiIh Ihe expressions "noI evidenI"
and "uselul".
The loregoing posiIion is conlirmed by Ihe AppellaIe Chamber ol Ihe EFO in
iIs successive decisions (which musI be Iaken inIo consideraIion in Ihe inIer-
preIaIion ol European legislaIions, buI are noI necessarily binding). In Ihis
sense, due Io Ihe pressure lrom large UniIed SIaIes companies, a decision by
Ihe Chamber recognised IhaI:
Author ctaton
"A paIenI may be granIed noI only in Ihe case ol invenIions in which a program manages,
Ihrough a compuIer, an indusIrial process or Ihe operaIion ol parI ol a machine, buI also
in cases in which Ihe compuIer program is Ihe sole medium, or one ol Ihe necessary
mediums, lor obIaining a Iechnical ellecI wiIhin Ihe aloremenIioned meaning, whereby,
lor insIance, a Iechnical ellecI ol IhaI Iype is achieved Ihrough an inIernal luncIion ol
a compuIer under Ihe inlluence ol such program".
The pracIice ol Ihe European FaIenIs Ollice has recognised IhaI iI is possible Io
paIenI solIware by presenIing Ihe applicaIion dralIed in a cerIain way. Upon
Ihe basis ol Ihis iI has been said IhaI Ihe European FaIenIs Ollice has granIed
over IhirIy Ihousand solIware paIenIs, while Ihe Ollice iIsell claims only abouI
S,000. This siIuaIion is noI very saIislacIory as iI produces a greaI deal ol legal
insecuriIy and disIorIs Ihe markeI, inasmuch as Ihe pracIical applicaIion ol
paIenIs regulaIions is noI Ihe same IhroughouI Europe.
US Impact
This is mainly aIIribuIable Io Ihe pressure ol Ihe large compuIer companies
ol Ihe UniIed SIaIes, which have been able Io "slip Ihrough" many solIware
paIenIs as isolaIed compuIer programs and inIend Io conIinue Io do so, al-
Ihough iI be under Ihe guaranIees ol legal reliel. Ol Ihe solIware paIenIs granI-
ed by Ihe EFO, 7S% belong Io UniIed SIaIes companies, precisely due Io Ihe
inIeresI and pressure Ihey have exerIed in Europe, compounded by Ihe lacI
IhaI European companies have noI known ol Ihe use ol paIenIs as a means ol
proIecIing Iheir producIs (or, as applicable, as Ihe European companies IhaI
did know, considered paIenIs Io be complex, expensive and dilliculI Io apply
lor small companies).
The Amazon one-click, paIenIed aI Ihe UniIed SIaIes FaIenIs and Trademarks Ollice (USF-
TO), is an example ol a solIware paIenI converIed inIo an isolaIed compuIer program. II
is noneIheless necessary Io recall IhaI such paIenI has a "cousin" in Europe, as Ihe paIenI
claims aI Ihe European FaIenIs Ollice diller lrom Ihose ol Ihe USFTO. Having requesIed
iIs annulmenI, boIh in Ihe UniIed SIaIes and in Europe, Ihe UniIed SIaIes paIenI was re-
voked in mid 2007 and Ihe European paIenI was annulled in November ol IhaI same year.
NatIonal posItIon
In parallel, Ihe paIenI ollices ol some member sIaIes ol Ihe European Union,
such as Ihe UK and Germany (whose legislaIions also conIain Ihe prohibiIion
ol paIenIabiliIy ol compuIer programs), have also lollowed Ihe decisions is-
sued by Ihe AppellaIe Chamber ol Ihe EFO Io Ihe exIenI IhaI Ihe respecIive
paIenI ollices ol such member sIaIes ol Ihe European Union have granIed
paIenIs on compuIer programs IhaI have a "Iechnical ellecI" or resolve a "Iech-
nical problem".
ExamgIe
The English courIs, in parIicular, have been busy in relaIion Io paIenIs. In Ihe lundamen-
Ial 200o AeroIel}Macrossan case, Ihe CourI ol Appeal esIablished a lour sIep IesI, which
changed Ihe UKFTO process lor sIudying compuIer relaIed paIenI applicaIions, which
seemed Io make iI more dilliculI Io obIain a solIware paIenI (More inlormaIion abouI
Ihe IesI on Ihe InIellecIual FroperIy Ollice siIe). However, wiIh lurIher judicial review in
Ihe 2008 Astron Clnca Jecson, Ihe UKFTO changed again iIs pracIice (see Ihe IFO siIe
abouI Ihe decision) and a quesIion has been senI Io Ihe EFO widened board ol appeal,
Io reconcile Ihe naIional and EFO pracIice.
3.2.2. PatentabIt oI xoItware n the Lnted Statex and other
countrex
The UniIed SIaIes FaIenIs Law and case law in principle allow Ihe dual pro-
IecIion ol solIware as boIh "inIellecIual" properIy (by copyrighI) and as "in-
dusIrial" properIy (by paIenI). This is Ihe case boIh lor paIenIs lor solIware,
considered in iIsell, and lor compuIer-implemenIed invenIions.
The UniIed SIaIes FaIenIs Ollice was Ihe lirsI worldwide Io accepI applicaIions
lor solIware paIenIs. EurIhermore, Ihe case law ol Ihe UniIed SIaIes has un-
dersIood IhaI procedural paIenIs cannoI be excluded lor all invenIions IhaI,
in whole or in parI, can be implemenIed wiIh Ihe aid ol a compuIer program.
This posiIion is backed by Ihe case ol "Diamond v. Diehr" ol 181, where iI was soughI
noI only Io paIenI Ihe algoriIhm or maIhemaIical lormula, buI a novel procedure lor
vulcanising synIheIic rubber lor moulding, where Ihe inIenIion was noI Io reserve Ihe
use ol Ihe known maIhemaIical equaIion used in Ihe paIenI: Ihe maIhemaIical lormula
"lorms parI ol Ihe process as a whole", which is in IruIh Ihe objecI ol Ihe paIenI. Since Ihe
case ol "Diamond v. Diehr", in Ihe UniIed SIaIes iI was undersIood IhaI paIenIs exIend
Io Ihe procedure in which Ihe compuIer programs are involved, provided Ihe procedure
upon which Ihe paIenI applicaIion is based is noI made up exclusively by an algoriIhm.
AddiIionally, as opposed Io whaI we have seen wiIh Ihe docIrine ol Ihe EFO
AppellaIe Chamber, in Ihe UniIed SIaIes iI is noI necessary lor Ihe paIenIable
invenIion Io oller a "Iechnical conIribuIion" Io Ihe "sIaIe ol Ihe arI": iI is sulli-
cienI lor Ihe invenIion Io belong in Ihe "realm ol Iechnology" Io be paIenIable.
Therelore, Ihe mere lacI IhaI an invenIion uses a compuIer or compuIer pro-
gram is sullicienI lor iI Io belong in Ihe "realm ol Iechnology", subjecI Io
iIs producing a "Iangible, uselul and specilic resulI". This lurIher allows Ihe
paIenIabiliIy ol noI only solIware, buI also business meIhods, which is clearly
excluded in Europe.
This has caused Ierrible chaos aI Ihe paIenIs ollice, which does noI have sullicienIly
Irained personnel Io quickly analyse Ihe novelIy and Ihe invenIive sIep ol Ihe programs
included in over lilIy Ihousand applicaIions liled per year. As a resulI, iI is claimed IhaI
Ihe IrivialiIy ol some ol Ihe solIware paIenIs granIed in Ihe UniIed SIaIes is due Io a lack
ol human resources, qualilied personnel and searching sysIems aI Ihe relevanI paIenI
ollices.
In lacI, iI was noI unIil 14 IhaI Ihe USFTO hired examiners wiIh degrees in compuIer
sciences. The ollice Iends Io dedicaIe an average ol sevenIeen hours per paIenI, hardly
enough Io consider in deIail Ihe paIenIabiliIy ol a program. II is lor IhaI reason IhaI Ihe
granIing ol a solIware paIenI by error is noI surprising in Ihis sysIem.
II is now esIimaIed IhaI a paIenI applicaIion Iakes beIween S and 7 years Io process
(March 2010).
This has recenIly been reviewed in Ihe Bilski case, which has quesIioned Ihe
pracIice ol granIing business meIhod paIenIs, i.e. paIenIs over business meIh-
ods when implemenIed in solIware.
On Ihe one hand, in Ihe UniIed SIaIes, Ihe procedure ol examinaIion ol Ihe
paIenI applied lor is noI Ioo in-depIh or qualiIy-orienIed (in Ihe UniIed SIaIes
Ihere are no sIages ol commenIs, opposiIion, eIc.), and Ihis allows lor Ihe
paIenI applicaIion Io be swilI and inexpensive, allowing access Io small and
mid-size indusIry (conIrary Io Europe, where Ihe paIenI applicaIion procedure
is much more cosIly). Such ease is delended by Ihe argumenI IhaI Ihey may
laIer be subjecI Io appeal aI Ihe courIs and subsequenIly reviewed or annulled,
inasmuch as Ihe mere lacI IhaI someone were Io lind Ihe same idea as IhaI ol
Ihe paIenI in Ihe earlier sIaIe ol Ihe arI would invalidaIe Ihe paIenI.
II is also necessary Io bear in mind IhaI, alIhough noI impossible, a search
lor precedenIs is quiIe complicaIed lor solIware, especially considering IhaI a
compuIer program is represenIed by mere wriIing (Ihis is how Ihe insIrucIions
given by Ihe program Io Ihe machine are Io be seen), jusI as music, maIhe-
maIics, scienIilic arIicles eIc. are lorms ol wriIing and iI is unIhinkable IhaI
a human being could have absoluIe knowledge ol all liIerary works wriIIen
around Ihe world.
In Ihis case, we are dealing wiIh a sysIem ol weak paIenIs, where Ihere is a greaI poIenIial
lor liIigaIion, which we undersIand is noI convenienI lor companies IhaI cannoI allord
iI. This also creaIes insecuriIy on Ihe linancial markeIs wiIh respecI ol Ihe value ol paIenIs
and Ihe porIlolios ol "indusIrial properIy" ol Ihe companies.
PatentabIlIty oI soItware In other countrIes: Japan and AustralIa
The IesI IhaI Ihe AusIralian paIenIs ollice adopIs Io deIermine Ihe paIenIabil-
iIy ol Ihe invenIions in relaIion Io solIware is as lollows: verily wheIher an
invenIion implies Ihe producIion ol a "usejul economc or commercal result".
This posIure seems even more open Ihan IhaI ol Ihe EFO, as iI is much more
dilliculI Io deIermine whaI Iype ol invenIions should be excluded, consider-
ing IhaI mosI such invenIions have some "commercial applicaIion".
The same Ihing IhaI has already happened in Ihe UniIed SIaIes, where some
IhirIy-live Ihousand solIware paIenIs are regisIered every year (even lor Ihe
solIware iIsell), is happening in Japan. In Japan Ihere is a docIrine IhaI has
been IradiIionally consIrued in a way similar Io IhaI ol Ihe "techncal contr-
huton" used by Ihe European FaIenIs Ollice. In Japan iI is considered IhaI
an invenIion musI consisI ol a very advanced creaIion ol Iechnical concepIs
whereby a naIural law is applied.
3.2.3. FaIed EL Orectve on Comguter 1mgIemented 1nventonx
In Ihe laIe nineIies, Ihe European siIuaIion seemed unsusIainable lor Iwo rea-
sons. On Ihe one hand, Ihere was greaI uncerIainIy in Ierms ol Ihe paIenIabil-
iIy ol solIware, in circumsIances in which Ihe Munich ConvenIion excluded
iI lrom paIenI proIecIion, buI Ihe EFO allowed Ihe paIenIing ol producIs con-
Iaining a compuIer program under cerIain condiIions ("Iechnical naIure" ol
Ihe producI, "novelIy" and "invenIiveness").
On Ihe oIher hand, exisIing European naIional case law, developed mainly in
Iwo member sIaIes (Germany and Ihe UK) had adopIed dillering decisions on
imporIanI maIIers relaIing Io Ihe requiremenIs lor obIaining a paIenI (i.e., in
relaIion Io Ihe deliniIion ol "paIenIable maIIer"). This was indicaIive IhaI, in
Ihe absence ol sIandardisaIion measures, i.e., a Europe-wide law, Ihe courIs
ol Ihe oIher member sIaIes could adopI soluIions IhaI were enIirely dillerenI
when ruling on such maIIers.
The licensees and Ihe public in general, poIenIial users ol paIenIable objecIs,
had no cerIainIy IhaI, in case ol liIigaIion, Ihe paIenIs granIed in such a siI-
uaIion would be conlirmed. In 1, Ihe European Commission idenIilied
Ihe need lor legislaIive acIion in Ihis regard. BeIween OcIober and Decem-
ber 2000, iI called lor a broad public consulIaIion, Ihe resulIs ol which evi-
denced Ihe lack ol consensus in respecI ol Ihe rules IhaI were Io govern solI-
ware paIenIs: should Ihey be resIricIive, as Ihey had unIil Ihen, or should Ihey
lollow Ihe permissive line ol Ihe UniIed SIaIes legislaIion7 This led, in Eebru-
ary 2002, Io Ihe lroposeJ GuJelne jor the latentahlty oj Computer-lmplementeJ
lnventons jCOM (2002) 2].
The Commission jusIilied Ihe proposed guideline based on Ihe need Io seek
concerIed acIion in Ihis area Io reinlorce Ihe compeIiIive posiIion ol Ihe Eu-
ropean solIware indusIry wiIh respecI Io Ihe UniIed SIaIes and Japan, and
Io avoid Iheir dominance ol Ihe markeI (especially Ihe inIerneI), inasmuch
as, oIherwise, European companies would be in a posiIion ol disadvanIage,
mainly as regards UniIed SIaIes companies, which had already assumed IhaI
compuIer programs were in lacI paIenIable. In principle, Ihe proposed guide-
line
10
soughI Io puI a sIop Io European Irends ol pasI years, especially Ihose
ol Ihe European FaIenIs Ollice, ol admiIIing solIware paIenIs, and puI an end
Io Ihe legal uncerIainIy implying erraIic case law resoluIions wiIhin Ihe Eu-
ropean Union.
(10)
As Ihe chapIer on Ihe inlamous proposed DirecIive was closed in July 200S, we will
only summarise iIs precepIs:
SIandardisaIion ol Ihe various European legislaIions in Ihis regard and, consequenIly,
ol Ihe resoluIions IhaI could be issued by Ihe various courI orders.
Mixed proIecIion (complemenIary) whereby compuIer programs could be proIecIed
by boIh auIhor's righIs and paIenIs.
ReducIion ol Ihe large number ol Irivial paIenIs IhaI had "slipped Ihrough" aI Ihe Eu-
ropean FaIenIs Ollice and some naIional paIenI ollices (menial invenIions or making
insullicienI conIribuIions Io Ihe sIaIe ol Ihe arI).
LimiIed-scope proIecIion, Io Ihe exIenI IhaI Ihe "invenIion" musI make a Iechnical
conIribuIion: a compuIer program applied Io a compuIer (buI noI a compuIer pro-
gram creaIed independenIly, Io Ihe exIenI IhaI iI was proIecIed by auIhor's righIs).
Along Ihese lines, Ihis would include Ihe solIware inIegraIed inIo inIelligenI home
appliances, mobile phones, engine conIrol devices, machine Iools, devices ol all sorIs
and complex compuIer sysIems.
Discard Ihe business models or commercial meIhods ol paIenI proIecIions used in
Ihe UniIed SIaIes.
FarliamenI amendmenIs soughI Io clarily ambiguiIies in an aIIempI Io deline
whaI "compuIer- implemenIed invenIions" were and whaI a "Iechnical inven-
Iion" was. They also aIIempIed Io delend "inIeroperabiliIy" Io guaranIee Ihe
use ol sIandards and proIocols and access Io Ihe inlormaIion socieIy, delend
Ihe "lreedom ol publicaIion" and avoid Ihe use ol Ihe paIenIs sysIem Io pre-
venI Ihe disseminaIion ol knowledge and monopolising means ol expression,
and mainIain all legal paIenIabiliIy requiremenIs.
Einally, alIer a long Irip Ihrough Ihe European insIiIuIions, Ihe bid was rejecI-
ed by S% ol FarliamenI in July 200S, Ihe lirsI Iime Ihis has happened in Ihe
hisIory ol FarliamenI, some argued IhaI iI allowed lor Ihe paIenIabiliIy ol any
solIware and oIhers IhaI Ihe amendmenIs proposed did noI provide sullicienI
proIecIion. The currenI European siIuaIion has reIurned Io iIs earlier uncer-
IainIy.
3.3. Advantagex and dxadvantagex oI gatent grotecton oI
xoItware
In Ihis secIion we shall see Ihe advanIages and inconveniences implied by
Ihe paIenI proIecIion ol solIware lrom Ihe viewpoinI ol Ihe large compuIer
companies. In Ihe nexI block ol Ihis uniI, we shall see Ihe pros and cons ol
paIenI proIecIion ol solIware lrom Ihe viewpoinI ol lree solIware.
3.3.1. Advantagex
Large compuIer companies are inIeresIed in having Iheir solIware proIecIed
by paIenIs lor Ihe lollowing reasons:
FaIenIs proIecI Ihe "ideas" behind Ihe compuIer program. Therelore, a
Ihird parIy could be prevenIed lrom creaIing a similar program (even il
iI were done wiIh a dillerenI source code or algoriIhms) il Ihe compuI-
er program implemenIs Ihe same luncIionaliIies. Along Ihese lines, Ihe
monopoly ollered by Ihe paIenI is much greaIer Ihan IhaI ollered by
auIhor's righIs and copyrighIs.
The employer becomes Ihe owner ol a paIenI in Ihe mosI direcI lorm.
Normally, in Ierms ol paIenIs, Ihe invenIions ol Ihe workers belong Io Ihe
employer and Ihe righIs in lavour ol Ihe worker are considerably resIricIed.
EurIhermore, any inlormaIion acquired by Ihe worker lrom wiIhin Ihe
company and leading Io Ihe invenIion shall also be Ihe properIy ol Ihe
company, which may assume ownership ol Ihe invenIion or reserve a righI
Io iIs use.
In paIenIs law Ihere are no moral righIs per se. NoIwiIhsIanding Ihe pos-
sibiliIy IhaI in some paIenI legislaIions, Ihe invenIor is granIed a personal
righI ("moral righI"), in general, wiIh paIenIs, Ihe possibiliIy ol Ihe auIhor
ol Ihe program exercising Ihe specilic prerogaIives ol moral righIs (inher-
enI in Ihe auIhor's righIs sysIems) is avoided.
There is a greaIer ease ol Iransmission ol Ihe exploiIaIion righIs Io a paIenI
or Io granI a licence. This is Ihe case wiIh respecI Io exclusiveness and Ihe
righI Io granI sub-licences.
"Aggressive" (as opposed Io delensive) paIenIs may play an imporIanI role in
Ihe value ol Ihe inIangible asseIs ol a company when iI comes Iime Io sell.
Keeping imporIanI aggressive paIenIs also eliminaIes markeI compeIiIion, al-
Ihough Ihis musI be done Iaking all due care Io avoid sancIion under anIiIrusI
law. NoneIheless, we shall laIer see how, in Ihe solIware world, many ol Ihe
mosI imporIanI companies in Ihe compuIer indusIry amass a large number
ol solIware paIenIs lor "delensive" purposes. To do so, Ihey maIch Ihe currenI
pracIice ol cross licensing, in compensaIion ol Ihe paIenIs IhaI Ihey breach. In
Ihe end, annulling a paIenI implies Iime, inlormaIion and money IhaI many
preler noI Io spend, especially il Ihey have a sIrong hand Io play.
Eor SMEs iI is very dilliculI Io creaIe a paIenI porIlolio Io compeIe wiIh an indusIry
dominaIed by a lew proIagonisIs IhaI hold Ihe righIs Io Ihousands ol paIenIs each. Con-
Irary Io Ihe inIenIion ol a sysIem ol paIenIs IhaI seeks Io proIecI Ihe small invenIor or
innovaIor, Ihe enIrance barrier inIo Ihe solIware indusIry is raised signilicanIly. Even Ihe
supposedly simple acI ol liIigaIing, Io avoid paymenI lor an unjusIilied suiI lor paIenI
licences, may endanger Ihe exisIence ol companies wiIhouI Ihe resources necessary due
Io Ihe high cosI iI implies.
3.3.2. Oxadvantagex
BuI iI is noI all advanIages, large compuIer companies also see inconveniences
in Ihe solIware being proIecIed as a paIenI:
The perIod oI protectIon Is shorter. FaIenIs oller proIecIion lor IwenIy
years, while auIhor's righIs and copyrighIs provide much longer proIec-
Iion. BuI Ihis disadvanIage is noI such considering IhaI, in pracIice, com-
puIer programs are shorI lived, as Ihey are made obsoleIe in no Iime, and
Ihe Ierms esIablished by boIh paIenIs and auIhor's righIs prove exIremely
long.
The cost oI obtaInIng a patent. FaIenIs imply very high cosIs in Ihe
lees ol aIIorneys and engineers, and lees aI Ihe relevanI paIenI ollices.
NoneIheless, Ihis disadvanIage may even prove Io be an advanIage lor
large companies in respecI ol small solIware developers, as Ihe laIIer may
noI have Ihe necessary resources Io cover Ihe cosIs involved in obIaining
a paIenI.
Term Ior obtaInIng a patent. As we have seen, a paIenI solely granIs Ihe
righIs lollowing a lengIhy procedure (which may easily Iake up Io live or
seven years, according Io Ihe counIry where paIenI proIecIion is soughI Io
be obIained), alIhough iI is also Irue IhaI a series ol proIecIions are given
lrom Ihe Iime ol Ihe applicaIion and Ihe ellecIs are reIroacIive Io Ihe daIe
ol Ihe paIenI applicaIion. NoneIheless, Ihe ellecIs and proIecIions shall
always be dependenI on Ihe linal granI ol Ihe paIenI. On Ihe oIher hand,
auIhor's righIs proIecI Ihe compuIer program lrom Ihe very Iime ol iIs
creaIion, wiIhouI need lor any regisIraIion whaIsoever.
SpecIIIc purposes. SolIware subjecI Io a paIenI is proIecIed by Ihe paIenI
wiIhin Ihe inIrinsic limiIs ol Ihe paIenI iIsell and is noI proIecIed il iI
is used e.g. lor purposes or in a manner noI claimed in Ihe paIenI. Under
auIhor's righIs } copyrighI, Ihe solIware is proIecIed againsI copyrighI ex-
ploiIaIion lor any purposes.
3.3.3. Atttudex oI the xoItware nduxtr
The loregoing has ulIimaIely led Io Ihe lollowing pracIices:
FaIenIs are applied mainly lor delensive purposes, in oIher words, Io avoid
oIher persons lrom paIenIing iI, especially Io enIer Ihe game ol cross
licence agreemenIs (and exchange Iheir paIenI exploiIaIion righIs wiIh
Ihose ol oIher owners).
Owners reluse Io granI licences, as Ihey preler Io exclude Iheir compeIi-
Iors: subjecI Io cerIain condiIions, Ihere is currenIly no legal obligaIion
Io granI a paIenI.
Owners someIimes only granI licences on Ihe condiIion IhaI Ihe licensee:
ObIains licences Io oIher paIenIs ol Ihe owner.
Does noI develop producIs IhaI compeIe wiIh Ihe paIenI owner.
Fays royalIies based on sales, noI only lor paIenIed producIs, buI also
non-paIenIed producIs.
This would be a subsIanIial problem lor lree solIware as iI would be dilliculI Io obIain a
paIenI licence, as lree solIware sales Iend Io be zero and as lree solIware does noI conIrol
Ihe number ol copies disIribuIed (iI should be noIed IhaI Ihe developers ol lree solIware
cannoI know how many copies Ihere are worldwide, nor do Ihey obIain sullicienI eco-
nomic beneliIs Io pay lor unlimiIed use licences).
Large companies compensaIe each oIher wiIh Iheir large paIenIs porIlo-
lios (whaI are known as cross-licensing agreemenIs Io share Iheir large
collecIions ol paIenIs). This means IhaI Ihe lew companies IhaI may join
Ihe game can corner Ihe solIware markeI in a parIicular area, and wiIh
1hiswouldbeagreaLproblem
forfreesofLware,asiLcom-
peLesinseveralareasofLhe
markeL,suchasoperaLingsys-
Lems,daLabases,officeenvi-
ronmenLs,eLc.
Iheir subsIanIial paIenI porIlolios or lunds Ihey can resIricI Ihe enIrance
ol new companies inIo Ihe markeI. Their philosophy is Io paIenI as much
as Ihey can and demand as much as Ihey may lrom oIhers, Io maximise
Ihe proliIs on Iheir exIensive paIenI porIlolios, leading Io arbiIrary raises
in Ihe prices ol licences.
As a resulI, large oligopolies accumulaIe paIenIs and granI each oIher licences
Io avoid possible claims lor Ihe delensive accumulaIion ol paIenIs.
On Ihe oIher hand, small companies or individual compuIer programmers
developing lree solIware are barely capable ol paying lor a paIenI applicaIion
and, quiIe likely, would be inlringing upon many ol Ihe paIenIs ol Ihe large
companies. AddiIionally, large companies wiIh invalid solIware paIenIs know
IhaI, alIhough a delendanI may IhreaIen IhaI Io have discovered IhaI Ihe idea
lor Ihe invenIion already exisIed in prior arI belore Ihe paIenI applicaIion
(and IhaI accordingly Ihe paIenI is invalid), Ihis delendanI would have no
money Io sIarI invalidiIy proceedings and mighI in any evenI end up being
ruled againsI in a paIenI inlringemenI procedure.
II is esIimaIed IhaI seeking Io invalidaIe Ihe paIenI ol Acacia Media Technologies, re-
garding Ihe Iransmission and receipI ol compressed audio and video over Ihe inIerneI
(which could lead Io a de lacIo censorship ol Ihe neIworks), would cosI over one million
Euros. UniIed SIaIes paIenIs USFTO S1322 and o144702, and Ihe very similar Euro-
pean paIenI EF 0Soooo2 (includes Spain).
We Ihus see IhaI Ihe currenI pracIice ol obIaining an exIensive porIlolio ol
paIenIs is Iruly jusIilied lor obIaining delensive paIenIs and cross-licensing
agreemenIs, buI noI as a means ol compensaIion lor Ihe cosIs invesIed in guar-
anIeeing Ihe innovaIion. And Ihe war is noI only againsI Ihe large solIware de-
velopers (such as Ihe powerhouse MicrosolI), buI also Ihe large hardware pro-
ducers (as is Ihe case wiIh Ihe gianI IBM, Ihe company IhaI conIrols Ihe largesI
number ol paIenIs granIed worldwide, by lar). UlIimaIely, solIware paIenIs
are aggressively used in pracIice Io lighI compeIiIors wiIh legal weapons, buI
noI Io promoIe beIIer producIs.
3.4. Free xoItware and gatentx
The lree solIware developmenI, disIribuIion and adopIion model is quiIe in-
IeresIing lrom a markeIing viewpoinI: iI is a key lorm ol lighIing againsI esIab-
lished monopolies (Linux againsI Windows, Mozilla againsI MSIE, OpenOl-
lice againsI MS Ollice, TomcaI againsI WebSphere, Java againsI Ihe MicrosolI
developmenI environmenIs) and, lor insIance, reduce Ihe cosIs lor public in-
sIiIuIions which, oIherwise, would be compleIely dependenI on Ihe currenI
licences sysIem ol Ihe privaIe companies.
NoneIheless, il a solIware paIenI sysIem was approved in Europe, or il iI was
consolidaIed in Ihe resI ol Ihe world and was "applied" in Ihe sense ol having
solIware paIenIs (on Ihe "solIware iIsell"), Ihe lree solIware world could in-
creasingly lace problems. Eor lree solIware, Ihe proIecIion granIed by paIenIs
is misused and abused, as we shall see below.
LeI us consider Ihe lollowing iIems in lurIher deIail:
VIsIbIlIty oI source code. The publicaIion and public availabiliIy ol lree
solIware source code allows any company wiIh a solIware paIenI Io easily
analyse wheIher or noI Ihe source code used in Ihe lree solIware inlringes
upon iIs paIenI. II is much easier Io conducI a paIenIabiliIy sIudy and
deIermine based on Ihe source code Ihe ideas behind Ihe program Io see
il any ol Ihe Iechniques used in Ihe programs inlringes upon a paIenI.
To Ihe exIenI IhaI Ihe lree solIware will mosI likely conIain Ihousands ol
elemenIary processes, many ol which may be paIenIed, iI is almosI cerIain
IhaI iI will unknowingly inlringe upon a Ihird-parIy paIenI.
The public availabiliIy ol Ihe source code on which lree solIware is based
simplilies Ihe search lor paIenI violaIions and makes iI more vulnerable Io
possible courI suiIs and even criminal complainIs. This vulnerabiliIy may
deIermine IhaI Ihe companies using lree solIware preler noI Io publish iI,
so IhaI Ihe paIenIabiliIy ol Ihe solIware disIorIs Ihe principle ol publiciIy
and openness on which lree solIware is based.
To avoid Ihis conIradicIion, Ihere are Ihose advocaIing lor granIing im-
muniIy lrom solIware paIenI inlringemenI resulIing lrom Ihe publicaIion
ol Iheir source code, alIhough exploiIaIion should be condiIioned Io Ihe
limiIaIions ol Ihe paIenI owner and, Iherelore, subjecI Io Ihe relevanI li-
cence.
Owners and responsIbIlItIes. The lacI IhaI wiIh lree solIware Ihere is noI
a single company owning all Ihe righIs hinders Ihe mechanisms ol delence
in case ol liIigaIion lor inlringemenI ol oIher paIenIs, cross-licences or Ihe
paymenI ol royalIies.
AddiIionally, Ihe decenIralised consIrucIion ol lree solIware (Ihrough
many conIribuIions) complicaIes Ihe esIablishmenI ol Ihe responsibiliIies
ol each developer in Ihe chain and Ihe evaluaIion ol Ihe legal risks ol
Ihe various conIribuIions. Below we shall commenI on Ihe IreaImenI ol
paIenIs under lree solIware licences.
ProtectIon oI "Ideas". GranIing a paIenI on solIware could be danger-
ous lor luIure developmenIs, as whaI would be paIenIed are olIen merely
"ideas". Some ideas (algoriIhms, in Ihe case ol solIware) cannoI possibly
be considered invenIions, as Ihey are based on concepIs discovered over
years in Ihe various lields ol knowledge and IhaI are now applied Io Ihe
compuIer world. The cosI and risk associaIed wiIh a paIenI, alIhough mis-
1heexcepLionrelaLingLode-
compilingforinLeroperabil-
iLypurposesesLablishedby
auLhor'srighLsandcopyrighLs
isprovidedLoallowdeLermin-
ingLhe"ideas"underlyingLhe
compuLerprogram,incerLain
casessubjecLLolimiLaLionsim-
posedbylaw.
Iakenly granIed on an invenIion IhaI is noI in lacI new, could prevenI any
developmenI requiring Ihe use ol Ihe underlying concepI.
An algoriIhm, especially, as iI is a sequence ol insIrucIions desIined lor Ihe perlormance
ol a specilic Iask, may encompass boIh "Iechnical" and "non Iechnical" processes. BuI
analysed in absIracI and in Ierms ol pure logic, an algoriIhm does noI have physical
poinIs ol relerence, as iI may be applied Io many dillerenI luncIions. Along Ihese lines,
an algoriIhm should noI be Ihe subjecI ol a monopoly. Eree solIware could be limiIed
in Ihe use ol ideas and}or algoriIhms IhaI, in IruIh, should noI have been paIenIed lor
going againsI Ihe principles upon which paIenIs should be based.
Incremental InnovatIon. CompuIer innovaIion is noI achieved by greaI
leaps based on brillianI invenIions, buI is mainly incremenIal. Any ap-
plicaIion conIains many small Iechniques and pracIices IhaI, il paIenIed,
would imply an unbearable burden on Ihe developmenI and markeIing
ol solIware due Io Ihe cosI ol checking lor paIenIs on every deIail. The
amounI ol paIenIs necessary Io produce a single producI could be in Ihe
Ihousands.
On Ihe oIher hand, in oIher lields ol Iechnological developmenI, in which Ihe pracIice
ol paIenIabiliIy is jusIilied, Ihe amounI ol paIenIs per markeIable producI Iends Io be
much lower (lor insIance, in Ihe case ol Ihe pharmaceuIical indusIry, where generally a
single paIenI is applied Io a drug or process).
MIneIIelds: ImpossIble searches. In Ihe case ol solIware paIenIs, deIecI-
ing wheIher a producI conIains a code subjecI Io a paIenI Iends Io have
a cosI IhaI is olIen greaIer Ihan IhaI ol Ihe creaIion ol Ihe allecIed code,
lor Iwo reasons:
The large number ol paIenIs exisIing in Ihe counIries where solIware
paIenIs are accepIed.
The language in which Ihe proIecIed processes are described, which
dillers signilicanIly lrom Ihe IradiIional language used by program-
mers and requires long inIeracIions beIween lawyers and programmers
lor boIh parIies Io undersIand whaI is acIually proIecIed by Ihe paIenI
in quesIion. Even il iI were possible Io conducI a Ihorough sIudy ol Ihe
exisIence ol poIenIial problems wiIh Ihe solIware paIenIs lor a prod-
ucI, iI would be impossible Io guaranIee IhaI iI would noI be necessary
Io license a paIenI.
On Ihe one hand, iI is dilliculI Io conducI exIensive and exhausIive searches
due Io Ihe amounI ol poIenIial paIenIs involved and, on Ihe oIher, iI is pos-
sible IhaI alIer linishing a producI, anoIher person or company IhaI has de-
veloped Ihe meIhod earlier, could requesI a paIenI. This lacI causes an uncer-
IainIy IhaI does noI exisI wiIh oIher lorms ol proIecIion ol immaIerial goods,
such as auIhor's righIs.
Lnx Comgrexx
An example ol Ihis is whaI occurred wiIh Unix Compress. The program was creaIed in
184, and in 18S, a paIenI was granIed on algoriIhm LZW. This made Unix Compress
illegal lrom one day Io Ihe nexI, unIil a licence exisIed allowing iIs use. The pracIice ol
using a paIenI precedenI search daIabase as a means ol inlormaIion wiIhin Ihe process
ol developmenI ol a compuIer-relaIed producI noI only does noI exisI, buI also would
be useless even il iI were insIaIed due Io iIs inherenI inelliciency. In spiIe ol Ihis, Ihere is
Ialk ol using lree solIware reposiIories as a precedenIs base, Io idenIily, il possible, various
rouIines and esIablish a IimesIamp (Io deIermine Ihe publicaIion daIe).
All Ihis allecIs Ihe developmenI ol lree solIware as iI hinders Ihe capaciIy
ol innovaIion and developmenI ol prolessionals and companies in Ihis
secIor. FaIenIing prior modilicaIions
11
and improvemenIs is IanIamounI
Io aborIing innovaIion.
Standards and InteroperabIlIty. SolIware paIenIs IhreaIen Ihe increasing
imporIance aIIribuIed Io solIware sIandards (lormaIs, proIocols, compuI-
er applicaIions inIerlaces, eIc.), Io Ihe exIenI in which Ihey may hinder
Ihem.
The need Io lind common sIandards is more urgenI every day. To granI a
monopoly on a sIandard would vesI iIs creaIor wiIh absoluIe conIrol over
Ihe producIs ol all Ihe compeIiIion and would prevenI Ihe inIeroperabiliIy
ol compuIer programs, Io Ihe exIenI IhaI iI could inlringe upon Ihe paIenI.
Indeed, iI would IhreaIen Ihe lreedom ol disseminaIion ol Ihe knowhow
underlying any sIandard (by monopolising Ihe means ol expression). We
musI also noI lorgeI IhaI Ihere is a currenI search Io boosI access Io Ihe
inlormaIion socieIy and IhaI Ihe possibiliIy ol connecIing equipmenI Io
be inIeroperable is a means ol guaranIeeing open neIworks and avoiding
Ihe abuse ol dominanI posiIions.
Eor insIance, Ihe GIE sIandard could inlringe upon paIenI number 4,4o4,oS0, relaIing Io
compression algoriIhm LZW, granIed in 181 by Ihe UniIed SIaIes FaIenI and Trademark
Ollice (USFTO). We should examine, on Ihe one hand, Ihe possibiliIy IhaI a browser
mighI be unable Io read liles in GIE lormaI, which is commonly used by users. An exam-
ple ol Ihe opposiIe is Ihe sIandard lor documenIs ODE (open documenI lormaI), which
is expliciIly open Io all.
These limiIaIions would deIracI lrom Ihe compeIiIiveness ol lree solI-
ware wiIh respecI Io Ihe "paIenIed" sIandards ol proprieIary solIware and
would prevenI compaIibiliIy wiIh Ihe laIIer as iI would noI be possible Io
use paIenIed lormaIs or inIerlaces eiIher.
InIormatIon oblIgatIons. SolIware paIenIs Iend Io promoIe indusIrial se-
crecy and encourage Ihe abusive monopoly due Io Ihe inIeresI IhaI exisIs
noI Io publish Ihe source code in Ihe descripIion ol Ihe paIenI. This is in-
consisIenI wiIh Ihe hisIorical purpose ol paIenIs ol promoIing Ihe sharing
ol knowledge. II also conIribuIes Io eliminaIing innovaIive compeIiIion,
which is also inconsisIenI wiIh iIs alleged economic ellecI.
The publicaIion ol Ihe paIenI should include a descripIion IhaI would allow someone
knowledgeable in Ihe area Io reproduce Ihe process or invenIion, Io jusIily Ihe rewarding
ol Ihe monopoly Io Ihe invenIor. NoneIheless, as Ihe source code is noI included in
paIenI documenIs, Io reproduce a procedure iI is necessary Io redevelop Ihe source code,
which means IhaI Ihe conIribuIion by a paIenI is, in Ihe besI ol cases, dubious. Eor
insIance, in Ihe case ol invenIions, iI is necessary Io provide drawings and diagrams IhaI
clearly explain how an elemenI works wiIhin Ihe sysIem soughI Io be paIenIed. In Ihe
case ol Ihe solIware, in pracIice, solely vague descripIions ol Ihe maIIer soughI Io be
paIenIed are added and iI is necessary Io develop Ihe producI Io have a concreIe and
usable program.
(11)
Pleasesee"Opensourceaspri-
orarL"aLLheLlNXloundaLion
siLe,incollaboraLionwiLhLheSP-
1O.
In Ihis regard, solIware paIenIs do noI losIer research and developmenI in
Ihe lield ol compuIer programs or Ihe producIion ol programs IhaI beIIer
saIisly (in Ierms ol boIh qualiIy and quanIiIy) Ihe needs ol Ihe ciIizens
and companies. The loregoing is compleIely conIrary Io Ihe philosophy
ol lree solIware, lor which, due Io Ihe complexiIy ol Ihe currenI compuIer
programs and Ihe greaIer dilliculIy ol decompiling and re-implemenIing
a program lrom iIs objecI code, iI is essenIial Io have access Io Ihe source
code Io be able Io improve Ihe qualiIy ol Ihe solIware developed in Ihe
world.
InteroperabIlIty. II is argued IhaI, in parallel wiIh Ihe excepIions Io Ihe
auIhor's righIs wiIh respecI Io decompiling lor inIeroperabiliIy purposes,
paIenI licences should be lree or mandaIory and granIed wiIhouI delay
Io allow lor Ihe inIeroperabiliIy beIween various compuIer programs. II
should also be mandaIory IhaI Ihe paIenI documenI includes inlorma-
Iion on Ihe invenIion IhaI would laciliIaIe Ihe Iask ol Ihe people wishing
Io adapI a program Io anoIher, already-exisIing one (incorporaIing Ihe
paIenIed characIerisIics), or Ihe possibiliIy, in Ihe evenI IhaI paIenI righIs
be exercised abusively, ol resorIing Io mandaIory licences, and Io anIiIrusI
legislaIion Io achieve IhaI Ihe owner ol Ihe paIenI does noI hold an abu-
sive monopoly.
lormaLs.AbouLLwoyearswere
neededforwordprocessorde-
velopersLodecompileLhefor-
maLsofLhefilesofMicrosofL
Office7LobeableLomake
LheirproducLscompaLiblewiLh
LheMicrosofLproducLs.
Costs. SolIware paIenIs are very cosIly and Ihe procedure lor obIaining
Ihem may be very long and complicaIed. In lacI, iI noI only requires Ihe
paymenI ol subsIanIial lees during Ihe procedure ol applicaIion and granI-
ing, buI also Ihe lees ol compuIer engineers and lawyers (and oIher pro-
lessionals involved, as is convenienI or necessary in Ihe various legislaIive
sysIems ol each counIry). This is Io develop Ihe paIenI documenIs (parIic-
ularly, seIIing ouI Ihe claims in precise deIail) and procedural lollow up,
noI only by ollice (adminisIraIively), buI also aI Ihe courIs (conIenIious
proceedings), which may imply years ol expenses and headaches IhaI are
unbearable lor smaller applicanIs. AddiIionally, Ihe lacI IhaI iI is necessary
Io jusIily IhaI Ihe solIware paIenI is implemenIed in a larger invenIion
requires knowledge beyond mere programming, which implies a compli-
caIed assembly ol producIs and a complex Iechnology, i.e., iI requires (ex-
pensive) qualilied prolessionals.
On Ihe oIher hand, Ihis proposal makes no sense lor lree solIware, as iIs de-
velopmenI generally does noI require subsIanIial R&D invesImenIs (as op-
posed Io Ihe sizable invesImenIs needed in Ihe chemical indusIry, includ-
ing pharmaceuIical producIs, Ihe medical indusIry or highly-specialised
machinery secIors), olIen developed by small companies or independenI
compuIer programmers wiIh scarce economic resources and less access Io
Ihe necessary inlormaIion Io obIain and delend a paIenI. We musI noI
lorgeI IhaI solIware in general, alIhough a complex Iechnology, is also
open Io small developers.
II is also impossible lor Ihe paIenI ollices Io know who an experI in Ihe
maIIer would be, in order Io analyse wheIher a program is acIually Ihe
Recommended webxte
The Feer Io FaIenI FrojecI:
CommuniIy FaIenI Review,
hIIp:} }doIank.nyls.edu}com-
muniIypaIenI}index.php,
collaboraIion beIween Ihe
lree communiIy, IBM and
Ihe USFTO.
resulI ol an invenIive acIiviIy or Ihe "normal" evoluIion ol a concepI. An
idea Io improve Ihe experIise ol paIenI ollices (in Ihe UniIed SIaIes, where
solIware paIenIabiliIy is legal) is Io use social neIworks and peer review
sysIems Io idenIily an "experI in Ihe maIIer".
TImIng. We cannoI lorgeI IhaI some ol Ihe paIenI applicaIions pend-
ing concession are iniIially secreI and published IherealIer (in Ihe UniIed
SIaIes Ihis usually Iakes around eighIeen monIhs). NoneIheless, during
IhaI Iime, a lree solIware programmer may have developed Ihe same idea
in a compleIely independenI manner and be sued lor inlringing upon a
paIenI IhaI was unknown Io Ihem, due Io Ihe reIroacIive ellecIs ol Ihe
paIenI (as ol Ihe daIe ol applicaIion).
4. ConcIuxonx
Trademarks and paIenIs are dillerenI and complemenIary lorms ol proIecIing
solIware and giving iI (economic) value, however Ihey are very dillerenI lrom
auIhor's righIs.
Trademarks proIecI Ihe economic value ol Ihe name and repuIaIion ol a
program and Ihe projecI IhaI supporIs iI.
FaIenIs supposing Ihey are valid proIecI Ihe concepIs and luncIionali-
Iies ol solIware againsI Ihe developmenI and commercialisaIion ol re-im-
plemenIaIions ol Ihose luncIionaliIies.
While paIenIs are anaIhema Io lree solIware, Irademarks are specilically used
wiIhin Ihe communiIy. NoI Io conIrol Ihe use ol Ihe solIware usage righIs
are granIed under Ihe lree solIware licences buI Io conIrol Ihe qualiIy and
proIecI Ihe repuIaIion ol Ihe auIhors or projecI IhaI sponsors Ihe solIware.
EsIablished or commercially sponsored projecIs creaIe "Irademark policies" Io
enable Ihe communiIy Io use Ihe mark in a conIrolled buI generally liberal
manner. This promoIes a wider disseminaIion ol Ihe projecI wiIh greaIer legal
cerIainIy.
These lorms ol proIecIion and concepIs are now recognised by Ihe lree solI-
ware communiIy and incorporaIed inIo more recenI lree and open source solI-
ware licences, Io esIablish Ihe ground rules:
FaIenI granIs on conIribuIions, and paIenI peace clauses againsI paIenI
claims (MFL, CFL}EFL, GFLv3).
Trademark "obligaIions" or prohibiIions ol use (Apache, CFAL).
ElexibiliIy as Io Irademark or paIenI condiIions (GFLv3).
These issues are becoming more and more relevanI, as lree solIware moves ouI
ol Ihe laboraIories, universiIies and grassrooIs communiIies, and moves inIo
Ihe mainsIream (enIerprise) solIware indusIry.
Recommended InRx
Mozlla. http.//
www.mozlla.or/jounJaton/
traJemarls/polcy.html
Uhuntu. www.uhuntu.com/
ahoutus/traJemarlpolcy
SolIware licences
and lree solIware

GNUEDL SofLware licences and free sofLware
lcense"
1ndex

1ntroducton............................................................................................... S

1. SoItware Icenxex................................................................................ 7
1.1. ConcepI ol solIware licence ....................................................... 7
1.2. SolIware assignmenIs ..................................................................
1.3. Legal and economic luncIion ol licences ...................................
1.4. Legal naIure and regulaIory lramework ..................................... 10
1.S. SubjecIive elemenIs: parIies Io solIware licences ....................... 13
1.S.1. The supplier-licensor ..................................................... 13
1.S.2. User-licensee .................................................................. 1o
1.S.3. FarIies Io a lree solIware licence ................................... 18
1.o. ObjecIive elemenIs in solIware licences ..................................... 18
1.o.1. Term ............................................................................... 1
1.o.2. Frice ................................................................................ 20
1.o.3. RighIs, prohibiIions and limiIaIions ............................. 22
1.7. WarranIies and liabiliIies ............................................................ 23
1.7.1. General consideraIions .................................................. 24
1.7.2. WarranIies ...................................................................... 2S
1.7.3. LiabiliIy or indemniIies ................................................. 2o
1.7.4. LimiIaIions and exclusions ol warranIies and
liabiliIies ......................................................................... 27
1.7.S. WarranIies and liabiliIy in lree solIware licences .......... 2
1.8. JurisdicIion and applicable law .................................................. 31

2. SoItware contractx............................................................................. 33
2.1. SIandard mass markeI solIware .................................................. 33
2.2. "Bespoke" solIware ...................................................................... 34
2.3. CusIomised solIware ................................................................... 34
2.4. "Mass" conIracIing and general condiIions ................................ 3S
2.S. AgreemenIs ancillary Io Ihe solIware licence ............................. 3o

3. Free xoItware and Iree content...................................................... 38
3.1. Eree solIware ............................................................................... 38
3.2. CopylelI ....................................................................................... 3
3.3. The Open Source IniIiaIive and open source solIware ............... 41
3.4. Eree solIware licences .................................................................. 4S
3.S. Ereedom applied Io works IhaI are noI solIware ........................ 48

4. Free xoItware Icencex....................................................................... 4
4.1. Fermissive licences: no copylelI ................................................. 4
4.1.1. Berkeley SolIware DisIribuIion (BSD) and similar
licences ........................................................................... S0
4.1.2. The Apache SolIware Licences (ASL) ............................. S1
4.1.3. OIher permissive licences .............................................. S2
4.2. Licences wiIh sIrong copylelI ..................................................... S3
4.2.1. The GNU General Fublic License, version 2.0
(GFLv2) .......................................................................... S3
4.2.2. Version 3 ol Ihe GFL ..................................................... S8
4.2.3. OIher licences wiIh sIrong(er) copylelI ......................... o2
4.3. Licences wiIh weak copylelI ....................................................... o3
4.3.1. The GNU Lesser (or Library) General Fublic License
(LGFL) ............................................................................ o3
4.3.2. Mozilla Fublic License ................................................... oS
4.3.3. Open Source License (OSL) ........................................... o8
4.3.4. OIher licences wiIh "weak" copylelI or "hybrid" ........... o8
4.4. OIher "lree" licences .................................................................... o
4.4.1. The rise and lall ol "pseudo-lree" solIware licences ....... 70
4.4.2. MicrosolI Shared Source IniIiaIive (MSSI) ..................... 70
4.S. Eree documenIaIion licences ...................................................... 71
4.S.1. The GNU Eree DocumenIaIion License (GEDL) ............ 72
4.S.2. The CreaIive Commons iniIiaIive ................................. 73
4.S.3. Ereeware and shareware licences ................................... 7S

5. Free xoItware Icencex n gractce................................................. 7o
S.1. Some legal myIhs abouI lree solIware ... Io debunk ................... 7o
S.1.1. CopylelI goes againsI auIhor's righIs ............................ 7o
S.1.2. Eree solIware has no owners ......................................... 77
S.1.3. Eree licences compel auIhors Io assign Iheir righIs ....... 77
S.1.4. Eree solIware cannoI be subjecI Io commercial use ...... 78
S.1.S. Eree solIware and non-lree solIware are
incompaIible .................................................................. 78
S.1.o. Eree solIware cannoI be inIegraIed or mixed wiIh
non-lree solIware ........................................................... 78
S.1.7. All lree solIware is licensed in Ihe same manner
(upon Ihe Ierms ol Ihe GFL) ......................................... 7
S.1.8. Eree licences require Ihe publicaIion ol
modilicaIions Io Ihe code ............................................. 7
S.1.. WiIh lree solIware Ihere are no liabiliIies or
warranIies ....................................................................... 80
S.2. Some legal issues relaIing Io Ihe licences ................................... 80
S.2.1. Choosing a lree licence ................................................. 81
S.2.2. Licences lor conIribuIions and auIhorship ................... 83
S.2.3. CompaIibiliIy beIween licences .................................... 84
S.2.4. Dual or mulIiple licensing regimes ............................... 8S
S.2.S. Eree solIware licences and lorking ................................ 8o

. ConcIuxon............................................................................................ 8
GNUEDL 5 SofLware licences and free sofLware
1ntroducton
This module locuses on solIware licensing, and lree solIware licensing in par-
Iicular.
OlIen, Ihe creaIor ol a solIware program is noI iIs user: given IhaI Ihe law
granIs cerIain exclusive righIs Io Ihe creaIor ol a program in relaIion Io iIs
exploiIaIion, as we have seen in Module 2, Ihe creaIor musI ensure IhaI Ihe
user is granIed sullicienI righIs so as Io be able Io use Ihe solIware Io Ihe exIenI
inIended by Ihe parIies.
GranIing Ihese righIs can be done in Iwo manners: assignmenI and license.
An assignmenI is a Iransler ol righIs in an exclusive and deliniIive manner.
This is Ihe closesI analogy Io "selling" Ihe program as il iI were a good.
A licence is Ihe permission Io perlorm an acI (in relaIion Io Ihe work),
which wiIhouI IhaI permission would be an inlringemenI ol copyrighI or
a relaIed righI. As we will see below, a licence may be exclusive or non-ex-
clusive, and may include several condiIions upon use.
MosI EU Member SIaIes require lormaliIies ol some sorI (usually a wriIIen
documenI) lor assignmenIs or licenses Io be valid or validly proven.
The copyrighI legislaIion ol mosI Member SIaIes imposes cerIain obligaIions
on Ihe conIracIing parIies on Ihe scope ol Ihe Iransler ol righIs (e.g. on limiIa-
Iions on Ihe Iransler ol righIs relaIing Io lorms ol exploiIaIion IhaI are known
or loreseeable aI Ihe Iime Ihe copyrighI conIracI was concluded or on rules
on IerminaIion ol conIracIs). Such condiIions vary lrom one Member SIaIe
Io anoIher.
1. SoItware Icenxex
In Ihis lirsI secIion, we look aI solIware licences as a whole, belore enIering
inIo Ihe core parI ol Ihe module which is lree solIware licensing. We will also
menIion solIware assignmenIs, which in conIinenIal jurisdicIions are usually
wriIIen as irrevocable and exclusive licences.
1.1. Concegt oI xoItware Icence
A solIware licence is a documenI or legal "insIrumenI" IhaI esIablishes Ihe
Ierms and condiIions whereby Ihe auIhor or owner ol Ihe exploiIaIion righIs
Io a compuIer program (Ihe "licensor", "solIware righIsholder") auIhorises Ihe
use ol Ihe program by anoIher person (Ihe "licensee" or "user").
We olIen say IhaI a solIware licence
1
is an agreemenI, as iI consisIs ol an un-
dersIanding beIween Iwo parIies: Ihe solIware righIsholder and a user. II is
noneIheless hardly ever an agreemenI IhaI is negoIiaIed beIween Ihe Iwo ol
Ihem personally. Normally, iI is Ihe licensor IhaI unilaIerally esIablishes be-
lorehand Ihe Ierms and condiIions ol Ihe licence, as an "accession" agreemenI.
The user does noI or cannoI negoIiaIe wiIh Ihe licensor Ihe condiIions ol Ihe
licence, buI raIher musI merely accepI or rejecI Ihem.
In pracIice, we Iend Io use Ihe Ierm licence in Iwo senses: Io reler boIh Io
Ihe solIware licence agreemenI (lor insIance, we speak ol "accepIing Ihe Ierms
and condiIions ol Ihe licence"), and Io Ihe permission, auIhorisaIion or righI
granIed Io Ihe user Io use Ihe solIware by Ihe owner ol Ihe exclusive auIhor's
righIs IhereIo (in Ihis sense, we also speak ol "having Ihe licence Io use solI-
ware").
In lacI, Ihis dual meaning ol Ihe Ierm licence has pracIical consequences and
has given rise Io dispuIes. And Ihe reason lor Ihis is IhaI, in cerIain jurisdic-
Iions (UniIed SIaIes, UniIed Kingdom in parIicular), solIware licences can be
eiIher:
(1)
SLandardsofLwarelicencesare
ofLencalled"EndserLicense
AgreemenLs"(ELA),suchasLhose
LhaLoneaccepLswhendown-
loadingandinsLallingasofLware
programfromLheneL,orfroma
purchasedCD.See,forexample,
Adobelicenses.
A conIracI IhaI, in addiIion Io Ihe Ierms and condiIions lor Ihe use ol Ihe
solIware by Ihe user, may esIablish oIher accessory agreemenIs, such as
conlidenIialiIy obligaIions, liabiliIy, compeIenI courIs lor resolving any
conllicIs derived lrom Ihe licence, eIc.
A unilaIeral sIaIemenI by Ihe licensor, auIhorising Ihe use ol Ihe solIware
by Ihose meeIing and respecIing cerIain condiIions and limiIs, in accor-
dance wiIh Ihe applicable law on auIhor's righIs. In Ihis case, Ihe express
accepIance by Ihe licensee is noI required, Iherelore, Ihe licence may sole-
ly reler exclusively Io Ihe righI Io use Ihe solIware (and should noI reg-
1hishasimpacLsasLoconLracL
formaLion(e.g.LheconLracL
requiringaccepLance)andin-
LerpreLaLion.
ulaIe accessory agreemenIs, excepI as a condiIion lor Ihe exercise ol Ihe
righIs granIed).
The main objecI ol solIware licences is Iherelore Io seI ouI Ihe condiIions IhaI
are seI upon Ihe use (exploiIaIion) ol a solIware program, Ihus Ihe righIs IhaI
Ihe licensor granIs Ihe user in respecI ol Ihe solIware (whaI Ihey may do wiIh
Ihe solIware) and Ihe limiIaIions and prohibiIions IhaI musI be respecIed by
Ihe user (whaI Ihey cannoI do).
Licences also regulaIe such oIher aspecIs as Ihe lollowing:
Number ol copies and}or licences granIed.
MeIhod ol delivery and insIallaIion ol Ihe solIware.
Fossible period ol insIallaIion and accepIance IesIs by Ihe user.
DuraIion ol Ihe licence (limiIed, exIendible or undeIermined).
Frice ol Ihe licence (lree, single paymenI or periodic insIalmenIs).
WarranIy period.
LiabiliIies and limiIaIions ol liabiliIy ol Ihe licensor.
Governing law and compeIenI courIs in case ol liIigaIion.
In Ihis module, we shall locus our analysis on sIandard solIware user licences, wheIher
or noI cusIomised Io Ihe needs ol Ihe user. AlIhough iI would seem IhaI we have lelI
aside "developmenI agreemenIs" (whereby a programmer receives Ihe commission by a
clienI Io develop solIware according Io Iheir specilicaIions), we should bear in mind IhaI
Ihese agreemenIs Iend Io be accompanied by a solIware licence or assignmenI in lavour
ol Ihe clienI. ThaI licence, accessory Io Ihe "developmenI agreemenI", is subjecI Io Ihe
maIIers explained in Ihis module.
BoIh non-lree ("proprieIary") and lree solIware is commonly disIribuIed by
means ol Ihe same legal insIrumenI: Ihe user licence. The dillerences beIween
proprieIary solIware and lree solIware are evidenI in Ihe Ierms ol Ihe user
licences IhaI are compleIely dillerenI, especially in Ierms ol Ihe righIs IhaI Ihe
righIsholder granIs Ihe user:
Non-lree solIware licences Iend Io resIricI user righIs as much as possible,
reducing Ihem Io a limiIed permission Io use Ihe solIware and Io make
a backup copy. The user is prohibiIed lrom copying, modilying or redis-
IribuIing Ihe solIware, and is usually provided a single copy in binary code.
Eree solIware licences conIain a wide array ol lreedoms lor Ihe user, such
as Ihe lreedom Io use, copy, modily and redisIribuIe Ihe solIware. The
supplier also provides Ihe source code or makes iI available Io Ihe user.
SecIion 4 below seIs ouI a deIailed analysis ol Ihe conIenI ol lree licences.
SoItware and Its physIcal embodIment or medIum
SolIware (eiIher immaIerial or a work ol Ihe inIellecI) is disIinguished lrom
Ihe medium in which iI is conIained (maIerial good): a hard drive, diskeIIes
or CD-ROM, llash card. An imporIanI maIIer which musI be quiIe clear is IhaI
alIhough users acquire a copy ol a compuIer program subjecI Io a licence,
Ihey are only "buying" ownership ol Ihe medium (Ihe CD-ROM or Ihe DVD,
lor insIance) and noI Ihe solIware. In respecI ol Ihe solIware, Ihey are only
acquiring Ihe righI Io iIs use (a user licence), once Ihe Ierms and condiIions
ol Ihe licence have been accepIed.
This means IhaI Ihe user may Iransler or sell Ihe medium, and, il iI is sIill
during Ihe Ierm ol Ihe user licence, Ihis may include Ihe copy ol Ihe solIware
(don'I lorgeI Ihe concepI ol exhausIion, whereby Ihe disIribuIion ol a copy
ol Ihe work on a medium IerminaIes Ihe righIsholders' righI Io conIrol redis-
IribuIion ol IhaI copy). Likewise, Ihe purchase ol Ihe medium does noI auIo-
maIically imply having Ihe righI Io use Ihe program, as Ihe user musI lirsI
accepI Ihe licence.
1.2. SoItware axxgnmentx
As we have noIed, an assignmenI
2
is anoIher means ol granIing Io a Ihird parIy
righIs over a solIware program (or any oIher work ol auIhorship). However, an
assignmenI is deliniIive, more akin Io a sale, in IhaI Ihe original righIsholder is
basically Iranslerring Ihe properIy ol all Ihe righIs, irrevocably, Io Ihe recipienI
(known as Ihe "assignee").
(2)
AssignmenIs are common in bespoke solIware developmenI conIracIs and lreelance
or consulIancy agreemenIs, whereby Ihe supplier assigns all Ihe righIs in Ihe creaIed
solIware Io Ihe clienI. "The supplier hereby assigns all righIs, IiIle and inIeresI in Ihe
|resulIs ol Ihe work] Io Ihe clienI, lree ol liens and encumbrances" is a Iypical clause.
In conIinenIal European jurisdicIions Ihe concepI ol assignmenI generally
does noI exisI, and Ihe means Io achieve Ihe same resulI is by granIing Ihe
recipienI an rrevocahle, exclusve, royalty jree, worlJwJe lcense oj all the rhts
n the worl, jor the maxmum Juraton oj rhts. Remember IhaI Ihe creaIor will
always have cerIain moral righIs in a work, and Ihese cannoI be assigned or
licensed Io Ihird parIies.
AssignmenIs or exclusive licences may be accompanied by warranIies and in-
demniIies IhaI we commenI below, jusI like any oIher solIware licence or con-
IracI.
1.3. LegaI and economc Iuncton oI Icencex
Why is Ihe user licence Ihe legal means or "insIrumenI" commonly used by
solIware righIsholders Io disIribuIe programs Io Ihe users7 Basically because
Ihey are an ellicienI way Io manage Ihe righIs ol Ihe solIware owner, who
reIains ownership and conIrol over Ihe program while aI Ihe same Iime per-
miIs disseminaIion (wheIher or noI lor proliI) among users. This is due Io Ihe
parIicular naIure ol solIware:
Technical: SolIware is an immaIerial or inIangible good ol which mulIiple
copies ol Ihe same qualiIy may be obIained, iI is modiliable, giving rise Io
derivaIe works and, indeed, evolves conIinuously and quickly over Iime.
Legal: SolIware is Ihe objecI ol exclusive auIhor's righIs granIed by law Io
iIs creaIor, who may auIhorise iIs use, copy, modilicaIion or disIribuIion,
having no legal obligaIion whaIsoever Io disclose Ihe source code.
The legal and economic luncIions ol solIware licences diller, depending on
wheIher Ihey are "IradiIional" non-lree solIware licences or lree solIware li-
cences.
Companies developing non-lree solIware beneliI precisely lrom Ihe ex-
clusive exploiIaIion righIs granIed Io Ihem by auIhor's righIs legislaIion.
Seeking Io obIain Ihe maximum economic reIurn on Iheir solIware, non-
lree companies usually base Iheir business model on Ihe commercialisa-
Iion or "sale" ol copies: Ihe more sold Ihe beIIer. Therelore, non-lree solI-
ware licences are IradiIionally resIricIive in Ierms ol conIenI and scope ol
Ihe righIs granIed Io Ihe user in respecI ol Ihe solIware (no copying or
modilying, no redisIribuIion, no renIing) and are very proIecIive ol Ihe
exclusive "reserved" righIs ol Ihe auIhor. II is basically and merely a "use"
licence.
In lree solIware, licences have Ihe same luncIion, buI an enIirely diller-
enI purpose. They are used Io granI righIs and esIablish obligaIions, buI
noI Io reserve Ihe exclusive righIs ol Ihe supplier or Io commercialise Ihe
largesI possible number ol copies, buI Io granI and guaranIee Ihe righIs
ol Ihe users Io use, modily, adapI, improve and redisIribuIe Ihe solIware.
Il economic beneliIs are soughI, iI is noI Ihrough resIricIing user righIs,
buI usually lollowing a dillerenI business model (e.g. providing services
lor Ihe solIware).
Thus, somewhaI paradoxically, solIware licences, which have IradiIionally
been used Io resIricI user righIs, are also an adequaIe means ol guaranIee-
ing Ihe righIs ol Ihe users ol solIware via Ihe lree licensing model. Eree solI-
ware license resIricIions are more "condiIions" lor Ihe user Io exercise Ihe
righIs granIed, condiIions IhaI do noI seek Io reserve Ihe exclusive exploiIa-
Iion righIs ol Ihe righIsholder, buI Io preserve his}her repuIaIion and guaran-
Iee IhaI all users may beneliI lrom such lreedoms, Ihus prevenIing possible
aIIempIs aI appropriaIing Ihe solIware. We will see below in SecIion 4 Ihe
mechanism and conIenI ol lree solIware licences in more deIail.
1.4. LegaI nature and reguIator IrameworR
As we have seen in Ihis module, a solIware user licence is a legal insIrumenI.
WhaI kind ol insIrumenI is iI and Io whaI laws is iI subjecI7
Generally speaking, a solIware licence esIablishes an aIypical legal relaIion-
ship, su eners, IhaI does noI lall wiIhin Ihe IradiIional seI ol (commercial)
relaIions undersIood by courIs: a purchase, a lease, a gilI or a service rendered.
The purchase agreement consisIs ol a IransacIion whereby Ihe seller de-
livers someIhing (and Ihe ownership Ihereol) Io Ihe buyer, in exchange
lor Ihe paymenI ol a cerIain amounI ol money (consideraIion or price).
However, precisely one ol Ihe main reasons lor granIing a solIware licence
is Io avoid any ouIrighI "sale" ol Ihe righIs in Ihe solIware an assignmenI.
A licensor mainIains aI all Iimes his}her (inIellecIual) properIy righIs ol
Ihe solIware and conIrol ol iIs copies and disIribuIion.
A loan or lease consisIs ol Ihe Iemporary Iransler by a lessor ol Ihe pos-
session and righI Io use someIhing in lavour ol a lessee who, in exchange,
pays a cerIain amounI ol money (normally in Ihe lorm ol renI or regular
paymenIs) or, in Ihe evenI ol a loan, lor lree and who, aI Ihe end ol Ihe
agreemenI, musI reIurn Ihe iIem Io Ihe lessor. A solIware licence cannoI
be enIirely assimilaIed Io a lease or loan: in many cases, a licence is granI-
ed lor an indeliniIe Ierm, while leases necessarily esIablish a deIerminaIe
Ierm lor using Ihe leased properIy. And even in cases in which Ihe solIware
licence is granIed lor a deIerminaIe Ierm, whaI Ihe licensor is granIing Ihe
user-licensee are limiIed righIs Io an immaIerial good, which are musI less
Ihan Ihose granIed under a lease.
WhaI's more, when a lease agreemenI ends, Ihe lessee musI reIurn Ihe
leased properIy Io Ihe lessor. In Ihe case ol solIware licences, alIhough Ihe
user is someIimes required Io reIurn Ihe copy Io Ihe licensor aI Ihe end ol
Ihe agreemenI, Ihe user olIen does noI reIurn anyIhing aI all, buI raIher
desIroys, erases and}or uninsIalls Ihe program lor good.
A gIIt is where someIhing is Iranslerred lor lree Io anoIher parIy. Eree-
ware and lree solIware licences are usually granIed graIuiIously and in lacI
could be mosI closely assimilaIed Io gilIs (ol a non exclusive righI, noI ol
Ihe solIware). The indeliniIe righI Io use Ihe solIware is permiIIed, lree ol
charge. Also, gilIs may be condiIional (when someIhing is gilIed Io some-
one, buI in exchange Ihe beneliciary musI meeI a condiIion) jusI like lree
solIware licence granIs righIs subjecI, lor insIance, Io copylelI condiIions.
When solIware is adapIed or Iailored Io Ihe needs ol Ihe user, iI may also
be assimilaIed Io Ihe resulIs ol Ihe perlormance ol work or Ihe provision
ol a service.
Thus, while esIablishing an aIypical relaIionship Ihere is no legal norm IhaI
would specilically and comprehensively regulaIe solIware user licences, as op-
posed Io "classic" agreemenIs IhaI are subjecI Io legal regulaIion in Civil Codes
or sIaIuIe law, a solIware licence may bear cerIain characIerisIics ol each ol
Ihese relaIionships. Depending on Ihe circumsIances ol each case, a courI
could apply direcIly or by analogy Ihe law applicable Io IhaI relaIionship Io
lnLhecaseofshareware,de-
mosorevaluaLioncopies,Lhe
licencecouldbeassimilaLed
Loaloan,alLhoughLheycan-
noLbeequaLedenLirely:whaL
isassignedisnoLaLhingbuLa
righL.
Ihe solIware license: e.g. lrom a sale-purchase or lease agreemenI, Ihe war-
ranIies ol IiIle (or "peacelul enjoymenI"), good condiIion and operabiliIy ol
Ihe Ihing sold or leased, lrom a lease, Ihe obligaIion Io reIurn a good or ceas-
ing using iI when Ihe Ierm expires.
In addiIion, Ihere is Ihe debaIe wheIher a solIware licence (a lree solIware
licence in parIicular) is a conIracI or mere permission. In Ihe lirsI case, Ihe
courIs would apply a large body ol legal provisions lor assisIing in solving
any dilliculIies in inIerpreIaIion or applicaIion ol Ihe licence conIracI. How-
ever conIracI law also requires lormal sIeps Io be Iaken Io ensure lormaIion
ol a valid and binding conIracI: an oller, accepIance and, in Ihe UK, consid-
eraIion (basically, paymenI ol price or promise). CerIainly in Ihe case ol lree
solIware licences, Ihere is Ihe dilliculIy IhaI olIen Ihere is no express lorm ol
accepIance, nor indeed easily idenIiliable consideraIion lrom Ihe user Io Ihe
licensor.
So a more lavourable view would be Io see a license as a mere auIhorisaIion,
as menIioned in copyrighI law, whereby Ihe licensor auIhorises (unilaIerally,
in Ihe case ol lree solIware licences) Ihe users Io carry ouI deIermined acIs
(copying, modilying, eIc.) wiIh or wiIhouI condiIions. Thus Ihe condiIions
are noI conIracIual condiIions buI licence condiIions, breach ol which would
IerminaIe Ihe auIhorisaIion and any lurIher acI resIricIed by copyrighI would
be a breach ol Ihe licensor's copyrighI righIs.
In any evenI, Ihe applicaIion ol Ihe norms applicable Io conIracIs and Ihe
aloremenIioned lorms ol agreemenIs should noI occur in a generalised man-
ner, buI lor specilic scenarios, applying Ihem "by analogy" Io resolve dispuIes
derived lrom aspecIs IhaI are eiIher noI regulaIed by Ihe licence iIsell, IhaI are
governed by ambiguous or incomprehensible condiIions, or il a clause ol Ihe
licence is considered null lor breaching an imperaIive rule.
II has specilically been said IhaI Ihe norms on purchase agreemenIs may be applied by
analogy Io sIandard (mass) solIware licences IhaI are more similar Io a purchase, due Io
Iheir Ierms and condiIions (lixed price, indeliniIe Iime), buI cannoI be considered such.
In Ihe end, a solIware licence is governed, above all, by Ihe Ierms seI ouI
in Ihe licence documenI and agreed beIween Ihe parIies and by Ihe general
norms on obligaIions. And we musI also consider IhaI Ihe copyrighI law does
indeed olIen regulaIe, aI leasI parIially and indirecIly, Ihe possible conIenI ol
a solIware user licence agreemenI, wiIh prioriIy over Ihe applicaIion or non
applicaIion ol oIher norms, e.g. as Io exclusiviIy, Ierm and geographic scope.
Einally, in any case, solIware licenses shall always be subjecI Io cerIain laws
and oIher norms:
MandaIory law: The norms IhaI apply mandaIorily Io licensor and licensee
whaIever Ihe licence says. Il Ihe licence agreemenI conIains a clause IhaI
is conIrary Io an applicable mandaIory rule, e.g. ol consumer proIecIion
lor providing a warranIy, Ihis clause will be null and void.
DisposiIive law: Norms governing Ihe relaIionship in cases where noIhing
else has been esIablished in Ihe licence agreemenI. Eor insIance, il a granI
ol righIs is noI expressly esIablished as exclusive, by law iI is olIen under-
sIood IhaI Ihe licence does noI granI any exclusiviIy.
1.5. Sub]ectve eIementx: gartex to xoItware Icencex
Two persons or parIies are involved in a solIware licence (individuals or legal
persons), who are granIed cerIain righIs and obligaIions. These parIies are, on
Ihe one hand, Ihe supplIer-lIcensor ol Ihe solIware, and, on Ihe oIher, Ihe
user-lIcensee.
1.5.1. The xuggIer-Icenxor
The supplier-licensor is Ihe person who granIs Ihe licence Io Ihe user Io use
Ihe solIware, providing him}her a copy ol Ihe licensed solIware. As we have
seen, Ihe supplier-licensor Iends Io lix Ihe Ierms and condiIions ol Ihe licence
unilaIerally, cerIainly wiIh mass markeI licenses, and Ihe user-licensee merely
accepIs or rejecIs Ihem (being unable Io negoIiaIe Ihe conIenI ol any righIs
and obligaIions).
The supplier-licensor musI have sullicienI righIs in Ihe solIware, according Io
auIhor's righIs legislaIion, Io be able Io granI Ihe licence. As we have seen in
Module 2, Ihose who are auIhorised Io granI licences are:
The auIhor or group ol auIhors ol Ihe solIware (Ihe original owner ol iIs
exploiIaIion righIs). These may granI user licences insolar as Ihe exploiIa-
Iion righIs Io Ihe solIware have noI been assigned Io a Ihird parIy.
A subsequenI owner ol Ihe exploiIaIion righIs.
A person who is solely enIiIled Io disIribuIe Ihe solIware (a disIribuIor).
Several commenIs need Io be made:
Legal capacIty: auIhors may granI user licences lor Iheir solIware provid-
ed Ihey are ol legal age, i.e., Ihey have Ihe legal capaciIy Io conIracI. Usu-
ally, solIware developers IhaI are underage need auIhorisaIion lrom Iheir
parenIs or guardians Io validly granI a licence.
As an excepIion, naIional copyrighI laws someIimes allow underage auIhors Io granI li-
cences Ihemselves il Ihey are independenI, e.g. "older Ihan sixIeen, living independenIly
wiIh Ihe consenI ol Iheir parenIs or guardians or wiIh Ihe auIhorisaIion ol Ihe person
or insIiIuIion caring lrom Ihem".
MultIple rIghtsholders. Flease reler Io Module 2 on Ihe cases ol mulIi-
ple auIhorship and ownership ol righIs: Ihe righIsholders may be "joinI",
requiring Ihe consenI ol all Ihe auIhors, or Ihe righIs may be collecIive,
under Ihe conIrol ol a single parIy who has supervised or compiled Ihe
work ol oIhers, such as an "ediIor".
DerIvate worRs. Remember IhaI derivaIe and composiIe works based on
or including prior works by Ihird parIies may only be licensed Io Ihird
parIies in accordance wiIh Ihe righIs granIed by Ihe upsIream licence on
Ihe prior work. Il Ihis licence does noI allow relicensing or sublicensing,
or redisIribuIion in any lorm, Ihen Ihe new work may noI be licensed aI
all Io Ihird parIies.
In Ihis conIexI, lor example, permissive lree solIware licences such as Ihe BSD or MIT
allow any lorm ol relicensing. On Ihe oIher hand, Ihe GFL only allows redisIribuIion
ol derivaIive or composiIe works ("collecIive", in US Ierminology) under Ihe same Ierms
(Ihe copylelI obligaIions) and indeed does noI allow sub-licensing ol Ihe original code,
buI granIs a direcI license lrom Ihe licensor Io each new user.
Owner oI exploItatIon or economIc rIghts. When Ihe creaIor ol a solI-
ware assigns or licenses Io anoIher person any exploiIaIion righIs on an
exclusive basis, we Ialk ol a derivaIe owner or righIsholder, who becomes
Ihe person capable ol exploiIing Ihe solIware, including Iherelore adapI-
ing iI and redisIribuIing iI Io Ihird parIies under a new licence. These righIs
may also be acquired by inheriIance (heirs) or legal provision (employers).
AgreemenIs as Io conIribuIions Io lree solIware projecIs someIimes are dralIed as assign-
menIs ol Ihe righIs Io Ihe projecI, and granI a licence back Io Ihe auIhor Io allow Ihem
Io conIinue Io develop or exploiI Ihe solIware separaIely. Ereelance or solIware develop-
menI conIracIs also Iend Io include an assignmenI or exclusive licence granI, so Ihe clienI
has ownership ol Ihe resulI ol Ihe commission and, lor example, may granI licences Io
Ihird parIies.
DIstrIbutors. JusI as many manulacIurers markeI Iheir producIs Ihrough
disIribuIors (who resell Ihem, lor insIance, in a given IerriIory), iI is also
possible lor Ihe auIhor or Ihe owner ol Ihe exploiIaIion righIs Io Ihe solI-
ware Io decide Io markeI Ihe solIware Ihrough a neIwork ol disIribuIors,
such as OEMs (Dell, HF, eIc.), who olIen incorporaIe Ihe solIware "as is"
in hardware producIs, devices or appliances. The disIribuIor is bound by a
"disIribuIion agreemenI" whereby iI is auIhorised in Iurn Io issue end-user
sub-licences olIen in Ihe lorm specilied by Ihe righIsholder while Ihe
disIribuIion agreemenI remains ellecIive.
CompuIer warehouses or sIores, where consumer solIware may be purchased, are noI
usually "disIribuIors", in principle, as Ihey merely sell Ihe medium (CD-ROM, DVD) con-
Iaining Ihe copy ol Ihe solIware. The user licence is subscribed laIer, direcIly beIween
Ihe "manulacIurer" ol Ihe solIware and Ihe user (e.g. wiIh a shrink wrap licence).
Warranty oI tItle or peaceIul enoyment
Should Ihe licence be granIed by someone wiIhouI such righIs, Ihe assignmenI
or license ol Ihe righI Io use Ihe solIware would be illegal and null and void.
In such a case, Ihe licensor would have granIed a licence in violaIion ol Ihe exclusive
righIs ol a Ihird parIy who holds Ihe exploiIaIion righIs (e.g. Ihe auIhor ol a componenI
included in a solIware package), who may bring legal acIion Io cancel Ihe licences granIed
wiIhouI Iheir permission, prohibiIing Ihe use ol Ihe solIware by Ihe user and holding
Ihe licensor liable lor damages.
The breach ol Ihird parIy righIs by Ihe solIware supplier in principle does
noI imply any responsibiliIy lor Ihe user-licensee in good laiIh (i.e., a parIy
Iaking Ihe licence in Ihe beliel IhaI Ihe supplier was Iruly auIhorised Io granI
iI). NoneIheless, Ihe user may indeed susIain serious harm, specilically Ihe
suspension and loss ol Ihe righI Io use Ihe solIware, as a resulI ol claims or
courI acIions being broughI by Ihe Irue owner. In Ihese cases, Ihe user will
have also paid Ihe wrong person lor Ihe use ol Ihe solIware.
SolIware copyrighI law iIsell provides IhaI Ihose who, wiIhouI Ihe auIhorisaIion ol Ihe
owner, "place in circulaIion one or more copies ol a compuIer program, knowing ol or
in a posiIion Io presume Iheir illegiIimaIe naIure", are deemed in violaIion ol auIhor's
righIs (ArIicle 7, EU CompuIer Frograms DirecIive).
Therelore, having sullicienI righIs Io granI a solIware licence is an inIrinsic
and sne qua non condiIion lor doing so, and anyone granIing a licence wiIh-
ouI having sullicienI righIs Io do so will be liable Io Ihe user lor any damages
Ihey may susIain il Ihey are deIermined Io have acIed wiIhouI sullicienI au-
IhoriIy Io granI a licence. Therelore, iI is said IhaI in granIing a user licence Ihe
supplier musI necessarily granI Ihe user a "warranty oj ownershp" or "peacejul
enjoyment", whereby users are assured IhaI Ihey may use Ihe solIware legally
and IhaI Ihey may conIinue Io use iI lor Ihe duraIion ol Ihe licence.
In cerIain jurisdicIions, more Ihan a warranIy, ownership ol righIs in Ihe solIware is an
inherenI condiIion IhaI Ihe supplier musI have over Ihe solIware so IhaI Ihe licence is
valid and does noI inlringe upon Ihird-parIy auIhor's righIs. We noneIheless speak ol
"warranIy ol IiIle or ownership" by inlluence ol Ihe law ol English-speaking counIries, as
many solIware licences are a IranslaIion or adapIaIion ol UniIed SIaIes licences. WarranIy
ol IiIle: Ihe supplier guaranIees IhaI Ihey have Ihe due auIhoriIy Io granI Ihe licence and
IhaI no Ihird-parIy righIs are being inlringed upon.
AddiIionally, should Ihe user be a consumer, Consumer FroIecIion Law ap-
plies, as we noIe below, whereby Ihe supplier ol solIware will be liable Io Ihe
consumer user lor Ihe origin, idenIiIy and suiIabiliIy ol Ihe solIware (olIen,
in pracIice, lor boIh consumers and independenI prolessionals). Under Ihese
laws, clauses seeking Io limiI or exclude such warranIy ol ownership are gen-
erally null and void.
Many solIware licences lollow Ihe model ol English-speaking counIries ol noI granIing
any warranIies on Ihe solIware, noI even a warranIy ol IiIle, sIaIing IhaI Ihe solIware is
delivered Io Ihe user "as is". Many even expressly sIaIe IhaI Ihey provide no warranIies
ol IiIle and non-inlringemenI.
As menIioned earlier, Ihis exclusion ol Ihe warranIy ol ownership is probably invalid in
mosI EU jurisdicIions, as Ihe solIware supplier is required by law Io guaranIee ownership
ol Ihe solIware. II should be noIed IhaI Ihe EUFL 1.1 (European Union Fublic Licence),
dralIed lor Ihe European legal lramework, includes a "warranIy ol IiIle", as does Ihe OSL
3.0 (Open Source License). These licences are discussed below.
1.5.2. Lxer-Icenxee
The user-licensee is Ihe person acquiring Ihe righI Io use Ihe solIware under
Ihe licence, according Io Ihe Ierms and condiIions esIablished Iherein (almosI
always imposed by Ihe solIware supplier). The main obligaIions ol Ihe user-li-
censee is Io pay Ihe price ol Ihe licence (when a paid licence is involved) and
respecI Ihe user limiIaIions imposed by Ihe licence.
In Ihe case where Ihe user is a licensee ol non-lree solIware, in principle, Ihey usually
have lew user righIs (basically, Io run Ihe program, use Ihe applicaIion and make one
backup copy, il noI already provided), while Ihe limiIaIions are many. On Ihe oIher hand,
il Ihe user is a licensee ol lree solIware, Ihe lreedoms ol Ihe user-licensee are much greaIer
and, accordingly, Ihe limiIaIions are lesser: Ihey could use Ihe solIware lreely, and modily
and redisIribuIe iI, wiIh or wiIhouI modilicaIions.
Should users be auIhorised Io modily Ihe solIware and Ihey do, Ihey may
become Ihe auIhor ol derived work (i.e., ol Ihe IranslaIion or adapIaIion ol Ihe
solIware), as we have seen in Module 2. AddiIionally, il a user is auIhorised Io
redisIribuIe Ihe solIware and does so, Ihey Ioo may become solIware suppliers.
This is olIen Ihe case in lree solIware developmenI.
II is relevanI Io deIermine, in a solIware licence, wheIher Ihe user-licensee is
a consumer or a business, inasmuch as Ihe legal sysIem governing Ihe licence
and Ihe legal norms applied Io Ihe relaIionship may vary accordingly, espe-
cially, in Ierms ol Ihe validiIy, applicaIion and inIerpreIaIion ol iIs clauses (lor
insIance, regarding Ihe IerminaIion ol Ihe agreemenI or Ihe responsibiliIies
ol Ihe supplier).
SomeIimes, Ihe IexI ol Ihe user licence iIsell conIains dillerenI righIs and obligaIions
depending on wheIher Ihe user is a consumer using Ihe solIware lor personal use or a
business using Ihe solIware lor iIs business acIiviIy. Much "lreeware" or "shareware" is
granIed lreely lor personal use and subjecI Io paymenIs lor business.
Consumers
Il Ihe user is a consumer, Ihey are deemed Io be in a parIicular weak negoIiaI-
ing posiIion, which means IhaI Ihey have legal proIecIion wiIh respecI Io pos-
sible abuses by Ihe solIware supplier. In Ihis case, Ihe licence is subjecI Io Ihe
rules ol Ihe Consumer FroIecIion, harmonised Io a cerIain degree IhroughouI
Ihe European Union, which prohibiIs abusive clauses. These are provisions
IhaI are noI individually negoIiaIed and IhaI, conIrary Io Ihe requiremenIs ol
good laiIh, cause a signilicanI imbalance Io Ihe deIrimenI ol Ihe consumer ol
Ihe righIs and obligaIions ol Ihe parIies.
Abuxve cIauxex
Examples ol clauses IhaI are prohibiIed lrom being included, lor being
considered abusive:
Clauses condiIioning Ihe perlormance ol Ihe licence Io Ihe unilaI-
eral will ol Ihe supplier: e.g. Ihe righI ol Ihe supplier unilaIerally
Io consIrue or modily Ihe Ierms ol Ihe licence, alIer iIs accepIance
by Ihe user, or lreely Io resolve Ihe agreemenI, wiIhouI noIice or
indemnilicaIion.
Clauses sIripping consumers ol Iheir basic righIs: e.g. limiIing or
excluding Ihe warranIies IhaI musI legally be provided lor Ihe solI-
ware and limiIing or excluding Iheir liabiliIy lor damages caused by
delecIive solIware.
OIher abusive clauses such as requiring Ihe consumer Io accepI un-
known clauses or condiIions, lorcing Ihe user consumer Io purchase
unsoliciIed accessory goods or services or imposing IhaI, in case ol
liIigaIion wiIh respecI Io Ihe licence, courIs oIher Ihan Ihose ol Ihe
domicile ol Ihe user consumer should have Ihe compeIenI jurisdic-
Iion or IhaI Ihe licence should be subjecI Io a loreign law, unrelaIed
Io Ihe parIies.
AddiIionally, when Ihe user consumer acquires Ihe solIware user licence over
Ihe inIerneI (online), Ihe solIware supplier musI also meeI Ihe inlormaIion
obligaIions imposed by naIional implemenIaIions ol Ihe Ecommerce Direc-
Iive
3
:
(3)
The obligaIions under Ihe naIional ecommerce law are imposed upon Ihe licensors
esIablished in Ihe relevanI counIry. Il Ihe licensor is esIablished ouIside ol Ihe European
Union, Ihe naIional (EU) ecommerce law shall solely apply Io Ihe licences granIed Io
naIional consumer users and provided Iheir web siIe is specilically direcIed Io or has a
specilic secIion lor IhaI counIry.
Belore purchasing Ihe licence, cerIain daIa musI be provided in relaIion
Io Ihe licence and Ihe conIracIing process, in addiIion Io Ihe IexI ol Ihe
general condiIions.
AlIer acquiring a licence, Ihe supplier musI conlirm wiIh Ihe user IhaI
Iheir accepIance has been received and documenIary evidence provided.
BusIness or proIessIonal users
AlIhough Ihe rules proIecIing consumers generally do noI apply when Ihe user
is a business or prolessional, Ihis does noI mean IhaI Ihe solIware supplier may
impose upon such clauses IhaI are unlair or abusive. WhaI in lacI happens
is IhaI Ihe business user does noI have mandaIory legal proIecIion, whereby
cerIain clauses are auIomaIically deemed null and void.
However, a clause may be considered null and void, even in respecI ol business
users, il iI is considered Io be conIrary Io Ihe general rule ol good laiIh IhaI
musI govern Ihe perlormance ol Ihe agreemenIs, or a "reasonableness IesI" in
Ihe UK. This will depend on Ihe examinaIion ol Ihe circumsIances ol each
parIicular case and in Ihe end iI is Ihe courIs who will decide wheIher Ihe
clause is conIrary Io good laiIh or unreasonable.
CerIain circumsIances shall be considered as relevanI when deIermining wheIher a clause
should be annulled lor being abusive when Ihe licensee is a business or prolessional.
Eor insIance, wheIher Ihe licensee is a large or small company, wheIher Ihere has been a
Irue process ol negoIiaIion beIween Ihe parIies, wheIher Ihe user-licensee has accepIed a
clause IhaI is unlavourable lor iIs inIeresIs, in exchange lor anoIher lavourable provision
(lor insIance, a reducIion in Ihe price ol Ihe licence or a righI Io modily Ihe solIware, in
exchange lor greaIer limiIaIions Io Ihe liabiliIy ol Ihe supplier) or wheIher Ihe supplier
has simply imposed Ihem.
1.5.3. Partex to a Iree xoItware Icence
In Ihe case ol lree solIware licences, Ihe IradiIional posiIions ol supplier-licen-
sor and user-licensee are mainIained, however some specilic poinIs should be
noIed.
EirsI and loremosI, Ihe granIing ol a lree solIware licence implies IhaI iIs
owner shares Ihe exploiIaIion righIs wiIh Ihe users. This does noI mean
IhaI Ihe lree solIware becomes parI ol Ihe public domain, or IhaI Ihe righI-
sholders waive Iheir righIs. Eree solIware is noI solIware wiIh "no owner".
The auIhor conIinues Io mainIain his or her sIaIus as auIhor ol Ihe solI-
ware and, in parIicular, mainIains his or her moral righIs in Ihe work.
By granIing users Ihe righIs ol Io modily and redisIribuIe Ihe work, Ihe
user-licensee under a lree solIware licence may, in Iurn, also become Ihe
supplier-licensor ol oIher users, eiIher by relicensing Ihe same solIware (il
Ihey have Ihe righI Io sub-license), or by licensing solIware derived lrom
Ihe original.
DespiIe whaI lree solIware licences olIen say Ihey Iend Io sIaIe IhaI Ihe
solIware is ollered "wiIhouI warranIies" lree solIware licensors musI guar-
anIee IhaI Ihe solIware does noI inlringe upon Ihe righI ol any oIher solI-
ware (wheIher lree or non-lree). The warranIy ol ownership and peace-
lul enjoymenI is inherenI in Ihe condiIion ol solIware supplier and is in-
escapable.
1.. Ob]ectve eIementx n xoItware Icencex
By objecIive elemenIs, we mean Ihose elemenIs ol Ihe user licence relaIing Io
iIs objecI: Ihe conIenI and scope ol Ihe user righIs. WhaI righIs are granIed
by Ihe righIsholder Io Ihe user wiIh respecI Io Ihe solIware and subjecI Io
whaI limiIaIions7 As we have already had occasion Io noIe, Ihe righIs and
obligaIions ol Ihe parIies wiIh respecI Io solIware vary subsIanIially according
Io Ihe licence.
In Ihis secIion, we look aI Ihe Ierm and price ol a licence, and Ihen Ihe diller-
enI righIs IhaI are granIed.
1..1. Term
SolIware licences should esIablish Ihe duraIion ol Ihe licence granI, i.e., iIs
Ierm. In principle, unless eiIher ol Ihe parIies were Io breach Iheir obligaIions
under Ihe user licence, iI should remain ellecIive during Ihe esIablished Ierm.
Generally speaking, licences are granIed lor a lixed Ierm, an indeliniIe Ierm,
or someIimes do noI provide anyIhing in respecI ol Ierm.
Eixed-Ierm licences. In lixed Ierm licences

4
, a specilic period is esIablished
lor Ihe use ol Ihe solIware, n monIhs, n years, eIc. AI Ihe end ol Ihe Ierm,
il Ihe licence does noI say oIherwise, iI expires and Ihe user musI discon-
Iinue use ol Ihe solIware.
This does noI prevenI Ihe parIies lrom agreeing laIer Io subscribe a new
user licence lor Ihe same solIware. II is even quiIe possible IhaI Ihe licence
iIsell esIablishes IhaI, when Ihe ellecIive Ierm lapses, Ihe licence should
be deemed IaciIly or auIomaIically exIended lor a new Ierm and so on
unIil one ol Ihe parIies gives advanced noIice ol Iheir inIenIion noI Io
exIend iI any lurIher.
In Ihe case ol demonsIraIion or evaluaIion solIware (known as demos), Ihe
licence is also usually esIablished lor a lixed Ierm. In Ihis case, lixing Ihe
Ierm is essenIial Io accomplish Ihe purpose soughI wiIh Ihe disIribuIion
ol Ihis solIware: lor Ihe user Io geI Io know, over a shorI period ol Iime,
iIs luncIionaliIies and, aI Ihe end ol Ihe period, Ihey may decide wheIher
or noI Io purchase a compleIe version ol Ihe program.
(4)
Licences granIed lor a lixed Ierm are commonly used lor more specialised and com-
plex solIware applicaIions, aimed aI companies IhaI are normally bound by an accessory
agreemenI, such as a consulIing or mainIenance agreemenI. In such case, Ihe user Iends
Io pay regular insIalmenIs Io Ihe supplier as a licence lee.
IndeliniIe-Ierm licences. In Ihis case, Ihe solIware licence agreemenI ex-
pressly esIablishes IhaI Ihe licence is granIed lor an indeIerminaIe period,
noI being subjecI Io any specilic Ierm. Users may use Ihe solIware as long
as Ihey meeI Ihe Ierms and condiIions ol Ihe licence.
NoIwiIhsIanding, some indeliniIe-Ierm solIware licences
S
esIablish claus-
es IhaI allow one or boIh parIies Io end Ihe licence whenever Ihey desire,
by giving advanced noIice ol IerminaIion. This can be considered abusive
in cerIain circumsIances (see above, in respecI ol consumers).
Lack ol express Ierm ol Ihe licence. When a solIware licence agreemenI
does noI specily anyIhing wiIh respecI Io iIs Ierm, Ihe licence is noI nec-
(5)
lndefiniLeorindeLerminaLe-Lerm
licencesaremorecommonlyused
formassmarkeLsofLware,espe-
ciallyforconsumers,whereLheus-
erpaysLhepriceofLhelicenceon
onesingleoccasion.
essarily granIed lor an indeliniIe Ierm. In cerIain jurisdicIions, like Spain,
in Ihese circumsIances Ihe licence is limiIed Io a specilic Ierm (live years,
in Spain). This is olIen conIrary Io Ihe inIenIion ol Ihe licensor who
should improve Ihe dralIing ol Ihe licence!
This is whaI happened wiIh Ihe GFLv2. AlIhough Ihere may have been argumenIs Io
exIend Ihe period ol Ihe licence, on Ihe basis IhaI limiIing Iheir ellecIive Ierm Io live
years could go againsI Ihe obvious inIenIions ol Ihe parIies and Ihe purpose ol Ihe li-
cence, GFLv3, along wiIh oIher more recenI licences such as Ihe OSL 3.0 or EUFL 1.1,
now esIablishes Ihe "maximum duraIion ol righIs" as Ihe Ierm.
Term in lree solIware licences. EirsI, iI should noIed IhaI lree solIware li-
cences are and should be granIed lor indeliniIe Ierms which seIs Ihe Ierm
Io Ihe maximum duraIion ol copyrighI proIecIion. TherealIer, a licence is
no longer needed as Ihe solIware is in Ihe public domain.
To esIablish a limiIed Ierm ol duraIion in a lree solIware licence would im-
ply adding a resIricIion Io user righIs (in Ihis case, a Iemporal resIricIion),
which would be conIrary Io Ihe very essence ol Ihe lree solIware licence:
noI Io limiI Ihe use ol Ihe solIware by Ihe user, buI Io guaranIee Ihe lree-
doms over iIs use. II is Ihus commonly accepIed IhaI lree solIware licences
remain ellecIive in Iime as long as Ihe user respecIs Iheir condiIions.
GFLv3 Ihe OSL 3.0 and oIher modern licences, have lilled Ihe exisIing void under Ihe
prior version, indicaIing, lor insIance, in Clause 2 ol GFLv3, IhaI Ihe righIs granIed under
such licence shall be deemed "granIed lor Ihe Ierm ol copyrighI on Ihe program" and IhaI
Ihey are "irrevocable provided Ihe sIaIed condiIions are meI". Likewise, oIher licences,
such as Ihe Apache 2.0, expressly indicaIe IhaI Ihey are granIed wiIh a "perpeIual" and
"irrevocable" naIure (clauses 2 and 3).
1..2. Prce
AnoIher essenIial elemenI ol a solIware licence (aI leasI in a mosI non-lree
licences) is Ihe price, Ihe amounI ol money IhaI Ihe user is Io pay lor Iaking
Ihe licence granI.
In Ierms ol paymenI modaliIies, Ihe price may be paid on one single occasion
(lump sum), e.g. upon acquiring Ihe licence. This is Iypical ol mass-markeIed
solIware licences. OIherwise, paymenIs can be made in regular insIalmenIs:
Ihe user makes a regular (monIhly, yearly, eIc.) paymenI ol an insIalmenI
o
Io
Ihe supplier. This is Iypical ol solIware licences lor more specialised and com-
plex applicaIions, direcIed Io companies, licences esIablished lor a lixed Ierm
and regularly bound by an accessory consulIing or mainIenance agreemenI,
lor which Ihe user also pays a lee.
(o)
FaymenI in insIalmenIs is now common lor "solIware as a service", whereby Ihe us-
er conIracIs a (pseudo) licence agreemenI Io use solIware olIen over Ihe web lor a
monIhly or period paymenI. We say "pseudo" licence because in many cases Ihe user
never in lacI exercises any ol Ihe copyrighI proIecIed righIs (reproducIion, Iranslorma-
Iion, disIribuIion) buI "uses" Ihe services ol Ihe solIware. Basically, Ihe user is paying an
access lee.
When Ihe licence may be exIended in Iime, a clause is olIen included lor Ihe
review or updaIing ol Ihe raIe payable by Ihe user. II is noI valid Io agree IhaI
Ihe review ol Ihe insIalmenI should be lelI Io Ihe lree will ol Ihe supplier, buI
musI be obIained eiIher by muIual agreemenI beIween Ihe parIies, or reler-
encing an objecIive index or parameIer, such as Ihe "consumer price index".
Licences may be granIed lor lree, wiIhouI Ihe user having Io pay anyIhing lor
Ihe use ol Ihe solIware. We musI bear in mind IhaI we musI noI auIomaIical-
ly idenIily "proprieIary" non-lree solIware wiIh paid solIware, and "lree solI-
ware
7
" wiIh cosI-lree solIware. In Ihe English-speaking counIries, Ihis conlu-
sion has arisen due Io Ihe lacI IhaI "lree", in addiIion Io "wiIhouI resIrainI",
also means "cosI lree".
(7)
Eree solIware is nearly always lree (graIis), buI many non-lree programs are also dis-
IribuIed lree ol cosI: MicrosolI InIerneI Explorer, inIerneI messenger clienIs such as
MicrosolI Messenger, Skype, eIc., solIware demos, shareware or drivers.
Frice in lree solIware
As regards lree solIware, we know IhaI Ihe Ierm lree does noI mean IhaI Ihe
program is licensed by Ihe solIware supplier lree ol cosI, buI IhaI iI is licensed
Io allow users Io use, modily and disIribuIe iI lreely.
In Ihe case ol Ihe GNU-GFL, Ihe supplier may choose Io disIribuIe Ihe solIware
lree ol charge or in exchange lor a consideraIion (paragraph S ol Ihe Freamble,
and Clause 4 ol Version 3), economic compensaIion may also be required lor
providing cerIain warranIies on Ihe solIware, unless required by law Io provide
Ihose same warranIies. OIher lree solIware licences, such as Ihe Apache 2.0,
expressly sIaIe IhaI Ihe licence is granIed lree ol charge: iIs clauses 2 and 3
sIaIe IhaI Ihe licence is granIed royalIy-lree.
NoneIheless, alIhough Ihe lree solIware supplier may be enIiIled Io require economic
compensaIion, iI is mosI common IhaI Ihe solIware is disIribuIed lree ol charge and IhaI
Ihe price requesIed is minimal (Ihe Ierm "residual" price is used), solely Io cover cerIain
expenses, such as Ihe making ol Ihe copy, iIs delivery on a physical medium, eIc.
Should an economic beneliI be soughI wiIh Ihe lree solIware (which is noI
always Ihe case), Ihe supplier would noI obIain iI as much by charging a price
lor Ihe disIribuIion ol copies, buI raIher lor rendering services lor Ihe solIware,
such as updaIes, consulIancy and Ihe markeIing ol copies ol solIware based
on lree solIware. And on Ihe markeI Ihere are soluIions based on lree solIware
IhaI, considering Ihe user licence on Ihe solIware and Ihe relevanI consulIing
and}or mainIenance services, have a high price (see, "Red HaI" as an emblem-
aIic case, and many oIhers).
The lacI IhaI Ihe supplier ol lree solIware cannoI base Iheir economic beneliI on Ihe
price ol Ihe copy seems obvious: il Ihe users are allowed Io disIribuIe Ihe solIware lreely,
Ihe supplier loses exclusive conIrol over Ihe copy. II does noI make sense Io charge a
high price lor Ihe copy when Ihe users could in Iurn disIribuIe online or on CDs as
many copies as Ihey wish.
1..3. Rghtx, grohbtonx and Imtatonx
In prior modules, we have seen IhaI auIhor's righIs or copyrighI legislaIion
granIs a series ol imporIanI exclusive righIs Io Ihe auIhor ol Ihe solIware or Ihe
derived owner ol Ihe exploiIaIion righIs: Ihe righI Io reproduce, Iranslorm and
disIribuIe (including, lor our purposes, publicly communicaIe) Ihe solIware.
They decide whaI Io auIhorise, when and how.
AddiIionally, we know IhaI Ihe solIware licence is Ihe legal insIrumenI where-
by Ihe solIware righIsholder allows iIs use by Ihird parIies, Ihe users. The user
licence Iherelore has an essenIial conIenI:
On Ihe one hand, iI esIablishes Ihe righIs IhaI Ihe righIsholder granIs Ihe
user Io Ihe solIware: whaI Ihe user may do wiIh Ihe solIware.
On Ihe oIher, iI also esIablishes cerIain prohibiIions and limiIaIions on
user righIs, which Ihe user musI respecI: whaI Ihe user may noI do wiIh
Ihe solIware, and Ihe condiIions applied Io iIs use.
We reler Io Module 2 on auIhors' righIs as Io Ihe scope ol Ihe righIs IhaI are
exclusive Io righIsholders and Ihus poIenIially subjecI Io licence condiIions:
ReproducIion.
TranslormaIion.
DisIribuIion (including renIal).
Fublic communicaIion.
Adobe
Photoxhog
Il you obIained Ihe solIware and any required serial number(s) lrom Adobe or one ol
iIs auIhorised licensees and as long as you comply wiIh Ihe Ierms ol Ihis agreemenI,
Adobe granIs you a non-exclusive licence Io insIall and use Ihe solIware in a manner
consisIenI wiIh iIs design and documenIaIion and as lurIher seI lorIh below... General
Use. You may insIall and use one copy ol Ihe solIware on up Io Ihe permiIIed number
ol your compaIible compuIers as long as, when required by Ihe solIware, you presenI a
valid serial number lor each copy.
Generally speaking, all righIs IhaI are noI granIed in a licence are reserved, i.e.
noI granIed. To reinlorce Ihis, licenses olIen add specilic prohibiIions:
Adobe
Photoxhog
4.3 No ModilicaIions. ExcepI as permiIIed in SecIions 2.7 or 1o, you may noI modily,
adapI or IranslaIe Ihe solIware.
4.4 No Reverse Engineering. You will noI reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or
oIherwise aIIempI Io discover Ihe source code ol Ihe solIware excepI Io Ihe exIenI you
may be expressly permiIIed under applicable law Io decompile only in order Io achieve
inIeroperabiliIy wiIh Ihe solIware.
4.5 No Unbundling. You may noI unbundle Ihe componenI parIs ol Ihe solIware lor use
on dillerenI compuIers. You may noI unbundle or repackage Ihe solIware lor disIribu-
Iion, Iransler or resale.
4. No Transler. YOU WILL NOT RENT, LEASE, SELL, SUBLICENSE, ASSIGN OR TRANS-
EER YOUR RIGHTS IN THE SOETWARE, OR AUTHORISE ANY FORTION OE THE SOET-
WARE TO BE COFIED ONTO ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL OR LEGAL ENTITY'S COMFUTER
EXCEFT AS MAY BE EXFRESSLY FERMITTED HEREIN.
II is common lor righIsholders Io aIIach condiIions on Ihe exploiIaIion ol
Ihe solIware. Some ol Ihese are reasonable (paymenI ol a price, mainIaining
copyrighI noIices), oIhers may seem unreasonable or jusI sIrange: e.g. licences
IhaI lorbid Ihe publicaIion ol Ihe resulIs ol any benchmark or analysis ol Ihe
solIware. While Ihese condiIions are olIen ouIside Ihe realm ol copyrighI pro-
IecIion scope, il Ihe licence is deemed a valid and binding conIracI, Ihese pro-
visions will be seen as conIracIual obligaIions binding on Ihe licensee.
The mosI well known and highly debaIed condiIion in Ihe lree solIware domain is Clause
2.b. ol Ihe GNU-GFL IhaI conIains parI ol Ihe copylelI obligaIions:
"b) You musI cause any work IhaI you disIribuIe or publish, IhaI in whole or in parI
conIains or is derived lrom Ihe program or any parI Ihereol, Io be licensed as a whole aI
no charge Io all Ihird parIies under Ihe Ierms ol Ihis licence."
Applicable legislaIion iIsell may provide IhaI, in Ihe absence ol express Ierms
Io Ihe conIrary, solIware user licences are granIed Io Ihe user on cerIain Ierms.
In Spain, lor example, licences are, by delaulI:
Non exclusive. In oIher words, Ihey do noI granI Ihe righI Io use Ihe solIware Io a
single user, buI Io a number ol Ihem.
Non-Iranslerable. The user cannoI convey Ihe licence Io Ihird parIies, which also
implies a prohibiIion Io sell, renI, granI sub-licences or give away Iheir copy, excepI
wiIh express auIhorisaIion lrom Ihe supplier.
Solely Io saIisly Ihe needs ol Ihe user. WiIhouI express auIhorisaIion, Ihe user may
solely use Ihe solIware sIricIly lor Iheir own personal use, noI Io provide services Io
Ihird parIies.
1.7. Warrantex and IabItex
A very imporIanI deIail in supplier-licensor and user-licensee relaIions is Ihe
deIerminaIion ol Ihe legal consequences derived lrom an incidenI wiIh Ihe
operaIion ol Ihe solIware, especially considering Ihe relaIive insIabiliIy ol solI-
ware (iI is suscepIible ol malluncIioning, mis-conliguraIion, eIc.) and Ihe ma-
Ierial inconveniences and damages IhaI a user may susIain as a resulI ol solI-
ware issues (especially, Ihe companies and enIiIies whose acIiviIy depends on
Ihe proper operaIion ol Iheir inlormaIion sysIems).
InIellecIual properIy laws do noI cover Ihis aspecI, buI merely regulaIe Ihe
exclusive righIs Io Ihe solIware. NoneIheless, various norms apply in all coun-
Iries: ConIracI Law, rules on warranIies in oIher agreemenIs (such as purchase,
lease or service agreemenIs, applicable by analogy Io Ihe solIware licence),
norms proIecIing consumers, eIc., could oblige suppliers Io assume cerIain
warranIies and liabiliIies wiIh respecI Io Ihe user, wiIhouI Ihe possibiliIy ol
Iheir being eluded by Ihe licence.
1.7.1. GeneraI conxderatonx
SolIware licences Iend Io regulaIe Ihe righIs ol Ihe user and Ihe consequenI
obligaIions ol Ihe supplier in case any incidenIs were Io occur wiIh Ihe solI-
ware: malluncIioning, miscellaneous delecIs or il iI does noI maIch Ihe char-
acIerisIics IhaI Ihe supplier boasIs in respecI Ihereol and which led Ihe user
Io purchase Ihe licence.
When any ol Ihese circumsIances occurs, Ihe user is prevenIed lrom using Ihe
solIware or lrom using iI lor Ihe purposes IhaI led Io acquiring Ihe licence.
Should Ihe user noI be aI laulI lor Ihe incidenI, a principle ol jusIice Iells us
IhaI Ihe supplier-licensor should assisI Ihe user and puI an end Io Ihe incidenI:
we would Ihus be relerring Io Ihe supplier having Io provide Ihe user a war-
ranty in Ierms ol conlormiIy and Ihe conIinued operabiliIy ol Ihe solIware.
Warrantex
WarranIies are Ihe commiImenIs or obligaIions assumed by Ihe suppli-
er-licensor in lavour ol Ihe user, wiIh respecI Io Ihe condiIions (charac-
IerisIics, services, correcI operaIion) IhaI musI be meI by Ihe solIware
subjecI Io Ihe licence. This means IhaI il Ihe solIware does noI meeI
or aI some poinI ceases Io meeI such condiIions, Ihe supplier-licensor
musI Iake Ihe appropriaIe acIions lor Ihe solIware Io meeI Ihem. Specil-
ically, iI should be noIed IhaI warranIies ol conlormiIy and proper op-
eraIion, whereby Ihe supplier is Io guaranIee Io Ihe user-licensee IhaI
Ihe solIware conlorms Io iIs descripIion and will work appropriaIely
during Ihe ellecIive Ierm ol Ihe licence.
BuI whaI is more, such an incidenI could have caused damages Io Ihe user.
We should Ihink especially ol Ihe solIware on which, in pracIice, Ihe proper
day Io day acIiviIy ol a company or prolessional user depends: one delecI
or malluncIion could paralyse Iheir acIiviIy, which would obviously imply
damages. Il Ihe supplier is "aI laulI" and, Iherelore, responsible lor Ihe damages
sullered by Ihe user as a resulI ol Ihe incidenI wiIh Ihe solIware operaIion,
Ihis would require Ihem Io provide IndemnIty.
lLcouldbesaidLhaL"liabiliLy"
(anobligaLionLocompensaLe)
isoneofLhepossibleconse-
quencesofLhebreachofa
warranLy.
We have seen IhaI solIware suppliers Iend unilaIerally Io impose clauses ol Ihe
licences on Ihe users. Licensors are parIicularly inIeresIed in esIablishing lim-
iIaIions or disclaimers ol warranIies and liabiliIy wiIh respecI Io Ihe solIware.
NoneIheless, in cerIain cases a disclaimer or limiIaIion clause is noI legal. The
same principle ol jusIice Io which we relerred earlier Iells us IhaI iI would be
unlair and}or abusive lor Ihe licence Io allow Ihe supplier Io disregard any
incidenIs occurring wiIh Ihe solIware. II would be parIicularly unlair il Ihe
user has had no opporIuniIy Io negoIiaIe Ihe conIenI ol such clauses, buI
raIher were imposed by Ihe supplier-licensor, or when Ihe user has paid a price
lor Ihe licence.
This siIuaIion would be dillerenI wiIh licences in which Ihe user-licensee has
had Ihe opporIuniIy Io negoIiaIe Ihe conIenI ol Ihe licence and a disclaimer
ol warranIies and}or liabiliIy in lavour ol Ihe supplier-licensor, in exchange
lor a balancing iIem in lavour ol Ihe user (lor insIance, a reducIion in price or
a beIIer warranIy in exchange lor less liabiliIy). This would be Ihe case wiIh
specialised solIware usage licences, highly-priced and adapIed Io Ihe needs
ol Ihe user. In such case, Ihe limiIaIion or exoneraIion could indeed be con-
sidered lair, as iI would be lreely negoIiaIed beIween Iwo parIies in equal or
similar negoIiaIing posiIions.
1.7.2. Warrantex
User licences usually regulaIe which warranIies are Io be provided by Ihe sup-
plier, Iheir Ierm and how Ihey will be lullilled: i.e., how Ihe supplier-licen-
sor would assisI Ihe user in remedying Ihe incidenI, by repairing Ihe laulI or
delecI, subsIiIuIing Ihe copy wiIh anoIher, or relunding Ihe price Io Ihe con-
sumer, cancelling Ihe licence.
In any case, Ihe clauses ol licences providing warranIies, including Iheir pos-
sible limiIaIions or exoneraIions, musI respecI a series ol imperaIive norms
IhaI, in each counIry, esIablish Ihe requiremenI Io provide cerIain minimum
warranIies wiIh respecI Io Ihe solIware.
The minimum legal obligaIions (warranIies) on solIware are generally:
The warranIy Io remedy any hidden delecIs.
ConlormiIy wiIh specilicaIions or descripIion.
CorrecI operaIion.
In Ihe law ol English-speaking counIries, Ihese are olIen called:
SaIislacIory or merchanIable warranIy. The solIware musI be legally markeIable noI
be someIhing prohibiIed and musI be ol saIislacIory qualiIy, considering various
criIeria (price, markeI, sIaIe ol Ihe arI, eIc.).
EiI lor a parIicular (sIaIed) purpose. The solIware musI be liI Io accomplish a par-
Iicular purpose, when Ihe licensee acquired Ihe licence based on Ihe possibiliIy ol
accomplishing such purpose and Ihe supplier knew or could have known IhaI Ihe
licensee wanIed Io acquire Ihe licence precisely lor such purpose.
Along wiIh Ihese warranIies, Ihere is also menIion ol a warranIy ol IiIle and non-in-
lringemenI. This corresponds wiIh Ihe warranIy ol "ownership", Io which we have
relerred above.
In conIinenIal European law: There are dillerenI legal classes and caIegories ol warranIies
as regards Ihose inherenI in Ihe law ol English-speaking counIries. NoneIheless, many
solIware licences, even wriIIen in a naIional language and Io apply in IhaI counIry, reler
Io Ihe Iypical warranIies ol Ihe law ol English-speaking counIries. This makes Ihe word-
ing ol such clauses Iend Io seem conlusing. In any case, Ihe conIenI and scope ol Ihe
warranIies is similar in eiIher case, as are Ihe acIions and remedies esIablished in lavour
ol Ihe user Io implemenI Ihem: repair, subsIiIuIion ol Ihe copy or reIurn ol Ihe price,
cancelling Ihe licence.
1.7.3. LabIt or ndemntex
LiabiliIy consisIs ol Ihe duIy ol Ihe supplier Io indemnily Ihe user lor Ihe
damages susIained Ihereby as a resulI ol an error, delecI or malluncIion ol
Ihe solIware, or ol iIs lack ol suiIabiliIy lor Ihe characIerisIics IhaI could be
expecIed Ihereol.
II may be Ihe case IhaI, by reason ol an incidenI wiIh Ihe solIware, Ihe user could susIain
damages. In such case, iI would noI sullice lor Ihe user IhaI Ihe warranIy should be
honoured (IhaI Ihe supplier should repair Ihe malluncIion, provide a new copy or reIurn
Ihe price paid). The user shall also seek Io obIain compensaIion lor Ihe damages lrom
Ihe supplier Io Ihe exIenI IhaI Ihey are Ihe responsibiliIy ol Ihe supplier.
The example IhaI comes Io mind is a company IhaI has Io suspend iIs acIiviIies due Io a
lailure in Ihe operaIion ol a compuIer applicaIion. In such case, il Ihe company sullers
losses (unrealised business, salaries paid Io employees IhaI cannoI work, eIc.), iI may seek
Io demand indemnilicaIion by Ihe supplier.
To consider Ihe supplier Io be liable lor Ihe damages, Ihe laulI or delecI causing
Ihem musI noI have been lorIuiIous or Ihe exclusive laulI ol Ihe user iIsell,
buI raIher musI be aIIribuIable by some means Io Ihe supplier-licensor:
EiIher lor whaI is legally known as wIlIul mIsconduct: when Ihe supplier
was aware ol Ihe exisIence ol Ihe malluncIion or delecI in Ihe solIware
IhaI caused Ihe damages Io Ihe user.
Or lor laulI or neglIgence: when Ihe supplier was unaware ol Ihe exisIence
ol Ihe malluncIion or delecI buI should have known, had Ihey perlormed
Iheir duIies ol programming or mainIenance ol Ihe solIware wiIh Ihe de-
gree ol diligence expecIed lrom any programmer.
In addiIion, liabiliIy can arise lor a varieIy ol Iypes ol damages, direcI or indi-
recI. As wiIh warranIies, solIware licences Iend Io relerence Ihe Iypes ol dam-
age conIained in Ihe law ol English-speaking counIries. Generally speaking:
DIrect or IncIdental damages: Ihose IhaI are Ihe direcI resulI ol Ihe inci-
denI (lor example, again, Ihe loss ol inlormaIion or Ihe expenses lor Ihe
reconsIrucIion ol Ihe losI inlormaIion).
IndIrect or consequentIal damages: Ihose indirecIly derived lrom Ihe
incidenI, wheIher Ihe parIies knew or should have known IhaI Ihey could
have been susIained in Ihe evenI IhaI such incidenI were Io occur (lor
insIance, loss ol repuIaIion wiIh clienIs).
Lost proIIts: There are cerIain damages, such as Ihe loss ol proliIs, which
would in principle be included as indirecI damages. NoneIheless, on oc-
casions, Ihe criIeria ol Ihe BriIish and UniIed SIaIes courIs have varied,
including Ihem someIimes as direcI damages. Therelore, licences Iend Io
ciIe loss ol proliIs separaIely.
As regards Spanish law, lor example, Ihe lollowing are delined:
ConsequenIial damages: Ihe value ol Ihe various equiIy and moral losses direcIly
susIained by Ihe user as a resulI ol Ihe incidenI (lor insIance, il a solIware malluncIion
causes a loss ol inlormaIion, Ihe value ol such losI inlormaIion, or damage Io Ihe
image IhaI an enIrepreneur user susIains wiIh respecI Io clienIs), and Ihe expenses
incurred Io remedy such incidenI.
LosI proliIs: proliIs noI obIained by reason ol Ihe incidenI (lor insIance, Ihe income
IhaI Ihe enIrepreneur user does noI receive during Ihe Iime in which Iheir acIiviIy
is suspended due Io Ihe solIware malluncIion).
1.7.4. Lmtatonx and excIuxonx oI warrantex and IabItex
Suppliers Iend Io include warranIy and liabiliIy limiIaIion and disclaimer
clauses in solIware licences. AlIhough Ihe principles ol law generally allow
lor conIracIual lreedom (in deIermining Ihe conIracIing condiIions) Ihe legal
ellecIiveness ol such clauses is quesIionable.
Warranty dIsclaImers
SolIware suppliers-licensors seek Io avoid cerIain warranIies IhaI Ihey should
provide Ihe user or Io shorIen Ihe Ierm lor which Ihey should be provided,
imposing warranIy limiIaIions or disclaimers lor such reason in Ihe IexI ol
usage licences. Should Ihe licensee consumer have agreed Io Ihe licence agree-
menI wiIhouI negoIiaIion, under Ihe laws lor Ihe consumer and user proIec-
Iion Ihese limiIaIions could be declared null and void and be lelI ouI ol Ihe
agreemenI lor being abusive. Therelore, Ihe minimum legal warranIies IhaI
we jusI described cannoI be limiIed in such circumsIances.
NoneIheless, il Ihe licensee is noI a consumer buI a business or prolessional,
Ihe supplier may be enIiIled Io resIricI iIs warranIies and liabiliIies in Ihe li-
cence. NoneIheless, Ihey cannoI shirk any incidenIs occurring Io Ihe solIware
quiIe so easily and Ihe licensee could resorI Io Ihe analogous applicaIion ol
Ihe (Civil or Commercial Code) rules providing lor a warranIy ol repair ol
hidden delecIs, applying Ihe principle ol good laiIh in agreemenIs and oIhers,
Io demand IhaI Ihe supplier should ensure IhaI Ihe solIware should remain
in perlecI sIaIe ol operaIion. The validiIy or absence Ihereol in limiIaIions ol
warranIies musI be deIermined on a case-by-case basis.
LIabIlIty lImItatIon and dIsclaImer
AddiIionally, solIware licences Iypically include clauses ol disclaimer ol Ihe
liabiliIy ol Ihe supplier wiIh respecI Io damages susIained by Ihe user due
Io incidenIs wiIh Ihe solIware. Or, il indemnilicaIion is due Io Ihe user lor
damages, Ihey limiI Ihe possible indemnilicaIion ol Ihe supplier: lor insIance,
iI is common Io limiI iI Io an amounI equivalenI Io Ihe price IhaI Ihe user has
paid lor Ihe licence (along wiIh Ihe paymenIs made lor mainIenance services).
In many cases, Ihe validiIy ol Ihese liabiliIy disclaimers or limiIaIions is dubi-
ous aI besI. WhaI can be said wiIh cerIainIy is IhaI Ihe liabiliIy disclaimer or
limiIaIion shall noI be valid when:
The liabiliIy derives lrom willul misconducI: willul misconducI noI only
occurs when Ihe supplier causes Ihe damage knowingly (which would noI
be very normal), buI also when Ihe supplier knows ol Ihe exisIence ol an
incidenI IhaI could cause cerIain damage Io Ihe user and does noIhing Io
prevenI Ihe damages.
Gross negligence. In counIries oIher Ihan Spain, jusI as willul misconducI, liabiliIy lor
gross negligence cannoI be subjecI Io limiIaIion: when Ihe incidenI is aIIribuIable Io Ihe
supplier, due Io a lack ol Ihe diligence expecIed lrom any supplier.
LiabiliIy lor damages consisIing ol Ihe deaIh or corporeal damages Io peo-
ple: in principle, we lind iI hard Io Ihink ol a program whose mallunc-
Iions or errors could cause such damages, excepI in cerIain specilic cases
such as Ihe solIware ol a medical device, applicaIions used by air Irallic
conIrollers, eIc.
When Ihe licensee sullering Ihe damages is a consumer: under Ihe pro-
visions ol Ihe Consumer FroIecIion Law, consumer users are enIiIled Io
compensaIion lor Ihe damages susIained as a resulI ol Ihe malluncIions
or unsuiIabiliIy ol Ihe solIware, unless Ihese are Iheir own exclusive laulI.
Therelore, il Ihe licensee is a consumer, Ihe supplier cannoI validly reduce
Ihe liabiliIy limiIaIion Io a maximum amounI, as such a clause would au-
IomaIically be null and void lor inlringing upon Ihe law and lor being
abusive. NoneIheless, when Ihe user-licensee is a business or a prolession-
al, Ihe liabiliIy limiIaIion Io a maximum amounI is valid in principle, as
Ihe legislaIion allows Ihe parIies Io agree on Ihis issue.
This is imporIanI as suppliers are especially inIeresIed in limiIing Iheir liabiliIies wiIh
respecI Io licensees IhaI are businesses or prolessionals, as solIware malluncIion could
imply lor Ihem damages ol much greaIer imporIance aI leasI in economic Ierms Ihan
wiIh a consumer.
NoIwiIhsIanding Ihe loregoing, even il Ihe user-licensee were a business
or a prolessional, iI would be necessary Io sIudy each specilic case Io de-
Iermine wheIher Ihe limiIaIion ol liabiliIy could be especially unlair and
abusive. In such case, Ihe limiIaIion could be declared null and void, il
iI were considered IhaI Ihe limiIaIion ol liabiliIy is so disproporIionaIely
abusive IhaI:
in pracIice, iI implies making Ihe supplier IoIally irresponsible lor iIs own
obligaIions, and}or
iI breaches Ihe principle ol good laiIh in agreemenIs.
In Ihe UK, case law generally has esIablished IhaI when Ihe licensee is a business or
prolessional, Ihe supplier-licensor may limiI iIs responsibiliIy under Ihe licence when
doing so is noI "unreasonable". To deIermine wheIher liabiliIy disclaimer or limiIaIion
is reasonable, Ihe courIs Iake inIo consideraIion various circumsIances, known as Ihe
reasonableness IesI:
WheIher Ihere has been a Irue process ol negoIiaIion ol conIracIual clauses, parIicu-
larly Ihose relaIing Io warranIies and liabiliIies. Or wheIher iI was Ihe opposiIe and
Ihe supplier imposed Ihe conIenI on Ihe licensee.
WheIher Ihe licensee knew ol Ihe exisIence and scope ol Ihe limiIaIion clause,
wheIher Ihey were under advice lrom counsel Io inlorm Ihem in IhaI sense belore
signing Ihe licence.
WheIher Ihe limiIaIion or disclaimer clause was accepIed by Ihe licensee in exchange
lor someIhing in Iheir lavour (lor insIance, a price reducIion).
1.7.5. Warrantex and IabIt n Iree xoItware Icencex
II is said, and iI is Irue Io a greaI exIenI, IhaI lree solIware licences are granI-
ed wiIh no warranIy whaIsoever lor Ihe user and IhaI no sorI ol liabiliIy is
assumed. This is debaIable, especially in Ihe legal lramework ol European and
Member SIaIe laws, especially Ihose seeking lull exoneraIion ol liabiliIy.
GPLv3
"Ihere is no warranIy lor Ihe program, Io Ihe exIenI permiIIed by applicable law. ExcepI
when oIherwise sIaIed in wriIing Ihe copyrighI holders and}or oIher parIies provide Ihe
program "as is" wiIhouI warranIy ol any kind, eiIher expressed or implied, including,
buI noI limiIed Io, Ihe implied warranIies ol merchanIabiliIy and liIness lor a parIicular
purpose. The enIire risk as Io Ihe qualiIy and perlormance ol Ihe program is wiIh you.
Should Ihe program prove delecIive, you assume Ihe cosI ol all necessary servicing, repair
or correcIion".
Governing law and Ihe lacIs ol Ihe case will ulIimaIely deIermine wheIher Ihe
supplier ol lree solIware should provide a warranIy or wheIher Ihey incur any
liabiliIy wiIh respecI Io Ihe user-licensee.
The validiIy ol such absence ol warranIies could be upheld when Ihe lree solI-
ware is disIribuIed lree ol charge and Ihe limiIaIion ol liabiliIy is subjecI Io
"Ihe exIenI permiIIed by applicable law". Indeed, iI could be said IhaI Ihe dis-
IribuIion ol lree solIware may be equaIed Io a gilI. And Ihe rules governing
gilIs generally do noI compel Ihe giver (in Ihis case, Ihe supplier) Io provide
warranIies regarding Ihe gilI (in Ihis case, Ihe righI Io use Ihe solIware) wiIh
respecI Io hidden delecIs or Io insure iIs proper operaIion. Il Ihe gilIed iIem
proves delecIive, Ihe giver usually has no obligaIion, in principle, Io repair iI
or subsIiIuIe iI wiIh anoIher. The liabiliIy would be dillerenI in Ihe indemni-
licaIion ol damages susIained based on a malluncIioning or delecI.
In any case, we musI Iake inIo consideraIion IhaI noI all lree solIware is en-
Iirely "lree". When Ihe licence lor lree solIware is granIed accompanied wiIh
Ihe supply ol addiIional services, such as mainIenance or updaIe services (Ihe
case ol "Red HaI" lor insIance), Ihe supplier charges Io provide such services. II
musI Iherelore comply wiIh obligaIions wiIh respecI Io Ihe proper rendering
ol Ihe services (proper choice ol a lree solIware soluIion, good adapIaIion and
implemenIaIion lor Ihe user, eIc.).
There is also Ihe quesIion ol wheIher iI is Ihe licensor himsell who should
provide Ihe warranIies (cerIainly as Io IiIle), or Ihe person who supplied Ihe
solIware (probably as Io qualiIy and liIness).
WiIh respecI Io limiIaIions ol liabiliIy, Ihe quesIion ol Ihe validiIy ol Ihe claus-
es is more doubIlul:
GPv3, C.16
"In no evenI unless required by applicable law or agreed Io in wriIing will any copyrighI
holder, or any oIher parIy who modilies and}or conveys Ihe program as permiIIed above,
be liable Io you lor damages, including any general, special, incidenIal or consequenIial
damages arising ouI ol Ihe use or inabiliIy Io use Ihe program (including buI noI limiIed
Io loss ol daIa or daIa being rendered inaccuraIe or losses susIained by you or Ihird parIies
or a lailure ol Ihe program Io operaIe wiIh any oIher programs), even il such holder or
oIher parIy has been advised ol Ihe possibiliIy ol such damages."
Regarding Ihis liabiliIy disclaimer, Ihere would noI seem Io be many circum-
sIances as regards lree solIware IhaI would allow Ihe supplier Io disavow
Ihe applicable legal sysIem, which prohibiIs absoluIe liabiliIy disclaimers. Eur-
Ihermore, as we have already seen, Ihere can be no disclaimer or limiIaIion
ol liabiliIy, when derived lrom willul misconducI or il Ihe licensee were a
consumer. In oIher words, Ihis clause would be inellecIive wiIh respecI Io a
licensee consumer.
The Eree SolIware EoundaIion iIsell and oIher enIiIies developing lree solIware projecIs
are aware IhaI some warranIy and liabiliIy disclaimer clauses, in absoluIe Ierms (as is),
have validiIy issues in many counIries. In Ihis sense, warranIy and liabiliIy disclaimers
Iend Io include a Iypical menIion IhaI such exoneraIions are valid "excepI as required
by applicable law" or "Io Ihe exIenI permiIIed by law".
Version 3 ol Ihe GNU-GFL has complemenIed Ihe qualilicaIion wiIh iIs clause 17, des-
Iined lor inIerpreIing Ihe warranIy and liabiliIy disclaimers esIablished in Clauses 1S
and 1o: "Il Ihe disclaimer ol warranIy and limiIaIion ol liabiliIy provided above cannoI
be given local legal ellecI according Io Iheir Ierms, reviewing courIs shall apply local
law IhaI mosI closely approximaIes an absoluIe waiver ol all civil liabiliIy in connecIion
wiIh Ihe program, unless a warranIy or assumpIion ol liabiliIy accompanies a copy ol
Ihe program in reIurn lor a lee".
Beyond Ihe legal ellecIiveness ol Ihe warranIy and liabiliIy disclaimer clauses,
lree solIware licences Iend Io provide IhaI a licensor may choose Io volunIar-
ily provide some Iype ol warranIy lor Ihe solIware or assume some degree ol
liabiliIy, in principle in exchange lor an economic consideraIion (lor insIance,
under Ihe lramework ol Ihe rendering ol mainIenance services).
An imporIanI aspecI is IhaI, in Ihese cases, Ihe licensor ol Ihe lree solIware assuming
warranIy or liabiliIy commiImenIs wiIh Ihe users, does so personally and does noI Ihere-
by bind prior licensors ol IhaI same solIware, lrom whom Ihe lree licence was acquired.
OIher lree solIware licences esIablish similar provisions, such as Ihe Apache
2.0 licence (clause ), lor insIance.
1.8. jurxdcton and aggIcabIe Iaw
Many solIware licences expressly esIablish a clause regarding compeIenI juris-
dicIion and governing law, which is ol greaI imporIance in case ol conllicIs
beIween Ihe parIies leading Io liIigaIion. These clauses are especially relevanI,
obviously, when Ihe supplier and licensee reside in dillerenI counIries.
Under such agreemenI, Ihe licence deIermines:
JurIsdIctIon: Ihe courIs ol Ihe counIry (region, ciIy, eIc.) IhaI shall have
compeIenI jurisdicIion Io resolve upon any liIigaIion beIween Ihe parIies
derived lrom Ihe licence. Therelore, il one parIy wanIs Io claim someIhing
lrom Ihe oIher, iI musI do so belore Ihe courIs agreed Io have compeIenI
jurisdicIion.
ApplIcable law. The law (laws, regulaIions, eIc.) ol Ihe counIry should
govern in applying and inIerpreIing Ihe clauses ol Ihe licences. In case ol
liIigaIion, Ihe courI or arbiIraIor designaIed as having compeIenI jurisdic-
Iion musI resolve upon Ihe maIIer in accordance wiIh Ihe law agreed by
Ihe parIies Io be applicable.
Should Ihe parIies noI have expressly agreed upon Ihe compeIenI jurisdicIion
and}or law applicable Io Ihe licence, iI would be necessary Io abide by whaI
is deIermined in Ihe norms on "ConllicI ol Laws
8
" ol each counIry.
(8)
The area ol ConllicI ol Laws, or FrivaIe InIernaIional Law, is exIraordinarily compli-
caIed, and even more so in Ihe realm ol inIangible Iranslers, downloads, conIenI man-
agemenI sysIems and worldwide audiences, web-services and solIware as a service.
Eor Ihe purposes ol Ihis secIion, iI is sullicienI Io know IhaI, in principle,
agreemenIs reached beIween business parIies esIablishing compeIenI jurisdic-
Iion and Ihe law applicable Io Ihe agreemenI in Ihe licence are valid.
An excepIion exisIs, once again, when Ihe user-licensee is a consumer. In such
case, Ihe user may sue Ihe licensor boIh in Ihe courIs corresponding Io Ihe
domicile ol Ihe licensor and Ihose ol iIs own domicile (which would undoubI-
edly be more convenienI and economical lor Ihe user). On Ihe oIher hand, il
Ihe licensor seeks Io sue Ihe user, iI may solely do so belore Ihe courIs ol Ihe
domicile ol Ihe consumer.
Even il an applicable law oIher Ihan IhaI ol Ihe counIry ol residence ol Ihe
user is agreed, Ihe user may regardless seek Ihe applicaIion ol Ihe consumer
proIecIion laws ol Iheir counIry ol residence.
Consider a solIware licence in which Ihe supplier is lrom Ihe UniIed SIaIes and Ihe user
is a Erench consumer. Il, lor insIance, Ihe licence esIablishes IhaI Ihe compeIenI courIs
are Ihose ol Ihe UniIed SIaIes and Ihe applicable law is IhaI ol Ihe Eederal Law ol Ihe
UniIed SIaIes and Ihe Law ol Ihe SIaIe ol Calilornia:
The user could also sue Ihe supplier in Erance and Ihe Erench courIs would be deemed
Io have compeIenI jurisdicIion.
The user could invoke Ihe applicaIion ol Ihe Consumer FroIecIion Law and oIher
norms proIecIing consumers in Erench.
However, lor licensee consumers Io be able Io beneliI lrom Ihese norms IhaI
proIecI Iheir inIeresIs, Ihey musI have conIracIed Ihe licence wiIh Ihe supplier,
who musI have engaged in any sorI ol commercial acIiviIy specilically direcIed
Io Ihe counIry ol residence ol Ihe user (adverIising, opening ol a sIore, eIc.).
This is imporIanI considering Ihe numerous licences conIracIed over Ihe in-
IerneI, parIicularly on Ihe websiIes ol solIware suppliers. In principle, in case
ol liIigaIion lor a solIware licence acquired over Ihe inIerneI, Ihe user con-
sumer could only beneliI lrom Ihe aloresaid proIecIive norms il Ihe websiIe is
direcIed specilically Io Iheir counIry ol residence (eiIher in conjuncIion wiIh
oIher counIries or on iIs own).
ConIinuing wiIh Ihe lasI example, leI's assume IhaI Ihe licence corresponds Io solIware
downloaded oll Ihe inIerneI. II would be necessary Io verily wheIher Ihe websiIe ol
Ihe UniIed SIaIes supplier is by any means specilically direcIed Io Erance (lor insIance,
Ihrough such expressive signs as having a secIion in Erench, showing a price in Euros or
indicaIing Iechnical service or a branch ol Ihe supplier in Erance). II would be in such a
scenario IhaI Ihe licensee consumer could sue Ihe supplier in Erance, in Ihe evenI IhaI
a dispuIe was Io arise beIween Ihem, and require Ihe applicaIion ol Erench consumer
proIecIion regulaIions.
2. SoItware contractx
MosI solIware is noI creaIed by an independenI programmer lor his}her own
exclusive use or IhaI ol lew people. II is creaIed by companies IhaI precisely
develop and disIribuIe solIware lor Ihird parIies IhaI Ihey IrusI has uses and
applicaIions IhaI will saIisly Ihe expecIaIions and needs ol deIermined users.
In Ihis secIion, we commenI on Ihe licensing issues relevanI Io cerIain busi-
ness models.
A solIware licence adapIs Io all Iypes ol solIware, boIh "sIandard" (lor an inde-
IerminaIe amounI ol users), and "cusIomised" (commissioned by a clienI), and
"parameIerised" solIware menIioned below. In each case, Ihe original solIware
owner (and Ihe owner ol Ihe modilicaIions or parameIerisaIions) musI granI
user righIs Io Ihe user. The dillerence lies in IhaI lor "sIandard solIware", a
"sIandard" user licence is used (Ihe EULA ol MicrosolI Windows or Ihe GFL),
while lor "cusIomised" or "parameIerised" solIware Ihere Iends Io be negoIia-
Iion beIween Ihe parIies in Ierms ol Ihe legal user condiIions.
2.1. Standard maxx marRet xoItware
The purpose ol companies developing mass markeI or "sIandard" solIware
(usually wiIhouI adapIaIions Io Ihe parIicular needs ol Ihe user) is Io disIribuIe
solIware among Ihe largesI number ol users possible Io obIain iIs uImosI dis-
seminaIion and, why noI, Ihe highesI economic beneliIs. II is said, lor IhaI
reason, IhaI Ihis solIware is "mass" Iraded or disIribuIed.
OlIen sIandard solIware serves Io cover more Ihan Ihe needs ol Ihe users ac-
quiring iI Ihink ol all Ihe macro luncIions ol word processor solIware IhaI
Ihe everyday user doesn'I even know abouI, leI alone use. Users, in Iurn, lind
iI much more economical Io purchase a sIandard solIware licence Ihan Io
commission a programmer Io make Ihem a "cusIomised" word processor, lor
insIance.
In Ihe case ol "IradiIional" non-lree solIware, Ihe income is greaIer Ihe more
copies ol Ihe program are sold. Licences are dralIed Io prevenI reproducIion
and redisIribuIion ol Ihe solIware, which would eliminaIe revenue, and also
prevenI modilicaIion, which could give rise Io malluncIioning and dilliculIies
Io provide user supporI and mainIenance services (paIches, eIc.).
xample
E.g.:SymanLecProducLLi-
censeagreemenLs.
2.2. "BexgoRe" xoItware
When a programmer or a programming company creaIes (unique) new solI-
ware on commission lrom a clienI, adapIed Io iIs needs, and which musI saI-
isly Ihe insIrucIions and exclusive needs ol such clienI, Ihe resulI is called be-
spoke solIware.
The conIracIual relaIion beIween Ihe Iwo parIies is governed by a "solIware
developmenI agreemenI", which governs specilicaIions, delivery, accepIance,
guaranIees, price, eIc.
One ol Ihe mosI imporIanI clauses ol a solIware developmenI agreemenI is Ihe
ownership or "IiIle" clause and copyrighI licence, deIermining who is Io own
Ihe solIware creaIed by Ihe programmer and whaI are Ihe exploiIaIion righIs.
TiIle may be aIIribuIed Io Ihe clienI ("worl jor hre" model, in Ihe USA). In
Ihis case, Ihe programmer (auIhor ol Ihe solIware) assigns Ihe exploiIaIion
righIs Io Ihe clienI.
TiIle may remain wiIh Ihe developer. In Ihis case, lor Ihe clienI Io be able
Io use Ihe solIware, Ihe developmenI agreemenI provides IhaI Ihe pro-
grammer granIs Ihe clienI a user licence.
The developer may also mainIain conIrol over cerIain parIs ol Ihe bespoke
solIware IhaI are used "generically" in Iheir developmenIs (licensing iI Io Ihe
clienI) and assign Ihe exploiIaIion righIs Io Ihe parI IhaI is Iruly "cusIomised"
lor Ihe clienI.
2.3. Cuxtomxed xoItware
AddiIionally, in many enIerprise siIuaIions, adapIaIions may be made Io a
sIandard applicaIion, such as EnIerprise Resource Flanning solIware (ERF),
DocumenI ManagemenI SysIems (DMS) or ConIenI ManagemenI SysIems
(CMS), according Io Ihe parIicular needs ol each clienI. The adapIaIions are
olIen called cusIomisaIions or parameIer changes ("parameIerisaIions", also
known as "exIensions"). This is more in Ihe line ol a service agreemenI, wiIh
Ihe clienI Iaking a licence lrom Ihe manulacIurer ol Ihe sIandard applicaIion,
and hiring Ihe services ol Ihe developer lor Ihe cusIomisaIion and deploy-
menI.
In Ihese circumsIances, alIhough Ihe applicaIion solIware may be non-lree,
Ihe lacI IhaI Ihe soluIion incorporaIes adapIaIions conlorming Io Ihe needs
ol Ihe user may also imply IhaI Ihe user-licensee may have a limiIed righI Io
modily Ihe solIware and access Ihe source code, specilically, Io creaIe, modily
or remove Ihe cusIomisaIions or parameIerisaIions.
In Ihe cases ol boIh bespoke and adapIed solIware, Ihe projecI may be de-
scribed as "Iurnkey", whereby everyIhing is supplied Io Ihe clienI in an imme-
diaIely working condiIion. In Ihese agreemenIs, noI only is a user righI granI-
ed Io Ihe user lor Ihe solIware, buI also a warranIy or specilic resulI in Iheir
lavour is expressly agreed, i.e., Ihe solIware saIislies Ihe specilic needs ol Ihe
user-licensee. A "Iurnkey" licence may, in principle, apply Io eiIher non-lree
or lree solIware.
2.4. "Maxx" contractng and generaI condtonx
As seen belore, Ihe solIware licence is an agreemenI beIween Iwo parIies.
NoneIheless, almosI always one ol Ihem (Ihe solIware supplier or licensor)
unilaIerally esIablishes Ihe Ierms and condiIions ol Ihe licence. In such case,
Ihe user cannoI negoIiaIe Ihe licence condiIions wiIh Ihe licensor, buI musI
merely accepI or rejecI Ihem. This is a logical consequence when dealing wiIh
sIandard solIware, desIined lor "mass" disIribuIion, wheIher or noI iI is in-
Iended Io obIain an economic beneliI.
The solIware supplier clearly cannoI and does noI wanI Io negoIiaIe Ihe Ierms
ol Ihe licence wiIh each ol Ihe hundreds or Ihousands ol users. RaIher, on
Ihe conIrary, Ihe supplier wanIs all ol Ihem Io use Ihe solIware in accordance
wiIh Ihe same condiIions imposed Ihereby. Clearly, il Ihe user does noI accepI
Ihe condiIions, Ihey do noI acquire Ihe licence and, accordingly, cannoI use
Ihe solIware.
When a solIware supplier imposes upon all users Ihe same Ierms and condi-
Iions ol Ihe solIware licence, which Ihey may only accepI (il Ihey wish Io use
Ihe solIware) or rejecI, we are dealing wiIh an "adhesion agreemenI" and iI is
said Io be based on general condiIions.
On some occasions, licences also have parIicular condiIions, applied solely Io a specilic
conIracIual relaIion: lor insIance, il Ihe licence conIains any clause regarding Ihe adap-
IaIion (cusIomisaIion) or "parameIerisaIion" Io Ihe specilic needs IhaI a parIicular user
has indicaIed Io Ihe supplier.
The use ol general condiIions is subjecI Io Ihe meeIing ol cerIain legal require-
menIs. In Ihe European Union, laws apply regarding Ihe general conIracI con-
diIions seeking Io proIecI Ihe posiIion ol Ihe conIracIing parIy "acceding" Io
Ihe condiIions in Ihe evenI ol abuses by Ihe enIrepreneur or prolessional im-
posing Ihem.
The main requiremenIs are usually IhaI:
The general condiIions musI be dralIed precisely, clearly and simply.
The acceding parIy musI have been allowed Io go over Ihem belore accepIing Ihe
agreemenI.
The parIy imposing Ihem cannoI beneliI lrom an unclear or ambiguous wording: in
case ol doubI in Ierms ol iIs inIerpreIaIion, Ihe clause shall be consIrued in a sense
lavouring Ihe acceding parIy.
Il a general condiIion has a conIenI IhaI is incompaIible wiIh a parIicular condiIion,
Ihe parIicular condiIion shall prevail.
EurIhermore, il Ihe acceding parIy is a consumer, as we have seen, some clauses are
considered abusive and cannoI be imposed, as Ihey are considered unlair and dispro-
porIionaIely unlavourable lor Ihe consumer.
These will in lacI also apply Io lree solIware licences, Ihough iI would be dil-
liculI in any circumsIances Io argue IhaI Ihe Ierms ol Ihe licence are abusive,
given Ihe exIenI ol Ihe righIs IhaI are granIed, Ihe lew limiIaIions, and Ihe
non-cosI lree naIure ol Ihe solIware, in mosI circumsIances. WhaI could lall
under scruIiny are Ihe limiIaIions on warranIies and liabiliIy, which are likely
Io lall loul ol consumer proIecIion based legislaIion.
2.5. Agreementx ancIIar to the xoItware Icence
Along wiIh solIware licences ol a cerIain complexiIy, direcIed Io companies,
Ihere can be cerIain addiIional service agreemenIs, which we shall reler Io as
"ancillary agreemenIs" Io Ihe solIware licence, as Iheir exisIence is dependenI
on Ihe solIware licence Io which Ihey are associaIed.
These agreemenIs may be conIained in a documenI separaIe lrom Ihe user li-
cence, buI may also lorm parI ol Ihe licence agreemenI, wheIher incorporaIed
among iIs clauses or as an aIIachmenI IhereIo. Among Ihe mosI noIeworIhy
ol such ancillary agreemenIs are mainIenance agreemenIs and consulIing and
Iraining agreemenIs (which are someIimes combined wiIh Ihe lormer).
MaIntenance agreements
SolIware operaIion is relaIively unsIable and iIs possible malluncIions are noI
easy Io repair, especially il Ihe user does noI have Ihe source code. II also be-
comes obsoleIe quiIe quickly. Therelore, once Ihe warranIy period ollered by
Ihe supplier lor Ihe solIware wiIh Ihe licence has ended, iI may be essenIial lor
Ihe user Io mainIain Ihe solIware, especially Ihe solIware ol some complexiIy,
desIined lor businesses and prolessionals. Eor Ihe solIware supplier, providing
Ihe mainIenance service will imply a complemenIary, and even a quiIe im-
porIanI, source ol revenues. Froviding a mainIenance service also allows im-
proving Ihe solIware and repairing any laulIs advised by Ihe users.
Through Ihe mainIenance agreemenI, Ihe service provider underIakes Io Ihe
user Io mainIain Ihe proper operaIion ol Ihe solIware and}or Io provide suc-
cessive new versions, in exchange lor a mainIenance lee (annual, quarIerly,
monIhly, eIc.).
In Ihe case ol non-lree solIware, Ihe mainIenance service may olIen solely be provided
by Ihe solIware supplier or someone auIhorised by Ihe supplier: Ihey are Ihe only ones
wiIh Ihe source code and Ihe only ones wiIh Ihe righI Io modily Ihe licensed solIware.
Users may be "capIive" ol Ihe solIware manulacIurer or service provider.
WiIh lree solIware, Ihe business model may be based on providing such ser-
vices as mainIenance, buI in Ihis case, lor a dillerenI reason. II is noI a maIIer
ol more income lor Ihe solIware owner (Ihe income lor granIing Ihe licence
is nil or minimal), buI as Ihere are no exclusive righIs Io Ihe solIware, Ihe
mainIenance services are provided in lree compeIiIion. SolIware inIegraIors
and consulIanIs may compeIe among each eiIher Io provide a beIIer, cheaper
or more reliable mainIenance service.
WiIh EOSS, anyone wiIh Ihe appropriaIe experIise could provide Ihis Iype ol service,
enabling users Io shop around and change supporI provider. Many prolessional or en-
Ierprise lree solIware projecIs, such as Red HaI, Allresco, FenIaho, eIc., use Ihis Iype ol
agreemenI as a signilicanI revenue sIream in relaIion Io Ihe licensing ol Iheir lree solI-
ware.
Service modes: Ihere are Iypically Ihree lorms ol mainIenance service. Many
agreemenIs esIablish several or all ol Ihese modaliIies:
CorrecIive mainIenance: Iechnical assisIance Io correcI Ihe errors or mal-
luncIions in Ihe operaIion ol Ihe solIware.
FrevenIive mainIenance: Iechnical assisIance Ihrough regular reviews, lor
insIance, Io avoid errors lrom occurring during operaIion.
DevelopmenI or updaIe mainIenance: consisIing ol providing Ihe user
wiIh Ihe improvemenIs or new versions successively launched Io markeI
by Ihe supplier.
ConsultIng and traInIng agreements
SolIware suppliers olIen provide a service Io users IhaI consisI ol aIIending Io
inquiries relaIing Io Ihe selecIion, inIegraIion, insIallaIion and operaIion ol
Ihe solIware. This is disIinguished lrom Ihe mainIenance agreemenI in IhaI,
in Ihis case, Ihe purpose is noI Io avoid or correcI issues wiIh Ihe solIware,
buI Io creaIe a soluIion lor Ihe needs ol Ihe user and Io resolve any doubIs
relaIing Io iIs operaIion lor Ihe user.
Being a service IhaI users need, especially aI Ihe beginning ol Iheir use ol Ihe
solIware when Ihey are sIill noI well acquainIed wiIh iI, Ihis service could
possibly be included wiIh Ihe licence as ancillary Io Ihe subsequenI insIalla-
Iion ol Ihe program.
As parI ol Ihe consulIancy agreemenI, a possible variaIion lies in Iraining:
when Ihe Iechnicians ol Ihe supplier Ieach Ihe employees ol Ihe user how Io
operaIe Ihe solIware or Ieach courses on iIs use.
As lor mainIenance agreemenIs, in Ihe case ol lree solIware, Ihe consulIing
and Iraining service may be rendered in circumsIances ol lree compeIiIion by
any compuIer services company, as access Io Ihe source code ol Ihe program is
open and anyone can gain sullicienI skills Io insIall, develop and Irain clienIs
on Ihe solIware.
3. Free xoItware and Iree content
We have seen in Ihe inIroducIion Io Ihis module IhaI Ihe lree solIware and
conIenI movemenI (including lor Ihese purposes, Ihe open source and Ihe
lree conIenI movemenI) has posiIioned iIsell as Ihe delendanI ol access Io and
disseminaIion ol cerIain lorms ol culIure and knowledge in an increasingly
resIricIive socieIy, where IF laws are used Io conIrol Ihe exploiIaIion ol works
Io an ever greaIer exIenI, in Ihe lace ol Iechnological change.
The locus ol Ihis secIion Iherelore is Io undersIand Ihe basic concepIs ol Ihe
lree solIware and conIenI movemenI, belore looking in more deIail aI lree
solIware and conIenI licences.
3.1. Free xoItware
AlIhough a precedenI exisIs aI Ihe UniversiIy ol Berkeley and in Ihe BSD li-
cence IhaI we shall commenI on below, lor many Ihe lounders ol Ihe lree
solIware movemenI, round 183-184, were Richard SIallman and Ihe Eree
SolIware EoundaIion. Richard SIallman, who aI Ihe Iime was employed aI Ihe
MIT AI Lab, abandoned his work Io underIake Ihe GNU ('GNU is NoI Unix')
projecI and lounded Ihe Eree SolIware EoundaIion Io obIain lunds and a more
lormal sIrucIure lor Ihe developmenI and proIecIion ol lree solIware.
Richard SIallman esIablished Ihe eIhical loundaIion lor lree solIware in such documenIs
as "The GNU ManilesIo" and "Why SolIware Should NoI Have Owners". Since Ihe begin-
ning ol Ihe GNU projecI, Richard SIallman was concerned wiIh Ihe liberIies IhaI would
be available Io Ihe users ol Ihe solIware creaIed. He is inIeresIed in IhaI, noI only Ihose
receiving Ihe programs direcIly lrom Ihe GNU projecI, buI also Ihose receiving Ihem
lollowing any number ol redisIribuIions, could conIinue Io enjoy Ihe same righIs (mod-
ilicaIion, redisIribuIion, eIc.).
The basic IeneIs ol Ihe lree solIware movemenI is Ihe need Io ensure IhaI
users ol solIware have signilicanI lreedom (in legal Ierms, righIs) Io exploiI
solIware, undersIand iI, learn lrom and iI share iI wiIh Ihird parIies.
The Eree SolIware EoundaIion esIablished a core deliniIion lor lree solIware:
solIware under a licence IhaI allows and guaranIees Ihe exercise ol Ihe lollow-
ing lour lreedoms Io Ihe users:
The lreedom Io run and use Ihe solIware lor any purpose (lreedom 0).
The lreedom Io sIudy Ihe program and adapI iI Io your needs (lreedom 1).
The lreedom Io disIribuIe copies (lreedom 2).
The lreedom Io modily Ihe program and release Ihe modilicaIions Io Ihe
public (lreedom 3).
See online aI Ihe GNU siIe. The imporIance ol Ihis deliniIion is Iwolold. On Ihe one
hand, Ihe lree and open source communiIy is in agreemenI wiIh iI and respecIs iI, even
IhoughI dillerenI parIs ol Ihe communiIy may have dillering philosophies or views. On
Ihe oIher hand, lrom a legal perspecIive, iI is a unilying Iool lor Ihe analysis ol lree
solIware licences: iI separaIes whaI is lree lrom whaI is noI.
To enjoy such lreedoms, especially 1 and 3, Ihe user musI have access Io Ihe
source code ol Ihe program. Eree solIware licences indeed conIain a commiI-
menI by Ihe supplier-licensor Io provide Ihe source code Io users or, aI leasI,
Io make iI available Io Ihem. Below we shall brielly analyse how Ihe users are
granIed Ihe righIs ol use, copy, modilicaIion and disIribuIion in lree solIware
licences.
In English, Ihe word lree has Iwo meanings: 'unencumbered' and 'wiIhouI charge'. II
should Iherelore be clarilied aI Ihis Iime IhaI Ihe use ol Ihe Ierm "lree" in relaIion Io solI-
ware does noI imply IhaI Ihe owner or provider ol Ihe solIware provides or disIribuIes iI
lree ol charge (alIhough Ihey may). The Ierm lree relers Io Ihe solIware being disIribuIed
under a licence IhaI allows users Io use iI lreely. As regards Ihe economic consideraIion
lor Ihe disIribuIion ol lree solIware, we shall see IhaI mosI licences allow Ihe disIribuIor
Io use Ihe price ol Iheir choice.
The BSD lree solIware licences allows code Io be privaIised or "closed" and, Iherelore, iIs
sale as a commercial producI. The General Fublic License (GFL) expliciIly allows charging
lor disIribuIion (clause 1). The price is solely limiIed by Ihe rule ol markeI: as Ihe user
could subsequenIly publish Ihe source code on Ihe inIerneI or by any means disIribuIe
iI lree ol charge, any Ihird parIy could obIain a copy wiIhouI paying.
Why noI public domain7
WiIhouI doubI, Ihe simplesI way Io make a program lree is Io make iI an ob-
jecI ol public domain, wiIh no righIs reserved. This allows Ihe creaIor Io share
Ihe program and iIs improvemenIs wiIh Ihe enIire world wiIh no resIricIions.
BuI Ihis soluIion will allow Ihird parIies Io use Ihe solIware in a manner IhaI
may go againsI iIs original philosophy, making iI non-lree or closed solIware.
To avoid such a possibiliIy, Ihe ESE creaIed Ihe concepI ol copylejt and proIecI-
ed Ihe GNU and solIware againsI luIure inIermediaries IhaI could aIIempI Io
resIricI Ihe lreedom ol Ihe users Io redisIribuIe and change iI.
AddiIionally, as we have sIudied, in conIinenIal sysIems, moral righIs are inalienable,
which means IhaI iI is also impossible Io volunIarily place solIware under public domain,
waiving Ihe moral righIs Ihereupon. NoneIheless, even in English-speaking counIries
(where Ihe ligure ol "moral righIs" does noI exisI as applied Io solIware and solIware may
indeed be placed volunIarily under public domain), which is where lree solIware licences
originaIe lrom, iI has also been soughI Io clearly provide IhaI Ihe original auIhor ol Ihe
lree solIware does noI waive Iheir sIaIus as such. Therelore, iI is common among Ihe
various modaliIies ol lree licences Io mainIain a noIice ol auIhorship.
3.2. CogIeIt
Thus, il lree solIware righIs are granIed uncondiIionally, a user would be lree Io
incorporaIe Ihe solIware and any work resulIing lrom using Ihe solIware inIo
a proprieIary or non-lree program. According Io Ihe supporIers ol Ihis move-
menI, lor Ihe lree solIware philosophy Io be Iruly ellecIive, derivaIive ver-
sions musI also be lree. The goal ol "copylejt" is Io esIablish a licensing lrame-
work whereby Ihe essenIial lreedoms are granIed buI lree solIware may noI
be Iranslormed inIo non-lree or closed solIware. CopylelI guaranIees IhaI all
derivaIive work, based on Ihe lree solIware disIribuIed wiIh copylelI, shall be
available under Ihe same lree Ierms.
CopylelI may Ihus be delined as a manner ol licensing righIs in a work wiIh
Ihe parIicular condiIion obliging redisIribuIion ol Ihe work, and any deriva-
Iive work, Io be on Ierms IhaI mainIain Ihe lreedoms ol use, modilicaIion and
disIribuIion lor all luIure users and licensees: no lurIher resIricIions may be
added.
To accomplish Ihis objecIive, R. SIallman wroIe Ihe General Fublic License
(GFL) as a loundaIion Io guaranIee Ihe lreedom ol all lree solIware users aI
all Iimes. Thus Ihe GFL goes beyond guaranIeeing Ihe lour basic lreedoms,
and includes Ierms compelling Ihe use ol Ihe same licence (Ihe GFL) when
redisIribuIing boIh Ihe original solIware and any work derived lrom iI (and
poIenIially any oIher work including iI) and ollering access Io Ihe source code.
In oIher words,
RedisIribuIors are noI allowed Io add addiIional resIricIions Io Ihe licence
(oIher Ihan Ihose ol Ihe original GFL).
In general, Ihey musI accompany any binary code wiIh Ihe relevanI source
code.
This mechanism is also used in oIher licences, including Ihe Lesser GFL (LGFL), Ihe
Mozilla Fublic License (MFL), Ihe Common Fublic License (CFL) and Ihe Open Source
License (OSL), discussed below. MosI ol Ihese are characIerised by a "weak" copylelI, as
Ihey solely allecI Ihe original solIware (and Ihe derivaIive works), and noI Ihe works
using or conIaining Ihe solIware wiIh such licences.
However, Ihe GFL is imporIanI noI only because iI is Ihe mosI used licence in Ihe lree
solIware world (accounIing lor 70% ol Ihe lree projecIs on Sourcelorge) or because iI is
Ihe precursor ol many oIher currenI lree licences (noI all ol Ihem, Ihough, as Ihe BSD
predaIes iI), buI because Ihe principle ol lreedom ol Ihe ESE has been Ihe basis and one
ol Ihe mosI ouIsIanding elemenIs ol Ihe lree movemenI.
On Ihe basis ol Ihis copylelI condiIion, Ihe pool ol solIware subjecI Io copylelI
available Io all may only increase as new applicaIions are creaIed by developers
based on Ihe solIware disIribuIed under a copylelI licence.
The Ierm copylelI is based on a play on words: copylelI uses copyrighI laws and legal
lramework, which is basically resIricIive, buI Iurns Ihem around Io serve Ihe opposiIe
ol Iheir usual purpose. RaIher Ihan being a means ol keeping solIware privaIe or undis-
closed, iI becomes a means ol keeping iI lree. The developers ol non-lree solIware use
copyrighIs Io resIricI Ihe lreedom ol Ihe users and Io resIricI iIs lree reproducIion, Ihe
GNU movemenI uses Ihe reserved righIs Io guaranIee Iheir lreedom and IhaI is why Ihey
reversed Ihe name.
This copylelI concepI has had phenomenal success in Ihe secIor and Ihe ESE is
Ihe insIiIuIion par excellence delending Ihe values and eIhics ol Ihe lree solI-
ware movemenI. In 200o-2007, Ihe ESE reconsidered Ihe GFL, Ihen in iIs 2nd
version, in Ihe lighI ol Ihe Iechnological and legal changes, and presenIed
Io Ihe communiIy a dralI ol a new version ol Ihe GFL (GFLv3). The process
ol dralIing ol Ihe new licence, up unIil iIs linal approval in June 2007, was
lnLhissense,Lhecodeandes-
senLialfreedomsdefinedby
LhefreesofLwarearelegallyin-
separable.1hefreedomsare
guaranLeedforanyonehaving
acopyandbecomeinalienable
righLs.
complicaIed and proIracIed and sIakeholders were as varied as mulIinaIional
companies, Ihe academic secIor, Ihe individual developers and Ihe public ad-
minisIraIion.
The specilic implemenIaIion ol copylelI used lor mosI GNU solIware is Ihe GNU General
Fublic License, or GNU GFL lor shorI, and Ihe GEDL lor GNU manuals (using a copylelI
adapIed Io documenIs). There is also Ihe GNU Lesser General Fublic License (GNU LGFL),
which is applied Io some GNU libraries. OIher copylelI licences (ol various Iypes) include
Ihe Open Source License, Ihe Common Fublic License, Ihe Mozilla Fublic License, and
oIhers IhaI we will commenI on below.
We sIress IhaI Ihe Eree SolIware movemenI by Ihe ESE is essenIially a philo-
sophical, eIhical and poliIical movemenI. II is noI a Iechnological organisa-
Iion or lree solIware projecI (IhaI would be Ihe GNU projecI, Ihe projecI clos-
esI Io Ihe ESE).
II should also be noIed IhaI copylelI does noI allecI Ihe righIs ol use ol Ihe
original licensee (an end-user, lor insIance), buI resIricIs Ihe lreedoms relaIing
Io Ihe subsequenI disIribuIion ol Ihe copylelI solIware wiIh or wiIhouI mod-
ilicaIions (or closely incorporaIed in oIher applicaIions). To undersIand Ihis
allows undersIanding why a copylelI clause does noI allecI Ihe commercial
use ol applicaIions subjecI Io copylelI aI privaIe or public organisaIions, as
such organisaIions are normally end users.
II is also necessary Io sIress IhaI Ihe legal impacI ol Ihe copylelI clauses has
led Io greaI concern in Ihe solIware world in general. II has especially been
leared IhaI Ihe inIerrelaIion or incorporaIion ol code wiIh Ihe GFL in oIher
programs could allecI Ihe use or disIribuIion ol Ihe resulIing applicaIion or
IhaI Ihe use ol solIware wiIh Ihe GFL (lor insIance GNU}Linux) could prevenI
Ihe use ol oIher non-lree applicaIions. These doubIs, which are olIen myIhs,
are addressed below.
3.3. The Ogen Source 1ntatve and ogen xource xoItware
In 18, Ihere was a cerIain concepIual dillerence ol opinions in Ihe lree solI-
ware movemenI IhaI in IruIh merely broughI Io a head Ihe division IhaI had
been seen since Ihe early nineIies. This division gave way Io Ihe creaIion ol
Ihe Open Source IniIiaIive (OSI), which esIablished Ihe open source deliniIion
Io deIermine wheIher a licence was "open source" or noI (OSD).
Eor some, Ihe Ierm open source is a modaliIy ol lree solIware, lor oIhers, iI is a general
Ierm IhaI encompasses all lree solIware and, linally, lor oIhers, iI is a dangerous deparIure
lrom Ihe original concepIs ol lree solIware Io achieve enhanced commercialisaIion.
The Open Source projecI was born lrom a sIraIegic meeIing held in Eebruary 18 in Falo
AlIo, Calilornia, Io reacI Io Ihe plan haIched by NeIscape Inc. Io release Ihe source code
lor iIs browser, Ihe NeIscape NavigaIor. Among Ihe presenI were Eric Raymond, Bruce
Ferens (Ihen leader ol Ihe Debian group), John "Maddog" Hall (lrom Linux InIernaIional)
and Sam Ockman (represenIaIive ol Ihe group ol Linux users lrom Silicon Valley).
See "Open Sources: Voices lrom Ihe Open Source RevoluIion" (O'Reilly, 1).
The OSI seeks Io reconcile Ihe lreedoms ol lree solIware (in general) wiIh Ihe
commercial needs ol Ihe companies involved in Ihe creaIion, disIribuIion and
use ol lree solIware. By doing so, open code solIware mainIains Ihe lunda-
menIal lreedoms ol Ihe lree movemenI (reproducIion, IranslormaIion, disIri-
buIion, access Io source code), buI noI Ihe name "lree solIware". II is replaced
wiIh "open source sojtware", as Ihe OSI considers IhaI Ihe excessive emphasis
made by Ihe ESE on moral or eIhical reasons lor Ihe lreedom ol solIware could
cause negaIive reacIions on Ihe business menIaliIy and IhaI iI is more beneli-
cial Io promoIe lree solIware on iIs Iechnical meriIs.
On Ihe oIher hand, noIe IhaI Ihe ESE does noI agree wiIh Ihe use ol Ihe Ierm open source
Io reler Io lree solIware, precisely as iI makes iI lose Ihe eIhical dimension relerring Io
lreedom. See "Why Open Source misses Ihe poinI ol Eree SolIware", R SIallman.
As a resulI ol Ihis iniIiaIive, Ihe Open Source DeliniIion was esIablished. The
OSD was designed Io esIablish an open and undersIandable sIaIemenI ol Ihe
principles ol Ihe lree solIware movemenI and a sysIem lor Ihe classilicaIion
and "cerIilicaIion" ol Ihe varieIy ol lree licences in exisIence. II is argued IhaI,
by esIablishing sIandards in Ihis manner, Ihe deliniIion allows developers,
users, commercial organisaIions and Ihe public adminisIraIion Io beIIer un-
dersIand Ihe lree solIware movemenI and beIIer respecI iIs principles.
II should be noIed IhaI open licences are lree licences and vice versa. The dillerence be-
Iween Ihe OSI and Ihe ESE (as insIiIuIions) is in Iheir perspecIive (markeIing, underlying
philosophy, eIc.) and noI Iheir principles in relaIion Io licensing, which are shared by
Ihe Iwo enIiIies. In IruIh, Ihe dillerences are noI legal, buI ol posiIion Ihe OSI sIressing
more Ihe need Io access Ihe source code and Ihe ESE placing more imporIance on Ihe
eIhics or philosophy ol "lreedom". II is clear IhaI Ihe GFLv2 and Ihe GFLv3 are "open"
licences, conlorming Io Ihe OSD: Ihey are OSI cerIilied.
The Open Source DeliniIion (OSD)
The OSD was born lrom Ihe Oehan lree Sojtware GuJelnes (DESG), revised
in 18, basically Io eliminaIe relerences Io Debian. The deliniIion ol open
source solIware in Ihe DESG was indeed broad enough Io include such licences
as Ihe BSD, Ihe GFL and iIs sisIer Ihe LGFL, and such oIhers as Ihe MIT}X
and Ihe Apache. IIs requiremenIs were Iherelore adopIed by Ihe OSI as general
guidelines Io be meI by all open licences.
The deliniIion ol Ihe OSI sIresses Ihe lour lundamenIal elemenIs ol Ihe lree
solIware movemenI, expressed in Ihe lour lreedoms lisIed by Ihe ESE. Addi-
Iionally, availabiliIy and access Io Ihe source code is lundamenIal: Ihe word
open could be beIIer IranslaIed by 'avalahle', 'vshle' or 'reaJahle' and we could
speak ol avalahle source code solIware licences.
The Ogen Source OeInton
InIroducIion
Open source doesn'I jusI mean access Io Ihe source code. The disIribu-
Iion Ierms ol open-source solIware musI comply wiIh Ihe lollowing cri-
Ieria:
1. Eree RedisIribuIion
The licence shall noI resIricI any parIy lrom selling or giving away Ihe
solIware as a componenI ol an aggregaIe solIware disIribuIion conIain-
ing programs lrom several dillerenI sources. The licence shall noI re-
quire a royalIy or oIher lee lor such sale.
2. Source Code
The program musI include source code, and musI allow disIribuIion
in source code as well as compiled lorm. Where some lorm ol a prod-
ucI is noI disIribuIed wiIh source code, Ihere musI be a well-publi-
cised means ol obIaining Ihe source code lor no more Ihan a reason-
able reproducIion cosI prelerably, downloading via Ihe inIerneI wiIh-
ouI charge. The source code musI be Ihe prelerred lorm in which a pro-
grammer would modily Ihe program. DeliberaIely obluscaIed source
code is noI allowed. InIermediaIe lorms such as Ihe ouIpuI ol a prepro-
cessor or IranslaIor are noI allowed.
3. Derived Works
The licence musI allow modilicaIions and derived works, and musI al-
low Ihem Io be disIribuIed under Ihe same Ierms as Ihe licence ol Ihe
original solIware.
4. InIegriIy ol The AuIhor's Source Code
The licence may resIricI source-code lrom being disIribuIed in modilied
lorm only il Ihe licence allows Ihe disIribuIion ol "paIch liles" wiIh Ihe
source code lor Ihe purpose ol modilying Ihe program aI build Iime.
The licence musI expliciIly permiI disIribuIion ol solIware builI lrom
modilied source code. The licence may require derived works Io carry a
dillerenI name or version number lrom Ihe original solIware.
S. No DiscriminaIion AgainsI Fersons or Groups
The licence musI noI discriminaIe againsI any person or group ol per-
sons.
o. No DiscriminaIion AgainsI Eields ol Endeavor
The licence musI noI resIricI anyone lrom making use ol Ihe program
in a specilic lield ol endeavour. Eor example, iI may noI resIricI Ihe
program lrom being used in a business, or lrom being used lor geneIic
research.
7. DisIribuIion ol Licence
The righIs aIIached Io Ihe program musI apply Io all Io whom Ihe pro-
gram is redisIribuIed wiIhouI Ihe need lor execuIion ol an addiIional
licence by Ihose parIies.
8. Licence MusI NoI Be Specilic Io a FroducI
The righIs aIIached Io Ihe program musI noI depend on iI being parI ol
a parIicular solIware disIribuIion. Il Ihe program is exIracIed lrom IhaI
disIribuIion and used or disIribuIed wiIhin Ihe Ierms ol Ihe program's
licence, all parIies Io whom Ihe program is redisIribuIed should have
Ihe same righIs as Ihose IhaI are granIed in conjuncIion wiIh Ihe orig-
inal solIware disIribuIion.
. Licence MusI NoI ResIricI OIher SolIware
The licence musI noI place resIricIions on oIher solIware IhaI is dis-
IribuIed along wiIh Ihe licensed solIware. Eor example, Ihe licence musI
noI insisI IhaI all oIher programs disIribuIed on Ihe same medium musI
be open-source solIware.
10. Licence MusI Be Technology-NeuIral
No provision ol Ihe licence may be predicaIed on any individual Iech-
nology or sIyle ol inIerlace.
ExamgIe
An inIeresIing example ol Ihe OSD applicaIion is seen in Ihe case ol KDE, QI and Troll
Iech. KDE is a deskIop graphic inIerlace lor Linux and depends on graphic libraries called
QI, owned by Troll Tech. NoneIheless, Ihe QI licence did noI conlorm Io Ihe OSD, as a
special licence was required Io incorporaIe such libraries in applicaIions IhaI were noI X
Windows SysIem. (QI obIained income lor Ihe assignmenI ol licences Io MicrosolI and
Apple). Therelore, Ihe lree applicaIion KDE incorporaIed elemenIs IhaI were considered
noI Io be lree. Under pressure lrom Ihe lree communiIy and Ihe OSI in parIicular, Troll
Tech agreed, iniIially, Io creaIe a special licence Io release Ihe QI code in Ihe evenI ol
Ihe merger or bankrupIcy ol Ihe company. LaIer, aI Ihe beginning ol Ihe developmenI
ol GNOME, an open producI compeIing direcIly wiIh KDE, and wiIh Ihe creaIion ol lree
libraries similar Io QI (such as Harmony), Troll Tech modilied iIs licence Io conlorm Io
Ihe OSD.
II was argued IhaI by esIablishing sIandards in Ihis manner, Ihe deliniIion
would allow developers, users, commercial organisaIions and Ihe public ad-
minisIraIion Io beIIer undersIand Ihe lree solIware movemenI, enhance re-
specI lor iIs principles and, why noI, lind new business models Io guaranIee
Iheir luIure.
The OSI has lurIher prepared a cerIilicaIion mark, Ihe OSI CerIilied, which is a clear
means ol indicaIing IhaI a licence complies wiIh Ihe OSD. The mark also serves Io dis-
Iinguish Ihe Ierm general open source, which has noI had a sullicienIly-delined use Io
guaranIee such conlormiIy.
3.4. Free xoItware Icencex
BoIh Ihe ESE and Ihe OSI implemenI Iheir philosophy and sIraIegy Ihrough
a work Iool ol legal naIure: a lree solIware licence. The ESE, by publishing
Ihe GFL and LGFL, and now Ihe Allero GFL (AGFL, specilically designed
lor solIware disIribuIed as a service or Ihe ollering ol remoIe solIware ser-
vices). The OSI, due Io Ihe caIaloguing and classilicaIion ol Ihe various
lree licences used more or less by Ihe communiIy, published on iIs websiIe:
www.opensource.org.
As seen earlier, Ihe dillerence beIween lree solIware and non-lree solIware lies
in Ihe righIs and obligaIions specilied in Ihe licence. Those granIed under lree
solIware licences oller a broad lreedom Io exploiI Ihe solIware, in Ierms ol iIs
use, modilicaIion and disIribuIion, and Iend Io be direcIly opposiIe Io Ihose
granIed and reserved by a non-lree solIware licence ("non-lree licence").
We should recall IhaI Ihe lour lreedoms correspond Io exclusive exploiIaIion
righIs reserved Io Ihe owners ol auIhor's righIs by applicable law:
Ereedom 0: Ihe use righI (noI an exclusive righI, buI Ihe lree licence allows
unresIricIed and indiscriminaIe use).
Ereedom 1: Ihe righI ol modilicaIion.
Ereedom 2: Ihe righIs ol reproducIion and disIribuIion.
Ereedom 3: Ihe righIs ol IranslormaIion and disIribuIion ol derived works.
All lree solIware licences musI Iherelore license Ihese righIs Io users.
Eor insIance, Ihe MIT licence esIablishes IhaI "permission is hereby granIed |...] Io any
person obIaining a copy ol Ihis solIware |...] Io deal in Ihe solIware wiIhouI resIricIion,
including wiIhouI limiIaIion Ihe righIs Io use, copy, modily, merge, publish, disIribuIe,
sub-licence, and}or sell copies ol Ihe solIware |...]", while Ihe BSD licence provides IhaI
"redisIribuIion and use in source and binary lorms, wiIh or wiIhouI modilicaIion, are
permiIIed |...]".
II is imporIanI Io undersIand IhaI noI all lree solIware licences are Ihe same.
The range ol possibiliIies span lrom some minimum requiremenIs (e.g. Ihe
BSD and MIT licence), solely requiring Ihe mainIaining ol Ihe copyrighI no-
Iice and warranIy and liabiliIy disclaimers, up Io Ihe "maximum" (in cerIain
sense) ol Ihe copylelI clause ol Ihe GFL, requiring Ihe user Io disIribuIe any
modilicaIions and derivaIive work under Ihe same GFL.
As a resulI ol Ihe obligaIion Io lreely disIribuIe any modilied or derivaIive work, iI has
been said IhaI "Ihe GFL is noI as lree" as oIher lree licences. The ESE rejecIs such classili-
caIion arguing IhaI, quiIe Ihe opposiIe, Ihe GFL is lreer, as iI guaranIees greaIer lreedom
lor Ihe end user. Consider Ihe lollowing:
The BSD, lor insIance, granIs Ihe developers more lreedom, as Ihey may incorporaIe
and disIribuIe implemenIaIions ol "BSD codes" under boIh Iypes ol licences, lree and
non-lree.
The GFL gives Ihe end users greaIer lreedom as Ihey always receive applicaIions wiIh
open source code and a lree licence.
Brielly, lree licences may be classilied inIo Ihree caIegories: permissive li-
cences, lree licences wiIh sIrong copylelI and lree licences wiIh weak copylelI.
PermIssIve (or "academIc") Iree lIcences. The Berkeley SolIware DisIribu-
Iion (BSD) licence is perhaps Ihe simplesI version ol all lree licences, and is
also Ihe lirsI lree licence ever creaIed. II granIs lull exploiIaIion righIs and
solely requires mainIaining copyrighI noIices and disclaimers ol guaran-
Iees and responsibiliIies. II is a resulI ol Ihe disIribuIions ol versions ol
Unix by Ihe UniversiIy ol Calilornia, Berkeley, in Ihe sevenIies and eighI-
ies. The philosophy behind Ihis licence is IhaI Ihe code is Ihe lruiI ol Ihe
research and work ol Ihe UniversiIy, linanced by Ihe GovernmenI ol Ihe
UniIed SIaIes (and Ihe Iaxes ol Ihe American people). Therelore, iI musI
be lreely available and musI proIecI whaI we reler Io herein as Ihe "moral
righIs" ol Ihe auIhors lor Ihe mere obligaIion Io mainIain copyrighI no-
Iices. The BSD has been Ihe model lor many similar licences, including Ihe
Apache licence and Ihe licences ol Ihe X lamily (X, XEree8o, XOpen, X11).
Free lIcences wIth strong copyleIt. The General Fublic License (GFL) is
Ihe mosI emblemaIic ol Ihe copylelI licences. IIs purpose is Io guaranIee
Ihe lour main lreedoms ol lree solIware lor all users and IhaI any mod-
ilicaIions be disIribuIed under Ihe same condiIions. OIhers include Ihe
IBM Common Fublic License or Ihe SleepycaI licence. They are known as
sIrong copylelI licences as Ihey do noI allow Iheir inIegraIion in major
applicaIions wiIh oIher Iypes ol licences.
Copyleft llcences
CPLv2,CPLv3,AferroCPLv3,
SleepycaL
Free lIcences wIth weaR copyleIt. These licences mainIain Ihe copylelI
obligaIions lor Ihe core ol Ihe program disIribuIed under Ihe licence, buI
also allow Iheir inIegraIion in works wiIh oIher licences. The Mozilla Fub-
lic License (MFL), Ihe Lesser GFL (LGFL), Ihe Open Source License (OSL)
or Ihe Common DevelopmenI and DisIribuIion License (CDDL) are ex-
amples.
Free soItware rIghts
Looking aI Ihe righIs IhaI are granIed under a lree solIware licence:
Freedom oI use: The user ol lree solIware has lull lreedom Io use and copy
Ihe solIware how, when, as much and where deemed convenienI: insIall iI
on Iheir hardware, sIore Ihe necessary liles and run iI whenever Ihey wish,
in order Io beneliI lrom iIs applicaIions. The user may use Ihe solIware:
Eor any purpose or end. Therelore, Ihe use ol Ihe solIware cannoI be
limiIed Io Ihe "personal use" ol Ihe user. AddiIionally, lree solIware
may be used lor boIh privaIe and prolessional purposes.
By anyone. WiIhouI Ihere being room lor discriminaIion due Io Ihe
group ol which Ihey lorm parI.
Free llcences wlth weak
copyleft
MPL,CDDL,LCPL.
On any hardware devices deemed convenienI, regardless ol Iheir Iech-
nical characIerisIics.
Freedom to copy: users ol lree solIware may make as many copies ol Ihe
solIware as Ihey wish, wiIhouI being limiIed Io solely copying Ihe liles
necessary Io run Ihe solIware on Iheir hardware, or Io a single securiIy
copy. This lreedom Io copy is closely relaIed Io Ihe lreedoms ol use (users
may use Ihe solIware on any hardware devices Ihey wish) and ol disIribu-
Iion (Ihe user may provide copies ol Ihe solIware, wiIh or wiIhouI modi-
licaIions, Io Ihird parIies).
Freedom to transIorm, and access source code: users also acquire Ihe
righI Io Iranslorm Ihe licensed solIware: IranslaIe iI, adapI iI Io Iheir needs,
debug iI or combine iI wiIh oIher programs. To allow users Io ellecIively
use Ihis lreedom ol modilicaIion, Ihe supplier- licensor musI lurnish Ihem
wiIh Ihe source code lor Ihe solIware or, aI leasI, make iI available Io Ihem.
As delined by Ihe GNU-GFL and Ihe OSD guidelines, source code is Ihe
"prelerred lorm" lor a developer Io make modilicaIions Io Ihe solIware.
CondiIions on Ihe lreedom ol modilicaIion ol lree solIware. Generally
speaking, mosI licences impose some condiIions on Iranslorming: Ihey
musI respecI Ihe copyrighI noIice ol Ihe original auIhor and someIimes
musI indicaIe which liles Ihey have modilied. The purpose ol Ihis condi-
Iion is Io proIecI Ihe repuIaIion ol Ihe original auIhor lacing Ihe possible
malluncIioning ol Ihe solIware based on a modilicaIion.
Freedom oI dIstrIbutIon and publIc communIcatIon. Eree solIware users
have Ihe righI Io disIribuIe copies ol Ihe solIware wiIh or wiIhouI modi-
licaIions Io Ihird parIies, in Iangible lorm or over Ihe neI. This is a very
broad lreedom, inasmuch as Ihe user may disIribuIe Ihem lree ol charge
or in exchange lor economic compensaIion, Iemporarily (renIal, loan...)
or indeliniIely, wiIh or wiIhouI source code (copylelI requires access Io
source code), verbaIim or modilied.
GNU-GFL Version 3, no longer uses Ihe Ierm "disIribuIe", buI Ihe more generic Ierm
"convey" (convey liIeral copies ol Ihe source code, convey works based on Ihe program,
convey Ihe program in objecI code wiIh Ihe commiImenI Io make available Ihe source
code, eIc.), Io encompass whaI we undersIand in Europe Io be disIribuIion and public
communicaIion. OIher lree licences, such as Ihe Apache 2.0, noI only include Ihe licence
Io disIribuIe programs, original or derived, buI also Io publicly display Ihem).
II is as Io condiIions on disIribuIion IhaI lree solIware licences mosI vary.
As we have menIioned, permissive BSD-Iype licences only require users Io
mainIain Ihe "copyrighI noIice" and disclaimer when redisIribuIing Ihe
solIware, boIh in source code and binary. CopylelI licences require redis-
IribuIion ol Ihe work and derivaIive works Io be done on Ihe same Ierms
as Ihe original code. SIrong copylelI exIends Ihis Io works IhaI are com-
bined wiIh or inIimaIely inIeracI wiIh Ihe original work. In some cases,
Ihe lree solIware licences conIain cerIain limiIaIions Io Ihe redisIribuIion
ol Ihe solIware, when such redisIribuIion may conllicI wiIh a paIenI: lor
CN-CPLversion3sLaLesin
iLsClause5.a)LhaLLhe"Lhe
workmusLcarryprominenL
noLicessLaLingLhaLyoumod-
ifiediL,andgivingarelevanL
daLe".
insIance, Ihe duIy ol indicaIing IhaI Ihe lree solIware is being sued lor
Ihe violaIion ol Ihird-parIy paIenIs, idenIilying such Ihird parIy (Mozilla
licence).
3.5. Freedom aggIed to worRx that are not xoItware
Eree licensing was iniIially conceived Io be applied Io solIware, buI iI also may
be applied Io oIher Iypes ol works. Upon carelul sIudy ol Ihe GNU GFL, iI may
be seen IhaI Ihe licence may be applied Io inlormaIion oIher Ihan solIware.
The GNU GFL holds IhaI "iI applies Io any program or work conIaining a
noIice placed by Ihe owner ol Ihe righIs, claiming IhaI iI can be disIribuIed
under Ihe Ierms ol Ihe General Fublic License". In Ihis sense, Ihe "program"
musI noI necessarily be a compuIer program. Work ol any kind subjecI Io
copyrighI may also lreely be subjecI Io copylelI under Ihe GNU GFL.
The GNU GFL relers Io Ihe "source code" ol Ihe work, Ihis "source code" implies diller-
enI Ihings lor dillerenI Iypes ol inlormaIion, buI Ihe deliniIion ol "source code" as es-
Iablished by Ihe GNU GFL remains generic in any case: "Ihe source code lor Ihe work
represenIs Ihe prelerred lorm ol making modilicaIions Io Ihe work". However iI siIs awk-
wardly in relaIion Io works oIher Ihan solIware.
The ESE has lurIher creaIed a lree licence lor documenIaIion, especially as Ihe
solIware is accompanied by Iechnical documenIaIion IhaI is olIen necessary
lor iIs use. II would make no sense Io disIribuIe Ihe lree solIware wiIhouI dis-
IribuIing Ihe relevanI documenIaIion under similar Ierms. The General Eree
DocumenI License was Ihus creaIed Io accompany Iheir programs.
CreatIve Commons
The CreaIive Commons iniIiaIive (olIen abbreviaIed "CC") is a projecI creaIed
by experIs in copyrighI law lrom SIanlord UniversiIy in Ihe UniIed SIaIes. IIs
purpose is Io help auIhors and creaIors disIribuIe Iheir works lor public use
and Ihus exIend Ihe number ol creaIive works available Io all. II is especially
direcIed Io liIerary and arIisIic creaIions and noI solIware, and expressly rec-
ommends Ihe GEDL lor any compuIer documenIaIion and applicaIions. The
CC lurIher provides a lramework lor dedicaIing works Io Ihe public domain,
also under Ihe condiIions ol Ihe UniIed SIaIes copyrighI laws.
CreaIive Commons is commenIed on in more deIail below.
4. Free xoItware Icencex
As menIioned earlier, Ihe array ol lree licences spans lrom permissive licences,
which impose no lurIher obligaIions Ihan IhaI ol aIIaching Ihe condiIions
and Ihe disclaimer, Io licences wiIh a sIrong copylelI, requiring IhaI Ihe same
licence be mainIained lor redisIribuIions ol Ihe solIware and ol any derived
work.
Along Ihese lines, lor Ihe purposes ol our sIudy, we have classilied lree licences
inIo Ihree caIegories (plus one), Io be examined in Ihis secIion. These Ihree
caIegories are as lollows:
Fermissive licences, BSD sIyle, including MIT and X licences (compaIible
wiIh GFLv2), and Ihe AEL or ZFL (incompaIible wiIh GFLv2).
Licences wiIh sIrong copylelI: GFLv2 and GFLv3, in parIicular.
Weak copylelI licences: LGFLv1 and Ihe LGFLv2, Ihe MFL and Ihe OSL.
4.1. Permxxve Icencex: no cogIeIt
In Ihis secIion, we shall presenI some ol Ihe mosI commonly used lree licences
among Ihe lree developmenI communiIy, especially Ihe BSD licence, which
has served as Ihe model lor many oIher licences.
These licences are "aI one end" ol Ihe array ol lree licences, as Ihey do noI
conIain copylelI obligaIions and allow lor Ihe privaIisaIion ol derived or col-
lecIive works IhaI include Ihe solIware.
The lirsI generaIion ol Ihese licences (BSD, MIT}X, Apache 1.0 and Apache
1.1) is characIerised by being very shorI and noI including any lurIher obliga-
Iions Ihan Ihose ol mainIaining Ihe noIices ol auIhorship in Ihe source liles
and Ihe lisI ol condiIions (especially Ihe disclaimer) when redisIribuIing Ihe
solIware. The main objecIive ol such licences is Io granI Ihe recipienIs lull
exploiIaIion righIs Io Ihe solIware (righIs ol reproducIion, modilicaIion, dis-
IribuIion and public communicaIion) so IhaI Ihe licensees may do "whaIev-
er Ihey wanI" wiIh Ihe code. They do noI conIain copylelI and allow incor-
poraIing and combining Ihe solIware wiIh any sorI ol work, wheIher lree or
non-lree. Eor insIance, iI is said IhaI Ihere are BSD solIware componenIs in
Ihe Windows NT and Mac OS X operaIing sysIems.
The nexI generaIions (Apache 2.0 and AEL) include a series ol new condiIions
relaIing Io paIenIs, governing law, eIc., IhaI are in line wiIh Ihe Mozilla Fublic
License (which we shall discuss below), Io modernise and clarily Iheir Ierms.
MosLarebornfromLheaca-
demicworld(asindicaLedby
Lheirnames:8erkeleySofL-
wareDisLribuLion,Ml1,Edu-
caLionCommuniLyLicense...),
andLhereforeLheyhavebeen
referredLoas"academicli-
cences".
4.1.1. BerReIe SoItware Oxtrbuton {BSO} and xmIar Icencex
The Berkeley SolIware DisIribuIion (BSD) licence is perhaps Ihe mosI simple
ol all lree licences. II derives lrom Ihe disIribuIion ol versions ol Unix by Ihe
UniversiIy ol Calilornia, Berkeley, in Ihe sevenIies and eighIies, in Ihe early be-
ginning ol Ihe lree solIware movemenI. The principle underlying Ihe licence
is IhaI Ihe solIware is Ihe resulI ol Ihe college research and work linanced by
Ihe GovernmenI ol Ihe UniIed SIaIes (and Ihe Iaxes ol Ihe American people)
and IhaI, Iherelore, iI musI be lreely available. This means IhaI iI would only
proIecI whaI we have relerred Io herein as Ihe "moral righIs" ol Ihe auIhors lor
Ihe simple obligaIion ol mainIaining noIices ol auIhorship (copyrighI noIice).
RighIs granIed. The BSD allows unresIricIed use, modilicaIion, copy and
redisIribuIion ol solIware under Ihe BSD, in objecI code (binary) or source
code lormaI.
ObligaIions imposed. DisIribuIion in lorm ol source code is Io be accom-
panied by a copyrighI noIice, Ihe lisI ol condiIions and Ihe denial ol any
warranIy and liabiliIy. RedisIribuIions in binary code musI reproduce Ihe
same Ihings in Ihe documenIaIion. The name ol Ihe auIhor and ol Ihe
conIribuIors may noI be used lor Ihe promoIion ol derived works wiIhouI
Iheir permission.
OIher Ierms. No warranIy is granIed in respecI ol Ihe proper operaIion ol
Ihe program and all liabiliIy is denied.
Therelore, almosI anyIhing can be done wiIh codes under Ihe BSD, provided
Ihe noIice ol auIhorship ol Ihe iniIial program is respecIed and Ihe lisI ol
condiIions is included in Ihe code or documenIaIion. II is also unnecessary Io
provide end users wiIh Ihe source code.
The lirsI version ol Ihe licence imposed Ihe obligaIion Io aIIribuIe each componenI Io
Iheir original auIhors in any publicaIion or promoIional maIerial ol Ihe program or de-
rived work. This obligaIion implied cerIain hassles, as iI was necessary Io include ex-
Iensive auIhorship IhroughouI all Ihe documenIaIion and Ihe source code, relaIing Io
each auIhor adding Iheir name Io a licence. In a program wiIh hundreds ol conIribuIors,
Ihis obligaIion was hard Io meeI. This also meanI IhaI BSD code was incompaIible wiIh
GFL code. In July 1, Ihis obligaIion was sIricken lrom Ihe BSD licence. Regardless, aI
presenI, iI is necessary Io verily Ihe version ol Ihe licence applied Io BSD code, Io make
sure IhaI iI is noI an earlier version and make sure IhaI iIs Ierms are correcIly lollowed.
The BSD-sIyle licences allow lor a greaI disseminaIion ol Ihe solIware and iIs
use as a relerence or sIandard (lor proIocols, services, libraries and even com-
pleIe operaIing sysIems, such as Unix BSD). II noneIheless also allows whaI is
known as code lorking), inasmuch as anyone may adapI, modily and exIend
Ihe program kernel and creaIe a "similar buI sullicienIly dillerenI" version.
This is seen, lor insIance, in Ihe prolileraIion ol operaIing sysIems wiIh BSD-
Iype licences, such as Ihe OpenBSD, Ihe EreeBSD and Ihe NeIBSD.
Any solIware wiIh a Ihree-clause BSD licence (or new BSD) is compaIible wiIh GFL solI-
ware (and almosI any oIher lree solIware licence), buI noI Ihe oIher way around. In oIher
words, BSD code may solely be incorporaIed in a GFL program (wiIh Ihe resulI ol a work
combined under Ihe GFL), buI GFL code cannoI be incorporaIed in BSD solIware.
Other lIcences sImIlar to the BSD
The BSD has been Ihe model lor many similar licences, among which we shall
menIion Ihe MIT licences and Ihose ol Ihe X lamily (X, XEree8o, XOpen, X11),
Ihe Apache 1.1 licence (which we shall discuss below), CrypIix, FyIhon, W3C
SolIware NoIice, Zope Fublic License (ZFL), LDAF Fublic License, Fhorum, eIc.,
and Ihe OpenSSL and SleepycaI licences, which lollow a simplilied model ol
Ihe BSD licence, buI include copylelI clauses (as we shall discuss in Ihe secIion
on licences wiIh copylelI).
The X and MIT licences are similar Io Ihe BSD licence buI, on Ihe one hand,
Ihey specily Ihe permiIIed uses in lurIher deIail: "Ihe use, copy, modilicaIion,
merger, publicaIion, disIribuIion and}or sale ol solIware", and on Ihe oIher,
do noI disIinguish beIween disIribuIions ol source code and objecI code.
4.1.2. The Agache SoItware Lcencex {ASL}
The Apache web server projecI was creaIed aI Ihe laboraIories ol Ihe NaIional
CenIer lor SupercompuIing ApplicaIions aI Ihe UniversiIy ol Illinois, UniIed
SIaIes, and is now "run" by Ihe Apache EoundaIion, in iIs Iechnical and or-
ganisaIional, as well as iIs legal aspecIs.
The EoundaIion has dralIed Ihe Apache SolIware License (ASL), wiIh versions
ASL 1.0, ASL 1.1, and now, ASL 2.0, inasmuch as lrom January 2004 on, all
solIware ol Ihe Apache EoundaIion will be published under ASL 2.0.
The ASL 1.1 is a varianI ol Ihe BSD licence adding a lew exIra obligaIions:
There is an obligaIion Io mainIain a noIice wiIh respecI Io Ihe original
auIhors in Ihe documenIaIion or redisIribuIions ol Ihe solIware: "This
producI includes solIware developed by Ihe Apache SolIware EoundaIion"
(hIIp:}}www.apache.org})".
Derived works should noI use Ihe Apache name wiIhouI auIhorisaIion
lrom Ihe Apache EoundaIion (Io mainIain Ihe repuIaIion ol Ihe original
auIhors).
Due Io Ihese addiIional obligaIions, Ihe ASL 1.1 is noI compaIible wiIh GFLv2.
We should noIe IhaI Ihe lirsI version ol Ihe licence (ASL 1.0) conIained Ihe
same adverIising obligaIion as Ihe BSD wiIh respecI Io Ihe adverIising maIe-
rials menIioning Ihe producI.
The Apache 2.0 licence was published in January 2004 and belongs Io a new
generaIion ol lree licences. II is a very compleIe licence lrom a legal perspec-
Iive, incorporaIing many ol Ihe modernisaIions conIribuIed by Ihe Mozilla
Fublic License in 18 (which we shall discuss in Ihe lollowing): compleIe
DueLoLheimporLanceLhaL
LheloundaLionandApache
sofLwareingeneralhaveinLhe
freesofLwarecommuniLy,in
LermsofsofLwarequaliLyand
iLsmanagemenLmodel,Lhe
ASLisalicenceLhaLhasbeen
usedbymanyoLherprojecLs.
deliniIions, a paIenI licence and a paIenI peace agreemenI, an obligaIion Io
indicaIe modilicaIions, a noIice.IxI lile eIc. II mainIains iIs degree ol permis-
siveness: iI is noI a copylelI licence.
RIghts granted. ASL 2.0 allows lor Ihe reproducIion, modilicaIion, disIri-
buIion and public communicaIion (perlormance and display, under Amer-
ican law), wiIh a righI Io sub-license, ol Ihe solIware under ASL in objecI
code (binary) or source code lormaI. Includes Ihe expliciI righI Io use an-
oIher licence lor Ihe modilicaIions or any derived work "as a whole", pro-
vided iI meeIs Ihe condiIions ol Ihe ASL 2.0 licence.
OblIgatIons Imposed. The redisIribuIion ol solIware should be accompa-
nied by Ihe licence, a noIice il any liles have been changed, any original
noIice ol copyrighI, paIenI or Irademark, any noIice.IxI lile (wiIh noIices
ol auIhorship, modilicaIions and any oIher legal noIice). The name or
Irademarks ol Ihe licensor and conIribuIors cannoI be used.
Other terms. No warranIy is granIed as Io Ihe proper operaIion ol Ihe
program and all liabiliIy is repudiaIed. A paIenI licence is also included
(revocable in case legal acIions are broughI based on paIenIs againsI any
oIher person wiIh respecI Io Ihe solIware).
Below, in Ihe secIion dedicaIed Io Ihe Mozilla Fublic License, we will discuss
Ihe Ierms and objecIives ol Ihe paIenI licence and Ihe noIice.IxI lile, as Ihese
concepIs were creaIed wiIh Ihis licence.
As Ihe Apache EoundaIion is a model lor Ihe managemenI ol lree communiIies and
projecIs, iIs new licence is an insIrumenI used by many projecIs, especially Ihose working
wiIh Java Iechnologies or Ihose ol Ihe Apache EoundaIion (TomcaI, ANT, libraries such
as Commons, JakarIa, eIc.). II is incompaIible wiIh Ihe GFLv2, according Io Ihe ESE (due
Io Ihe expliciI paIenI licence) and iI is considered IhaI Ihe ASL 2.0 is now compaIible
wiIh Ihe GFLv3. The imporIance ol Ihis licence lies in Ihe express objecIive ol Ihe ESE
Io creaIe a GFLv3 licence compaIible IherewiIh.
4.1.3. Other germxxve Icencex
There are a number ol permissive solIware licences IhaI can be seen aI Ihe
opensource.org websiIe, and commenIed on Ihe lsl.org websiIe as Io compaI-
ibiliIy wiIh Ihe GFL. These include, among many oIhers:
Zope Fublic License.
Open LDAF License.
ArIisIic License 2.0: a licence modelled on Ihe GFL buI wiIhouI a copylelI.
Ferl: a mixIure ol Ihe GFL and Ihe lormer ArIisIic licence.
Academic Eree License 3.0: A "compleIe" permissive licence on Ihe MFL
model.
FyIhon 2.0.1, 2.1.1 and laIer versions: A BSD-sIyle licence, requiring IhaI
Ihe program should be subjecI Io Ihe laws ol Ihe sIaIe ol Virginia.
FHF 3.0: A BSD-sIyle licence including Ihe obligaIion Io incorporaIe a FHF
adverIising clause.
Q Fublic License (QFL)1.0: A licence compelling Ihe disIribuIion ol any
modilicaIion as a paIch Io Ihe iniIial program. II is also necessary Io reler
Io Ihe iniIial supplier (TrollIech) any modilicaIion noI available Io Ihe
public.
4.2. Lcencex wth xtrong cogIeIt
Above, we have explained Ihe concepI ol copylelI lrom a legal perspecIive:
Ihe obligaIion Io use Ihe same licence lor Ihe redisIribuIions ol solIware, wiIh
or wiIhouI modilicaIions, or ol a program conIaining Ihe original solIware.
In Ihis secIion, we will explain in deIail Iwo licences wiIh sIrong copylelI: Ihe
GFL v2 and v3.
We shall see IhaI almosI all licences wiIh copylelI are incompaIible among
each oIher, as Ihey all require Ihe use ol Ihe same licence lor redisIribuIion,
which gives rise Io a conllicI in respecI ol which is Io be applied lor a program
mixing Iwo componenIs under dillerenI copylelI licences.
4.2.1. The GNL GeneraI PubIc Lcenxe, verxon 2. {GPLv2}
CreaIed in 18, Ihe GFLv2 has been described as being "parI licence, parI
poliIical manilesIo": iIs preamble conIains a descripIion ol Ihe lree solIware
principles and a simple summary ol Ihe licence, Ihe main parI specilies Ihe
righIs granIed Io Ihe users and Ihe limiIaIions and condiIions imposed on Ihe
exploiIaIion ol Ihe solIware.
II is imporIanI Io sIress IhaI in spiIe ol iIs lamilial and simple Ione, Ihe GFLv2 was de-
signed by Richard SIallman wiIh his American legal counsel and Iherelore does noI con-
Iain any old provisions, buI a deliberaIe and very subIle means lor licensing and condi-
Iioning Ihe exercise ol copyrighI righIs.
Eollowing we have presenIed Ihe GFLv2, due Io iIs imporIance, in some deIail.
UseIul deIInItIons. AlIhough noI expliciI, as in Ihe MFL or Ihe CFL, and now
in Ihe GFLv3, Ihe GFLv2 conIains several deliniIions IhaI are ol greaI use (and
someIimes conlusing):
lroram: any program or work Io which Ihe licence has been aIIached.
Technically, Ihis could include a IexI, image or oIher lile (clause 0).
Worl haseJ on the proram: Ihe original program or any derived work Ihere-
ol, according Io Ihe copyrighI deliniIion. This would include any work
conIaining Ihe program or a parI Ihereol, wheIher a Irue or liIeral copy,
or wiIh modilicaIions (clauses 0 and 2).
Source coJe: Ihe prelerred lorm ol Ihe work Io subjecI iI Io modilicaIions.
Regarding an execuIable lile, Ihe obligaIion Io provide Ihe source code
includes all modules conIained Ihereby, plus Ihe conliguraIion ol Ihe in-
Ierlace and scripIs Io conIrol compilaIion and insIallaIion. Does noI in-
clude Ihe source code ol Ihe equivalenI modules ol Ihe operaIing sysIem
in Ihe program being run, unless such modules accompany Ihe execuIable
(clause 3).
RIghts granted by the lIcence. These guaranIee Ihe lour main lreedoms:
The righI ol reproducIion and disIribuIion ol Ihe original source code
(clause 1).
The righI ol modilicaIion ol Ihe program or a parI Ihereol (clause 2).
The righI ol disIribuIion ol Ihe source code and Ihe luIure modilicaIions,
provided Ihey are disIribuIed wiIh Ihe same GFL and wiIhouI charging
(clause 2b Ihe copylelI clause).
The righI ol reproducIion and redisIribuIion ol Ihe program (and iIs mod-
ilicaIions) in objecI code or execuIable lormaI, wiIh Ihe same copylelI
condiIion and provided iI is accompanied by Ihe source code or Ihe source
code is made available Io a Ihird parIy, wiIhouI charging anyIhing oIher
Ihan Ihe cosI ol delivery ol such source code (clause 3).
Access Io Ihe source code is Ihe second lundamenIal aspecI ol Ihe licence. A program
may be disIribuIed wiIh Ihe GFL in binary (objecI code) lormaI, buI iI musI always be
accompanied wiIh Ihe source code or Ihe oller Io provide iI Io any Ihird parIies lor a
Ierm ol Ihree years (clause 3).
OblIgatIons: Ihe GFL conIains several condiIions and limiIaIions:
Any disIribuIion ol Ihe program or ol work derived Iherelrom musI be
accompanied by Ihe noIices ol auIhorship, an indicaIion ol any modili-
caIion made (and iIs daIe), Ihe disclaimer ol warranIies and a copy ol Ihe
licence (clauses 1 and 2).
II is noI allowed Io copy, modily or disIribuIe Ihe program in a manner
oIher Ihan IhaI expressly permiIIed by Ihe licence, wiIh less lreedoms or
greaIer resIricIions (clause 2b and clause o).
Il any acI in violaIion ol Ihe licence is aIIempIed, Ihe licensee shall waive
Iheir original righIs (clause 4).
VersIons. The licence allows auIhors-licensors Io reler Io new versions Ihereol
(we shall discuss version 3.0 below) adding IhaI Ihe work is published "under
version 2 and any subsequenI version" (clause ). This llexibiliIy allows IhaI
programs mainIain compaIibiliIy wiIh luIure programs under a subsequenI
version ol Ihe GFL such as Ihe recenIly published GFLv3. In Ihis case, li-
censees may choose Ihe applicable version.
Other poInts:
WarranIies. Clauses 11 and 12 clarily IhaI no warranIy is ollered in Ierms
ol Ihe proper operaIion ol Ihe solIware covered by Ihe licence and repu-
diaIe any liabiliIy lor damages. We have noneIheless seen IhaI Ihe validiIy
ol Ihese clauses is dubious (in jurisdicIions oIher Ihan IhaI ol Ihe UniIed
SIaIes and even in Ihe UniIed SIaIes in some circumsIances) in Ihe lighI
Linus1orvalds,forinsLance,
hasexcludedsubsequenLver-
sionsforLheLinuxkernel:heis
sLayingwiLhversion2.0.
ol Ihe consumer proIecIion laws and Ihe prohibiIion ol abusive clauses in
accession agreemenIs.
Governing law. The GFLv2 does noI include any clause indicaIing Ihe gov-
erning law or Ihe courIs ol compeIenI jurisdicIion Io Iry any conllicIs in
relerence IhereIo. Therelore, Ihe relevanI law would be applied aI Ihe cor-
responding courIs under Ihe principles ol conllicIs ol law. In mosI cases,
iI will be Ihe law ol Ihe legal domicile ol Ihe licensor, buI a consumer, lor
insIance, may choose Ihe law and courIs ol Iheir domicile.
FaIenIs. The lasI paragraph ol Ihe preamble sIresses Ihe dangers IhaI
paIenIs pose lor lree solIware. The GFLv2, neverIheless, does noI include
any clause resIricIing Ihe possible paIenIs on solIware under Ihe GFLv2
or requiring Iheir licensing in lavour ol oIher users (Ihe GFLv3 does). As
a logical consequence ol Ihe obligaIion Io disIribuIe Ihe program and any
work derived Iherelrom in Ierms equal Io Ihose ol Ihe GFLv2 (clause 2b),
any licensee obIaining a paIenI on solIware under Ihe GFL musI allow iIs
lree use under Ihe GFLv2 by all subsequenI recipienIs which could be
considered an impliciI paIenI licence. We shall laIer see IhaI Ihe GFLv3
specilies Ihe Ierms ol Ihe paIenI licence.
Comments on the GPLv2
An imporIanI maIIer which musI be clarilied is Ihe maIIer ol derIvatIve worRs
and Ihe applicaIion ol Ihe GFL Io Ihem. II is a key concepI in undersIanding
Ihe GFLv2, as iI delines Ihe scope ol Ihe copylelI clause, which is whaI mosI
disIinguishes Ihis licence lrom oIher lree licences. This maIIer has given rise
Io a greaI deal ol conIroversy in Ihe world ol lree solIware and solIware in
general.
We have already said on several occasions IhaI solIware cannoI be "privaIised" under Ihe
GFLv2, nor may iIs derived works. Therelore, some developers doubI Io incorporaIe or
relaIe Iheir work Ioo closely Io a copylelI program, as Ihey lear losing Ihem under Ihe
GFLv2 in circumsIances in which Ihey cannoI or do noI wish Io permiI iI (such as a
non-lree developmenI or dillerenI lree licence).
WhaI does a derived work or work based on a program consisI ol, according Io
Ihe auIhors ol Ihe licence7 The deliniIion ciIed earlier relers Io Ihe deliniIion
under copyrighI law: iI is work conIaining Ihe program or a porIion Ihereol.
BuI Ihe word conIain in Ihe lield ol programming, leaves room lor doubI:
are we dealing solely wiIh derived works under a sIricI legal inIerpreIaIion
ol copyrighI or auIhor's righIs7 Or does iI also apply Io "composiIe works" or
collecIive works, incorporaIing Ihe original program7
SolIware componenIs may inIerrelaIe in many ways, by various sorIs ol calls
or links. The compiling ol a program (Io creaIe an execuIable) may incorpo-
raIe several componenIs in a single program, or Ihe various componenIs may
inIerrelaIe when Ihe program is inIerpreIed when run. Each such inIeracIion
could have dillerenI legal ellecIs. WhaI is debaIed is wheIher Ihese archiIec-
Iures imply IhaI Ihe resulIing work would be subjecI in whole or in parI Io Ihe
GFL. This issue has become more complicaIed wiIh Ihe evoluIion ol program-
ming meIhods (sIrucIured or by objecIs) and compuIer languages (C, C++,
Visual Basic, Java, FHF, eIc.), many ol which did noI exisI upon dralIing Ihe
licence.
Suggexted readng
SlashdoI: D. Ravicher on open source legal issues. hIIp:}}slashdoI.org}inIerviews}01}0o}
0S}122240.shIml
M. Assay. A lunny Ihing happened... www.linuxlordevices.com}liles}misc}asay-paper.pdl
L. Rosen. The unreasonable lear ol inlecIion. www.rosenlaw.com}hIml}GFL.FDE
Clause 2b iIsell sIaIes IhaI copylelI applies Io any work contann or JerveJ
jrom the ornal proram, which musI be licensed as "a whole" (wiIh all ol iIs
componenIs) under Ihe GFLv2.
We should lirsI noIe IhaI Ihe sole gaIhering or puIIing IogeIher ol a work
(separable, noI based on un a GFL-covered program) on Ihe same medium
wiIh GFLv2 solIware, lor disIribuIion lor insIance, does noI imply IhaI
such oIher work musI be disIribuIed under Ihe GFLv2. The licence lurIher
clarilies IhaI il Ihe idenIiliable parIs ol a work could be considered Io be
individual independenI works in Ihemselves, Ihe licence shall noI apply
Io such parIs.
Eacing oIher cases, prudence Iells us IhaI iI is necessary Io assess Ihe risks
relaIing Io a parIicular developmenI or archiIecIure, considering Ihe de-
sign and poIenIial consequences ol being subjecI Io Ihe GFL. We can say
Ihe lollowing wiIh some cerIainIy:
Il, when a new developmenI is compiled wiIh a GFLv2 work, Ihe li-
nal execuIable includes elemenIs ol Ihe original program (in Ihe case
ol componenIs wiIh sIaIic links beIween Ihemselves), Ihen Ihe mod-
ilicaIions may be considered separable and, consequenIly, Ihe enIire
work and each ol iIs parIs musI be disIribuIed under Ihe GFL.
Il Ihe original GFLv2 program and Ihe new developmenI coexisI sep-
araIely (even when conIained on Ihe same medium) and Ihe parIicu-
lar developmenI calls Ihe GFLv2 program in run Iime (Ihe case ol a
dynamic link), unlorIunaIely, Ihe siIuaIion is noI so clear. The inIer-
preIaIion ol Ihe ESE is cerIainly IhaI dynamically linked works, and
oIher lorms ol inIeracIion such as plug-ins, would lead Io relicensing
under Ihe GFL il Ihe degree ol inIeracIion is sullicienIly "inIimaIe" or
dependenI.
Among Ihe "lrequenIly asked quesIions" ol Ihe GFL, Ihere a lew explaining
cases ol modilicaIions, links and calls Io GFL code IhaI Ihe ESE "resolves" by
ollering iIs inIerpreIaIion ol Ihe licence and Ihe law. Eor insIance, iI is clarilied
IhaI a new program compiled by a compiler under GFL shall noI need Io be
disIribuIed under such a licence, excepI il Ihe execuIable resulIing alIer Ihe
compilaIion incorporaIes elemenIs ol Ihe lree compiler or oIher GFL program.
BuI Ihe subjecI is noI compleIely resolved lor Ihe GFL and, in Ihe end iI is lelI
Io Ihe judgmenI ol Ihe creaIors ol modilicaIions and derived works Io consider
wheIher Ihey are subjecI Io Ihe GFL (and when Io consulI wiIh legal counsel).
Linus Torvalds has expressly included in Ihe GFL covering Ihe Linux kernel ol Ihe SO
GNU}Linux, an addendum Io sIaIe IhaI he, as licensing auIhor, does noI consider IhaI
programs wiIh dynamic links Io Ihe kernel are subjecI Io copylelI. User applicaIions and
oIher non-core elemenIs ol an operaIing sysIem, such as drivers, inIeracI dynamically
wiIh Ihe componenIs and Ihe modules ol Ihe sysIem kernel. Therelore, Ihe applicaIions
and conIrollers are specilic Io one plaIlorm or Ihe oIher. There is a possibiliIy IhaI such
inIeracIion wiIh a GFL operaIing sysIem could allecI such programs and drivers. WiIhouI
Ihis clarilicaIion, almosI any program run on GNU}Linux and wiIh calls Io iIs cenIral
libraries could be considered, based on Ihe sIricIesI inIerpreIaIion ol Ihe licence, Io be
subjecI Io Ihe GFL. This would reduce Ihe use and disseminaIion ol GNU}Linux as an
operaIing sysIem Io an environmenI ol programs compaIible wiIh Ihe GFL.
NoneIheless, over Iime, L. Torvalds seems Io have evolved Iowards an inIerpreIaIion
closer Io IhaI ol R. SIallman...
TranslatIons. There are no ollicial IranslaIions ol Ihe GFLv2. In oIher words,
Ihe original English version shall be IhaI deIermined by Ihe Ierms ol disIribu-
Iion when Ihe original GFL is applied Io a work. There are unollicial Iransla-
Iions indicaIed on Ihe pages ol Ihe ESE, which iI does noI approve as legally
valid. II should be noIed IhaI il an auIhor applies a IranslaIed GFL Io iIs pro-
gram, Ihe IranslaIion ol Ihe licence should prevail, noI Ihe original GFL in
English (excepI as oIherwise indicaIed). Should Ihere be a IranslaIion error,
Ihe resulIs could noI only be unpleasanI, buI also horrilic lor Ihe lree solI-
ware communiIy. There would be "quasi-GFL" versions and modilicaIions ol
solIware (wiIh loreign hues) mixed IogeIher wiIh Irue GFL programs (in Iheir
English version).
CompatIbIlIty oI other lIcences wIth the GPLv2. A program is compaIible
lrom a legal perspecIive wiIh solIware under Ihe GFLv2, when disIribuIed in
Ierms IhaI are compaIible wiIh Ihose ol Ihis licence. They cannoI be more
resIricIive (as in Ihe case ol any non-lree licence), buI may be more permissive
(as in Ihe case ol Ihe modilied BSD licence or Ihe LGFL, which we shall sIudy
herealIer).
CompaIibiliIy wiIh Ihe GFL has Ihe dual advanIage ol laciliIaIing Ihe inIegraIion ol lree
componenIs in more complex and inIegraIed disIribuIions and plaIlorms, and ensuring
IhaI Ihe code may be inIegraIed learlessly wiIh 7S% ol Ihe lree solIware programs avail-
able over Ihe inIerneI.
NoIe IhaI GFLv3 is noI compaIible wiIh Ihe GFLv2 (buI iI is wiIh solIware
under Ihe GFL2 "and laIer versions"), making iI necessary lor Ihe owners ol
solIware under Ihe GFLv2 "alone" Io relicense iI upon Ihe Ierms ol Ihe GFLv3
(or a more permissive licence) il Ihey wish Io ensure such compaIibiliIy.
Some examgIex oI ncomgatbIt wth the GPLv2
The Clause ol Ihe original BSD licence and Ihe Apache 1.0 licence requiring Ihe in-
clusion ol a menIion ol Ihe original auIhors in any adverIising or promoIional ma-
Ierial ol Ihe program.
Clauses reserving righIs ol Ihe NeIscape Fublic License, allowing NeIscape Io bene-
liI lrom Ihird-parIy modilicaIions Io Ihe NavigaIor and incorporaIe Ihem inIo new
NeIscape producIs.
The expliciI ASL 2.0 paIenI licence (in Ihe opinion ol Ihe ESE).
The obligaIion Io obIain a "developer's licence" Io be able Io inIegraIe QI elemenIs
in applicaIions IhaI are noI Windows X SysIem, provided by Ihe QI licence.
4.2.2. erxon 3 oI the GPL
The process ol modernisaIion ol Ihe GFLv2 began in 200S and ended on 2
June 2007, when Ihe ESE published Ihe new GFLv3. Such modernisaIion re-
sponds Io various needs, among Ihe main ol which are Ihe lollowing:
Licence inIernaIionalisaIion.
Improved llexibiliIy.
Response Io auIhor's righIs managemenI sysIems (DRM) and Iheir legal
proIecIion.
ManagemenI ol legal issues relaIing Io solIware paIenIs.
To Ihese lour iIems, we could add one more: clarilying Ihe scope ol copylelI
wiIh respecI Io new Iechnologies and archiIecIures, dynamic links and Ihe
concepI ol source code.
The main dillerences wiIh respecI Io Ihe GFLv2 are discussed below.
a) DeIInItIons. EirsI ol all, besides a new deliniIion ol Frogram, You (user) and
Modily, Ihere is a new deliniIion: "complete corresponJn source coJe" (Clause
1) and Iwo new Ierms: propaate and convey (Clause 0).
The scope ol Ihe deliniIion ol source code is imporIanI, due Io Ihe obliga-
Iion Io disIribuIe or oller access Io Ihe source code (under Ihe GFL) ol any
execuIable disIribuIed wiIhouI Ihem (GFLv2, Clause 3).
GFLv2 delines source code as "Ihe prelerred lorm ol Ihe work (pro-
gram) lor making modilicaIions Io iI" and Ihe obligaIion Io provide
Ihe source code includes any "scripI necessary lor compiling Ihe pro-
gram".
In GFLv3, Ihe deliniIion ol source code is Ihe same, buI Ihe relevanI
obligaIion relers Io Ihe "compleIe corresponding source code", which
is, a priori, much broader: iI includes Ihe "code necessary Io generaIe,
insIall, run and modily (Ihe program)", Ihe scripIs lor perlorming Ihese
operaIions and deliniIions ol inIerlace and (expliciIly) Ihe source code
ol shared or dynamically-linked libraries IhaI Ihe program is designed
Io use.
The Ierms propagaIe and convey are used, according Io Ihe purpose ol
inIernaIionalisaIion ol Ihe licence, Io cover all acIs reserved by copyrighI
under any legal sysIem, wiIhouI menIioning such words as disIribuIe or
reproduce, which could be legally delined dillerenIly in various jurisdic-
Iions.
FropagaIe is used Io designaIe "any acIiviIy requiring auIhorisaIion
lrom Ihe owner ol Ihe program", excepI Ihe running ol Ihe program
and privaIe modilicaIions (i.e., Ihose noI desIined lor Ihird parIies).
Convey is a subgroup ol propagaIe lor Ihe purposes ol copylelI obliga-
Iions (which would acIivaIe wiIh Ihe "conveyance"): iI means Io per-
lorm an acI ol propagaIion resulIing in Ihe creaIion or obIaining ol
copies by Ihird parIies, lor insIance, Ihe delivery ol a copy Io a Ihird
parIy, public communicaIion ol Ihe solIware over Ihe inIerneI, shar-
ing iI on F2F neIworks, eIc.
b) RIghts granted. While Ihe GFLv2 indicaIes no auIhorisaIion is required
lrom Ihe owner Io run Ihe program (considering IhaI Ihe "use" ol a program
is noI subjecI Io copyrighI), Ihe GFL3 expressly granIs:
The unresIricIed righI Io run and modily Ihe program lor privaIe purposes.
The unresIricIed righI Io propagaIe Ihe program, provided iI does noI re-
sulI in Ihe conveyance ol Ihe solIware. This would Iherelore include Ihe
righI ol reproducIion, modilicaIion and inIernal "disIribuIions". II also al-
lows Ihe delivery ol Ihe solIware Io Ihird parIies uncondiIionally, when
done under a consulIing agreemenI whereby Ihe consulIanI is Io make
modilicaIions exclusively lor Ihe licensee (work-lor-hire).
The righI Io Iransler Ihe solIware under copylelI condiIions.
c) OblIgatIons. The basic obligaIions wiIh respecI Io Ihe copy and Ihe disIri-
buIion ol Ihe solIware are similar Io Ihose esIablished in Ihe GFLv2: iI is nec-
essary Io mainIain noIices ol auIhorship, Ihe licence, noIilicaIions ol changes,
eIc. Il Ihe program has a user inIerlace, iI musI conIain a sysIem lor publishing
copyrighI noIices, Ihe disclaimer and Ihe access Io Ihe licence an obligaIion
sIronger Ihan IhaI ol Ihe GFLv2.
Regarding Ihe copylelI sysIem, Ihe GFLv3 does noI change much eiIher:
II mainIains Ihe obligaIions Io convey any modilied work "as a whole"
"under Ihe same licence" (leIIer 2b ol Ihe GFLv2, now Sc).
II slighIly modilies Ihe obligaIion Io accompany any disIribuIion ol binary
code wiIh Ihe "compleIe corresponding source code" or oller access IhereIo
Io any Ihird parIy who has Ihe binary. The Ierm ol Ihis oller is Ihe greaIer
ol Ihree years, or Ihe duraIion ol any medium or oller ol "correcIions". The
cosI ol iIs disIribuIion may also be charged.
II specilies live ways Io make Ihis disIribuIion}oller (such as, lor insIance,
disIribuIion on CD, lrom inIerneI servers or sharing on F2F neIworks).
d) DRM. In Module 2 we discussed Ihe legal sysIem ol proIecIion ol copyrighIs
managemenI sysIems (DigiIal RighIs ManagemenI or DRM): iI is illegal Io "cir-
cumvenI" (i.e., crack) an ellecIive Iechnological measure, capable ol proIecI-
ing auIhor's righIs. The GFLv3 has Iwo mechanisms againsI Ihose sysIems,
which iI considers a violaIion ol Ihe lreedom ol Ihe users (Ihe ESE calls Ihem
DigiIal ResIricIions ManagemenI):
On Ihe one hand, iIs Clause 3 sIaIes IhaI by no means shall GFLv3 solIware
be considered parI ol an "ellecIive Iechnological mechanism ol proIecIion"
ol righIs and IhaI Ihe owners waive Ihe righI Io sue Ihird parIies lor any acI
ol elusion resulIing lrom Ihe mere exercise ol Ihe righIs assigned under Ihe
licence. By Ihese indirecI means, iI seeks Io allow IhaI any GFLv3 solIware
be modilied wiIhouI inlringing upon such rules, which would prohibiI
IhaI Iype ol "circumvenIion". The consequence soughI is IhaI iI will be
incompaIible Io disIribuIe GFL3 solIware on DRM programs whose licence
does noI allow access, modilicaIion or reengineering. WheIher Ihis works
legally is a subjecI ol debaIe, especially considering Ihe imperaIive naIure
ol Ihe sysIem ol proIecIion ol Ihese DRM sysIems.
On Ihe oIher hand, Ihe GFLv3 includes, in Ihe deliniIion ol "compleIe cor-
responding source code", excepIionally lor consumer producIs, Ihe access
and deciphering keys and Ihe inlormaIion lor insIalling and running mod-
ilied solIware. WiIh Ihe GFL3, manulacIurers and disIribuIors ol "closed"
devices lor users } consumers cannoI prevenI access Io Ihe device or de-
mand obIaining paymenI lor a key, lor insIance, Io "access" or run Ihe
device or modily iIs program code. Il Ihey did, Ihey would also have Io
surrender Ihe keys, codes and Ihe relevanI inlormaIion.
e) Patents. The paIenI proIecIion sysIem in Ihe GFLv3 is complex, due Io Ihe
various pracIices IhaI have arisen in Ierms ol solIware paIenIs. Under GFLv2,
any assignmenI ol paIenI righIs (Io a process implemenIed wiIh GFL solIware)
was impliciI, wiIh Ihe consequenI uncerIainIies in Ierms ol iIs legal ellecIs. In
GFLv3, Ihere are lour imporIanI Ierms (Clause 11):
The assignmenI ol paIenI righIs is made expliciIly: il someone has a paIenI
on Iheir conIribuIion Io solIware disIribuIed under GFLv3, iI granIs a
paIenI licence Io use, markeI and imporI Ihe conIribuIed solIware Io any-
one using such conIribuIion wiIhouI modilicaIions.
Any expliciI paIenI licence granIed Io a licensee shall be exIended Io all
licensees.
AddiIionally, a "cascading" proIecIion mechanism is soughI Io be esIab-
lished: Ihose disIribuIing solIware under GFL3, beneliIing lrom a paIenI
licence lrom a Ihird parIy, musI exIend iIs beneliI Io all licensees, or waive
Ihe beneliI, or guaranIee IhaI Ihe "corresponding source code" is available
Io all under Ihe condiIions ol GFLv3.
Regarding Ihe agreemenI beIween MicrosolI and Novell ol March 2007
(noI Io be covered by Ihe licence), il someone obIains specilic proIecIion
in respecI ol solIware under Ihe GFLv3 IhaI, in a discriminaIory man-
ner, may solely proIecI Ihem and Iheir licensees, such solIware cannoI be
Iranslerred under GFLv3.
I) Remote servIces or ApplIcatIon ServIce ProvIders (ASP). II was IhoughI
IhaI Ihe new licence would resIricI Ihe use ol GFL solIware by Ihose ollering
commercial services Io Iheir end users based on GFL solIware, wiIhouI dis-
IribuIing Iheir programs and sources (Google and Yahoo! are obvious exam-
ples) or IhaI Ihey would be compelled Io lurnish Ihe source code ol any ASF
service. In Ihe end, Ihis mechanism has been lelI lor Ihe Allero GFL and an
expliciI compaIibiliIy is included wiIh Ihe licence.
g) AddItIonal permIssIons. The GFLv3 allows adding some addiIional per-
missions (buI noI resIricIions), such as excepIions lrom iIs obligaIions. These
shall apply Io idenIilied solIware componenIs and may be eliminaIed by Ihe
licensees upon redisIribuIion. The LGFLv3 is an example ol Ihis, as iI consisIs
ol Ihe GFLv3 wiIh Ihe addiIional permission Io link Io programs "using Ihe
library" under any licence (as we shall see herealIer).
h) AddItIonal restrIctIons: lIcence compatIbIlIty. The "legal compaIibiliIy"
ol Ihe solIware is lundamenIal in Ihe developmenI ol lree solIware: iI means
being able Io mix Iwo programs wiIh dillerenI lree licences, wiIhouI eiIher
being in breach in redisIribuIion. The GFLv2 prohibiIs adding any addiIion-
al resIricIion noI included in Ihe licence iIsell. This has led Io licences wiIh
agreemenIs in respecI ol paIenIs, aIIribuIion ol auIhorship, use ol Irademarks,
noIices and disclaimers wiIh dillering Ierms, being declared "incompaIible"
wiIh Ihe GFLv2 by Ihe ESE (and by aIIorneys advising Iheir clienIs). The
GFLv3 makes an ellorI Io enhance Ihe seI ol lree licences compaIible Ihere-
wiIh Ihrough a new mechanism: allowing Ihe addiIion ol six Iypes ol addi-
Iional resIricIions on programs or code added Io Ihe GFL3 code.
The resIricIions are compaIible il Ihey reler Io:
MainIaining noIices ol auIhorship or oIher lorms ol aIIribuIion (lor insIance, noIices
ol "powered by" or "abouI" windows) and obligaIions Io indicaIe any modilicaIion
made Io Ihem.
Disclaimers (warranIy exclusions and liabiliIy limiIaIions) in Ierms oIher Ihan Ihose
ol Ihe GFL3.
How Io indicaIe modilicaIions.
ResIricIions on Ihe use ol Ihe names ol auIhors lor adverIising purposes (Ihe lormer
BSD licence conIinues Io be incompaIible).
GranIing righIs or prohibiIions in respecI ol Ihe Irademarks.
IndemniIies lor conIribuIors.
The Apache 2.0 licence is an example ol licence IhaI is now GFLv3 compaIible.
4.2.3. Other Icencex wth xtrong{er} cogIeIt
While Ihe GFL is considered Io have (debaIably) Ihe sIrongesI degree ol copy-
lelI, encompassing boIh derivaIive works and works which, on a wider inIer-
preIaIion, could be considered based or dependenI on Ihe GFL code (or con-
Iain iI), oIher lree solIware licenses have a sIrong copylelI ellecI.
Common and LclIpse PublIc LIcenses. The CFL and Ihe EFL (and Iheir pre-
decessor, Ihe IBM Fublic License) are legal insIrumenIs developed by IBM, wiIh
a lormaI dillering lrom IhaI ol Ihe GFL and Ihe BSD, Ihe Iwo predominanI
models. The CFL is closer Io Ihe Mozilla Fublic License, as iI has a more "legal-
like" lorm (including deliniIions and governing law) and covers such issues
as indemniIies among conIribuIors and paIenI licences. They are well dralIed
licences lrom a legal perspecIive and leave much less room lor doubI Ihan
Ihe GFLv2, lor insIance. DeliniIions are clear, as is Ihe scope ol Ihe righIs and
obligaIions. Our main commenI is IhaI Ihe licence is incompaIible wiIh Ihe
GFLv2 due Io Ihe obligaIion Io license any paIenI ol Ihe conIribuIors and
compensaIe Ihe co-auIhors in Ihe evenI ol claims by commercial users (cross-
indemniIy among conIribuIors). A priori, we undersIand IhaI Ihis conIinues
Io be incompaIible wiIh Ihe GFLv3, alIhough iI Ioo has a quiIe similar paIenI
licence, as regards commercial indemnilicaIion.
AladdIn Free PublIc LIcense (AEFL) The Aladdin Eree Fublic License (AEFL),
relaIing Io GhosIscripI, warranIs special menIion as iI has a parIicular naIure.
II does noI comply wiIh OSD, alIhough iI is direcIly inspired by Ihe GFL.
WhaI is inIeresIing is IhaI, while Ihe laIesI available version ol GhosIscripI
is disIribuIed under Ihe AEFL and requires obIaining a non-lree licence lor
commercial uses, Ihe penulIimaIe version ol Ihe solIware is released under
Ihe GFL. Therelore, Ihe "besI" version ol Ihe program is markeIed and lree
developers may Iake advanIage ol Ihe oldesI code.
Sleepycat SoItware Product LIcense (Berkeley DaIabase). This is a licence ap-
plied, mosI ol all, Io a daIabase engine ol Ihe SleepycaI corporaIion (lormerly
Berkeley DaIabase). II lollows Ihe simple model ol Ihe BSD licence, which we
shall discuss herealIer, and adds an obligaIion Io disIribuIe or make available
Ihe source code ol Ihe solIware and ol any oIher program using Ihe solIware.
Such a program musI also be lreely redisIribuIable under reasonable Ierms
(copylelI). Open and lree licences are considered reasonable, as is Ihe GFL.
GPL AIIero 1.0. Allero is solIware lor managing and exIending virIual com-
muniIies wiIh raIing and e-commerce luncIions. The licence is a variaIion ol
Ihe GFLv2, dralIed wiIh Ihe aid ol Ihe ESE. The licence covers Ihe case ol Ihe
archiIecIure ol programs disIribuIed on neIworks or services linked by web
services. In Ihis case, Ihe user } licensee does noI receive Ihe program as solI-
ware disIribuIion, buI as a web service, and may oller Ihe same service Io Ihird
parIies, avoiding Ihe copylelI obligaIions ol Clause 2b. The Allero licence adds
Io Ihe GFLv2 a Clause "2d", which provides IhaI il a service ollered over Ihe
web by Ihe original program were Io have a luncIion Io provide Ihe source
code also over Ihe web, Ihe licensee cannoI eliminaIe IhaI luncIion and musI
oller access Io Ihe source code ol Ihe derived work over Ihe web.
AIIero GPLv3. The new Allero GFLv3 licence is basically Ihe GFL wiIh an
addiIional agreemenI Io cover Ihe same scenario as menIioned wiIh respecI Io
Allero 1.0. In Ihis case (ASF), users ol remoIe services musI be granIed access
Io Ihe source code. The GFLv3 is expressly compaIible wiIh Allero GFLv3 and
vice versa.
LIcence OpenSSL / SSLeay. This licence applies Io SSL securiIy programs. II is
a combinaIion ol Ihe Open SSL and SSLeay licences. II is modelled on Ihe BSD
licence and adds Io Ihe end ol Ihe SSLeay licence a copylelI clause requiring
IhaI any derived work be disIribuIed upon Ihe same Ierms. Mixing Ihis code
wiIh GFL code is expressly prohibiIed. II is also incompaIible wiIh Ihe GFL
inasmuch as iI has a clause wiIh respecI Io adverIising and Ihe aIIribuIion ol
auIhorship (derived lrom Ihe earlier version ol Ihe BSD and Ihe Apache).
4.3. Lcencex wth weaR cogIeIt
In Ihis secIion we shall discuss lree licences IhaI are known a having a weak
copylelI ellecI: Ihey are disIinguished lrom sIrong copylelI in IhaI Ihey allow
lor Iheir inIegraIion, use and redisIribuIion in programs subjecI Io oIher li-
cences, buI mainIain Iheir own code subjecI Io copylelI.
4.3.1. The GNL Lexxer {or Lbrar} GeneraI PubIc Lcenxe {LGPL}
The GNU Lesser General Fublic License (or Library GFL) is Ihe second licence
dralIed by Ihe Eree SolIware EoundaIion. IniIially, Ihis licence was known as
Ihe "Library GFL", as iI was designed expressly Io be applied Io compuIer li-
braries.
The ESE laIer changed iIs name Io "Lesser GFL" as iI considered IhaI iI guaranIeed less
lreedom Ihan iIs older sisIer, Ihe GFL. IIs version 2.1 is ol Eebruary 1 and, in June
2007, version 3.0 was published, which is a variaIion ol Ihe GFLv3, discussed above.
In Ihe preceding secIions we have menIioned IhaI when a program links Io a
solIware componenI, wheIher iI be sIaIically or Ihrough a dynamically-shared
componenI or AFI, Ihe combinaIion is considered a work "based on" or "de-
rived lrom" Ihe original solIware. Il Ihe solIware is under Ihe GFL, many argue
IhaI Ihis link would lorce disIribuIion ol Ihe enIire linal program under Ihe
GFL. The LGFLv2 was creaIed specilically Io allow cerIain lree solIware com-
ponenIs libraries wiIh non-lree programs, wiIhouI allecIing Ihe resulIing
program. Therelore, a library wiIh LGFLv2 ollers a cerIain comlorI or cerIainIy
lor Ihe developers ol non-lree applicaIions wishing Io link Iheir programs wiIh
componenIs under lree licences, buI IhaI lear Ihe copylelI ellecI ol Ihe GFL.
1heLCPLv2derivesfromLhe
CPLv2andmosLofiLsLerms
aresimilarLoLhoseLhereof.
WeLhereforereferLoLhesec-
LiononLheCPL(boLhversion
2andversion3).Hereweshall
solelycommenLoniLsdisLin-
guishingelemenLs.
As lor Ihe GFL, Ihe LGFLv2 delines program and source code. II also includes
Ihree new deliniIions:
LIbrary: consisIs ol a series ol solIware componenIs desIined lor linking
wiIh programs (using Ihe luncIions incorporaIed in libraries) Io creaIe an
execuIable.
LIbrary-based worR: conIains Ihe deliniIion ol program in Ihe GFL and
means Ihe original library or any derived work Ihereol, according Io Ihe
deliniIion provided by copyrighI law, i.e., work conIaining iI or parI ol iI.
WorR usIng a lIbrary: is separaIe work conIaining no parI or derived work
ol Ihe library, buI raIher is desIined lor being run wiIh Ihe library Ihrough
compilaIion or links.
Regarding Ihe same library and iIs modilicaIions, Ihe condiIions applicable are
Ihose ol Ihe GFL. The main dillerence wiIh Ihe GFL is IhaI Ihe LGFL allows lor
Ihe unresIricIed disIribuIion ol an execuIable, consisIing ol Ihe compilaIion,
on Ihe one hand, ol works using Ihe library and, on Ihe oIher, Ihe library iIsell
(Clause o). This is Ihe excepIion Io Ihe regular copylelI clause ol Ihe GFL.
NoneIheless, Ihe recipienI musI be allowed Io modily Ihe program (even Ihe work "using
Ihe library") lor parIicular use and lor perlorming reverse engineering operaIions Io cor-
recI errors (Iherelore, iI is argued IhaI alIhough Ihere is no copylelI, iI remains necessary
Io provide Ihe source code).
As an addiIional condiIion, Ihe LGFL applied Io iIs library may be converIed
inIo Ihe GFL aI any Iime (Ihere is no Iurning back) (Clause 3). We should also
noIe IhaI Ihe LGFLv2 is compaIible wiIh Ihe GFLv2, buI noI wiIh GFLv3 or
LGFLv3.
Due Io iIs language, Ihe LGFL is desIined lor use by libraries. BuI iIs use is noI
resIricIed Io Ihem, as Ihere are oIher programs disIribuIed wiIh Ihis licence
(lor insIance, OpenOllice.org). The auIhors ol Ihe solIware are lree Io use Ihe
licence ol Iheir choice, regardless ol Iheir program.
The ESE no longer recommends Ihe use ol Ihe LGFL, excepI lor sIraIegic reasons: Ihe use
ol Ihe LGFL allows Ihe broader disIribuIion and use ol iIs code and, Iherelore, lavours Ihe
esIablishmenI ol a componenI a library, a program module eIc. as Ihe sIandard in Ihe
secIor. The LGFL does noI, however, lavour Ihe developmenI ol lree applicaIions, which
is a lundamenIal objecIive lor Ihe ESE, and Iherelore does noI receive iIs lull approval.
As a pracIical commenI, we should noIe IhaI, wiIhin Ihe limiIs ol Ihe Iech-
nical maIIers ol Ihe Iype ol link beIween Iwo programs, iI is possible Io com-
bine, inIegraIe and disIribuIe libraries under Ihe LGFL wiIh solIware under
any oIher licence, even non-lree. An example ol Ihis Iype ol solIware is Ihe C
library (libgcc) disIribuIed wiIh Linux, which may be used Io develop non-lree
programs running on Linux.
LGPLv3
LGFLv3 is an expliciI variaIion on GFLv3, i.e., iI is GFLv3 plus addiIional
permissions. Such permissions auIhorise Ihe use ol Ihe library in quesIion by
a Ihird-parIy program and licensing "as a whole" under a licence oIher Ihan
Ihe LGFL. II also does noI apply Clause 3 on DRM sysIems.
4.3.2. MozIIa PubIc Lcenxe
The Mozilla Fublic License (MFL) was developed along wiIh Ihe NeIscape Fub-
lic License in 18, when NeIscape "opened" (as open solIware) Ihe code ol
iIs inIerneI browser, NeIscape NavigaIor. The developmenI ol Ihe licence was
a collaboraIive ellorI beIween several ol Ihe "gurus" ol Ihe open movemenI,
such as Linus Torvalds, Bruce Ferens and Eric Raymond. They iniIially soughI
Io persuade NeIscape Io use Ihe GFLv2, buI lacing Ihe relusal by NeIscape and
Ihe need Io respecI Ihe inIellecIual properIy ol Ihird parIies, Ihey ended up
disIribuIing Ihe code under Ihe NFL.
ConsulIing wiIh Ihe communiIy. Belore opening iIs source code Io Ihe public, NeIscape
disIribuIed a dralI ol Ihe proposed licence on a newsgroup creaIed especially Io gaIher
opinions on Ihe maIIer (neIscape.public.mozilla.license). The process ol open develop-
menI lor Ihe solIware carried over Io Ihe lree world and awoke greaI enIhusiasm... and
criIicism. There were several proposals Io modily some ol Ihe Ierms ol Ihe NFL, especially
IhaI which allowed NeIscape Io use Ihe same code in oIher producIs noI under Ihe NFL.
This process has been lollowed by Ihe Eree SolIware EoundaIion in dralIing Ihe GFLv3.
In Ihe end, seeking balance beIween Ihe commercial and lree developmenI objecIives ol
NeIscape and Ihe lree communiIy, iI was resolved Io issue Iwo licences: Ihe NFL and Ihe
MFL. The lirsI was applied Io Ihe iniIial code ol Ihe NavigaIor and Io Ihe modilicaIions
made IhereIo, and is no longer used. The second was applied Io any solIware added Io
Ihe code and Io any compleIely- new program wishing Io use Ihe licence. The MFL is
now used lor several programs, including Ihe Eirelox navigaIor and oIher programs lrom
Mozilla.org. The Iwo licences are idenIical, excepI lor some righIs reserved by NeIscape
in Ihe NFL lor iIs iniIial code, which is only ol "hisIorical" value.
The MFL has a classic solIware licence sIrucIure and begins wiIh imporIanI
deliniIions permiIIing, among oIher Ihings, disIinguishing beIween whaI is
original code and whaI is added code.
InItIal developer: in Ihe case ol Ihe NFL, NeIscape, in code under Ihe MFL,
Ihe iniIial auIhor indicaIed in Ihe annex Io Ihe licence and any auIhor
ol conIribuIions.
InItIal code: code disIribuIed by iniIial developers.
ModIIIcatIon: any modilicaIion Io Ihe covered code noI including a sim-
ple addiIion ol a new separaIe lile or a new code acIing wiIh Ihe original
code wiIhouI modilying iI (lor insIance, Ihrough an AFI even il Ihe AFI
iIsell could be a modilicaIion, il inIegraIed in Ihe covered code. The word
"modilicaIion" does noI reler Io Ihe enIire new work (as is Ihe case wiIh
Ihe GFL), which may also be a "derived work" under Ihe law, buI raIher
relers solely Io Ihe modilied parI.
Covered code (covered by Ihe licence): iniIial code plus modilicaIions.
ContrIbutor: any Ihird parIy modilying Ihe covered code.
Larger worR: a work separaIe lrom Ihe covered code buI IhaI may incor-
poraIe iI or may link Io iI, wiIhouI modilying iI (Clause 3.7).
The meaning ol "modilicaIion", summarised here, clarilies many Ihings IhaI Ihe GFLv2
did noI make clear especially Ihe maIIer ol addiIional new liles IhaI do noI modily any
parI ol Ihe iniIial code aI developmenI. II Iherelore allows a developer Io add separaIe
liles and programs (non-lree or lree) and disIribuIe Ihem separaIely lrom Ihe covered
code, buI as parI ol a larger program (poIenIially non-lree).
a) RIghts granted. As wiIh all lree solIware licences, Ihe iniIial developer, lirsI,
granIs a licence lor Ihe lree use, reproducIion, modilicaIion and disIribuIion
ol Ihe code and, second, a paIenI licence IhaI is sullicienI Io allow Ihe use ol
Ihe program and modilicaIions (Clause 2.1).
Each conIribuIor provides similar licences in relaIion Io Iheir conIribuIion
or modilicaIion (Clause 2.2).
The code may be disIribuIed in binary under a licence compaIible wiIh
Ihe MFL, provided Ihe obligaIions conIained in Ihe licence are respecIed,
such as access Io Ihe source code, lor insIance (Clause 3.o).
The covered code may be included in a "greaIer work" (including iI, buI
noI modilying iI) under any licence, provided Ihe obligaIions relaIing Io
Ihe covered code are respecIed (Clause 3.7), lor example, access Io source
code.
b) OblIgatIons. The source code ol Ihe iniIial code and any modilicaIion (cov-
ered code) musI be disIribuIed under Ihe MFL, wiIhouI more resIricIive claus-
es (copylelI lor Ihe covered code, Clause 3.1). Il Ihe covered code is disIribuI-
ed in binary, access Io iIs source code musI be ollered Io Ihe recipienI ol Ihe
disIribuIion lor aI leasI Iwelve monIhs (Clause 3.2). II is necessary Io accom-
pany any modilicaIion wiIh a copy ol a licence and an indicaIion ol Ihe mod-
ilicaIions and Iheir auIhors, and indicaIion ol any known claim Io Ihe code
(legal.IxI) (Clause 3.3-3.S).
The MFL is a compleIe licence imiIaIed Io some exIenI by Ihe CDDL, Ihe
CFL, Ihe OSL and now, dare we say iI, Ihe GFLv3. II is a much more clear
and compleIe licence Ihan Ihe GFLv2 and, evidenIly, Ihan Ihe BSD. II was
dralIed wiIh and by aIIorneys in Ihe conIexI ol a commercial company and
Ihus includes specilic deliniIions and conIains IradiIional maIIers relaIing Io
licences, such as compeIenI jurisdicIion and governing law.
AlIhough iIs ellecI could seem closer Io Ihe BSD Ihan Ihe GFL, Ihere are several
imporIanI maIIers IhaI we musI consider and we shall discuss in Ihis secIion:
The MFL has parIial reciprociIy or copylelI, as does Ihe LGFL: Ihe covered
code (including any modilicaIion) musI be kepI under Ihe MFL, while
any exIension (larger work) may be non-lree. II is also very easy Io creaIe
an addiIional non-lree lile calling Ihe original code under Ihe MFL and
disIribuIing iI enIirely under a non-lree licence. This conIinues wiIh Ihe
philosophy ol Ihe BSD licence. NoneIheless, in all cases, Ihe source code
ol Ihe original lree parI musI be disIribuIed or ollered Io Ihe recipienI.
This may all be illusIraIed as lollows:
Any solIware under Ihe MFL 1.0 (and Ihe MFL 1.1 wiIh no alIernaIive li-
cence) is incompaIible wiIh Ihe GFLv2 and Ihe GFLv3, lundamenIally as
iI conIains Ioo many addiIional resIricIions relaIing Io paIenIs (alIhough
Ihe GFLv3 is close in IhaI aspecI) and Ihe possibiliIy ol linking Io non-lree
programs, among oIher Ihings. The possibiliIy ol mulIiple licences ollered
by version 1.1 allows compaIibiliIy il Ihe GFL is chosen as an alIernaIive
licence (Ihe source code ol Ihe programs ol Mozilla.org, lor insIance). Eig-
ure 3. IllusIraIion ol persisIence ol Ihe MFL.
FaIenI clauses. As we have already seen in relaIion Io Ihe GFLv3 and Ihe
CFL, Ihe IerminaIion clause (in Ihis case clause 8), combined wiIh Ihe
paIenI licences (Clause 2.1), is parI ol a new generaIion ol clauses in lree
licences Io creaIe a work environmenI lree ol paIenIs and lree ol Ihe risk
ol paIenIs. II consIiIuIes whaI is known as "paIenI cross licensing". Devel-
opers cannoI prevenI a person lrom requesIing and obIaining a paIenI on
a process IhaI may be parI ol a modilicaIion ol Ihe iniIial program (in
Ihe UniIed SIaIes). The risk is IhaI Ihe use or a subsequenI modilicaIion
ol Ihe solIware could inlringe upon a paIenI il Ihe user does noI use an
appropriaIe paIenI licence.
These clauses therejore seel two thns:
On the one hanJ, the "patentn" person must rant all other lcensees (users
anJ Jevelopers) a patent lcence wth respect to the patenteJ process or coJe
ncluJeJ n ther contrhuton.
AJJtonally, the lcences oj author's rhts (anJ patents, j any) ranteJ to
such "patentn" person shall he cancelleJ n the event oj any ltaton or
attempt to prevent the jree explotaton oj the moJjcaton.
Commercial balance. The concepIs ol modilicaIion and larger work have
been carelully prepared Io lind a balance beIween Ihe lreedom ol Ihe BSD,
allowing an unlimiIed use ol Ihe code and Ihe lreedom ol Ihe GFL, requir-
ing IhaI all code and lree derived works should be mainIained, i.e., be-
Iween Ihe promoIion ol Ihe developmenI ol lree solIware by commercial
companies and Ihe proIecIion ol Ihe work ol "lree" developers. This lair
mid-ground has been delined by Ihe dillerence beIween a modilicaIion
and an addiIion. We should bear in mind IhaI Ihe GFL, in conIrasI, allecIs
Ihe addiIions inIimaIely linked Io solIware under Ihe GFL.
leal.txt. This is a lile where Ihe conIribuIors musI include noIices ol any
claims, liIigaIion or resIricIion on any parI ol Ihe code. II evidences a clear
knowledge ol Ihe process ol lree developmenI, in which Ihe risk ol claims
relaIing Io inIellecIual and indusIrial properIy is high and IransparenI in-
lormaIion is essenIial. A subsequenI developer musI use Ihis lile Io sIudy
Ihe legal limiIaIions ol code provided by Ihird parIies, perhaps in relaIion
Io a paIenI liIigaIion, perhaps due Io Ihe limiIaIions ol cerIain parIs ol
Ihe code IhaI may be under a licence IhaI is compaIible buI dillers lrom
Ihe MFL...
4.3.3. Ogen Source Lcenxe {OSL}
The Open Source License (OSL, now version 3.0) is a licence wiIh a weak copy-
lelI, dralIed in a neuIral manner by Ihe legal advisor ol Ihe OSI, Lawrence
Rosen. II is a compleIe licence (deliniIions, licence expliciI Io Ihe various
righIs, eIc.) and conlorms beIIer Ihan oIhers Io Ihe legal lramework ol inIel-
lecIual properIy in Europe and limiIaIions regarding warranIies and liabiliIies.
The OSL 3.0 limiIs iIs copylelI ellecI Io JerveJ worls accorJn to the ntellectual
property law applied in each case. II is argued IhaI Ihe GFLv2 is soughI Io be
exIended beyond whaI is permiIIed by auIhor's righIs alone (reproducIion,
modilicaIion, public communicaIion and disIribuIion) and could be limiIed
by a sIricI inIerpreIaIion ol Ihe law. The scope ol Ihe copylelI ol Ihe OSL is
sIricIly wiIhin Ihe scope ol exclusive righIs ol Ihe auIhors under inIellecIual
properIy.
This would allow, lor insIance, Ihe linking solIware under Ihe OSL 3.0, as libraries or
wiIh dynamic links, and Ihe licence would noI "allecI" Ihe solIware using such libraries,
Io Ihe exIenI IhaI Ihey were noI "derived works" ol Ihe original solIware.
Beyond Ihe copylelI provisions, Ihe deliniIion ol governing law and compe-
IenI jurisdicIion (in lavour ol Ihe licensor) is more lavourable lor Ihe auIhors
and solIware disIribuIors. AddiIionally, wiIh an express warranIy ol IiIle Io Ihe
solIware and coverage in respecI ol willul misconducI and personal damages,
Ihe warranIy and liabiliIy limiIaIions shall be more valid in Europe. Einally,
disIribuIion wiIhin a group ol companies is noI considered disIribuIion lor Ihe
purposes ol copylelI obligaIions, as is Ihe disIribuIion ol Ihe services provided
by Ihe solIware (in ASF or "SaaS" mode) in which case iI would be necessary
Io provide Ihe recipienI ol Ihe services a copy ol Ihe source code.
4.3.4. Other Icencex wth "weaR" cogIeIt or "hbrd"
There are a number ol oIher lree solIware licences lollowing Ihe weak copylelI
model or IeneIs ol Ihe LGFL and Ihe MFL. Each licence has been creaIed lor a
specilic or generic purpose, and musI be undersIood and chosen in accordance
wiIh iIs own wording and meriIs applied Io Ihe specilic case.
Apple PublIc Source LIcense v. 2: A variaIion ol Ihe MFL creaIed by Apple,
wiIh new elemenIs, such as governing law (Calilornia), and covering Ihe pos-
sibiliIy ol ollering services over Ihe inIerneI (exIernally deployable), similar
Io Ihe Allero.
CDDL: This is a generic version ol Ihe MFL creaIed by Sun MicrosysIems
wiIh some modilicaIions and wiIhouI Ihe commercial name Mozilla. Used lor
OpenSolaris, among oIher programs. The main dillerences wiIh Ihe MFL is
IhaI iI does noI include "scripIs lor Ihe creaIion ol execuIables" or AFI, eIc., in
Ihe deliniIion ol source code. In case ol disIribuIion ol Ihe binary, Ihe source
code musI be generally published (noI limiIed Io disIribuIion recipienIs). The
leal.txt lile ol Ihe MFL has been eliminaIed. The paIenI peace is limiIed: Ihe
paIenI licence is revoked in case ol claims based on paIenIs wiIh respecI Io
processes implemenIed by Ihe covered code. Governing law is llexible, delined
by Ihe original owners. CopylelI includes disIribuIions ol services ol Ihe pro-
gram Io clienIs in ASF mode (sources musI be ollered Io Ihe service recipienI).
LUPL 1.1. The European Union Fublic Licence is a new licence (ol January
2007), expressly dralIed lor Ihe release ol solIware by Ihe European Fublic
AdminisIraIion and Ihe member counIries ol Ihe European Union. The scope
ol copylelI is similar Io IhaI ol Ihe OSL, iI conIains a paIenI licence and Ihe
limiIaIions on warranIies and liabiliIies are valid wiIhin Ihe general consumer
proIecIion lramework and Ihe accession agreemenIs ol Ihe European Union.
To esIablish an express compaIibiliIy wiIh oIher copylelI licences, iI conIains a
compaIibiliIy agreemenI wiIh oIher licences included in an aIIachmenI (cur-
renIly Ihe GFLv2, Ihe LGFLv2, Ihe OSL, Ihe CFL and Ihe CeCiLL, a Erench
copylelI licence): in case ol mixing solIware under Ihe EUFL wiIh solIware
under such licences, Ihe solIware could be disIribuIed under Ihe new licence.
The European Commission has published ollicial IranslaIions in Ihe languages
ol Ihe European Union.
eCos lIcence 2.0 and Classpath. This is an ESE licence on Ihe Embedded Con-
ligurable OperaIing SysIem. II basically consisIs ol Ihe GFL plus an excepIion
IhaI allows linking Ihe program Io oIher programs IhaI are noI under Ihe GFL
and wiIh ellecIs quiIe similar Io Ihe LGFL. WheIher inIegraIed by compiling
or linking Io a non-lree program disIribuIed in binary, Ihe eCos source code
musI be provided or made available. ClasspaIh conIains Ihe same excepIion.
WhaI is inIeresIing Io noIe is IhaI Sun has published a large parI ol Ihe Java
plaIlorm under Ihe GFL, wiIh Ihe excepIion ol ClasspaIh.
CPAL: Common Fublic AIIribuIion License is a variaIion ol Ihe MFL, wiIh an
expliciI "AIIribuIion clause" IhaI requires publishing eiIher on Ihe user inIer-
lace or anoIher manner, aIIribuIion Io Ihe original developer ol Ihe code.
4.4. Other "Iree" Icencex
In Ihe previous secIion we sIudied in depIh Ihe main lree licences and dis-
cussed Iheir leaIures, Iheir compaIibiliIy and consequences. In Ihis secIion,
we wish Io compleIe our analysis ol "lree" licences. We will commenI, in order,
Ihe lollowing:
Licences IhaI we shall reler Io as "pseudo-lree", seeking Io emulaIe lree
licences buI conIaining a resIricIion IhaI does noI meeI Ihe lreedoms ol
Ihe ESE or OSD guidelines.
Eree documenIaIion licences.
Ereeware and shareware licences, which are by no means "lree".
4.4.1. The rxe and IaII oI "gxeudo-Iree" xoItware Icencex
AlIhough in Ihis module we have locused on lree solIware licences, iI is in-
IeresIing Io presenI a briel analysis ol Ihe licences creaIed by commercial en-
Ierprises seeking Io beneliI lrom a lree developmenI model wiIhouI paying
all iIs "cosIs". EirsI ol all, Ihis is indicaIive ol Ihe array ol possibiliIies beIween
lree and non-lree. II also allows clarilying Ihe posiIion ol such companies
in IhaI regard and indicaIing some sIraIegies IhaI musI be avoided lrom Ihe
viewpoinI ol lree licences. We have observed IhaI Ihe role ol Shared Source
licences has diminished, due Io Ihe IrusI and populariIy gained by Iruly-lree
solIware licences, and Ihe criIicism received Ihereby aI Ihe Iime.
The Sun CommuniIy Source License (SCSL) was an aIIempI Io oller access
Io Ihe code and programming environmenIs ol Sun MicrosysIems Inc., lor
insIance Java or Jini, and Io esIablish iI as a sIandard. In Ihis sense, iI has had
greaI success, especially in Ierms ol Java. The "componenIs" included in Ihe
Sun CommuniIy License were J2EE, Ihe Java Developers KiI (JDK), Fersonal
Java and Embedded Java, among oIhers. The shared source era ol Sun has
noneIheless almosI ended, inasmuch as in November 200o, Sun MicrosysIems
released mosI ol Ihe programs lorming Ihe Java Iechnological environmenI
under Ihe GFL (wiIh Ihe excepIion ol ClasspaIh).
The SCSL was, above all, a licence lor developers. II is "open" mainly lor re-
search and developmenI purposes, buI allows Sun Io mainIain a sIrong con-
Irol ol Ihe evoluIion ol Ihe program and programming environmenIs. Con-
cepIually, iI was a licence IhaI was hallway beIween Ihe MFL and a non-lree
licence: iI allows correcIions, modilicaIions and exIensions, buI any ol Ihese
musI be reIurned Io Sun.
In 200o-2007, pressured by Ihe lree communiIy, Ihe rise ol new lree projecIs
Io creaIe Java Iechnologies Io replace Sun solIware and Ihe accepIance by Sun
ol Ihe beneliIs ol lree solIware, Ihe company began Io adopI a posiIion more
lavouring lree solIware. II lirsI opened Opensolaris, iIs operaIing sysIem, un-
der Ihe CDDL and creaIed a projecI and a communiIy around Ihe solIware. II
laIer published iIs parI ol Ihe paIenI pledge againsI Opensolaris users. Einal-
ly, in November 200o, iI released iIs Java Iechnologies under a GFLv2, wiIh
Ihe ClasspaIh excepIion (which allows using Ihe libraries wiIhouI a copylelI
ellecI).
4.4.2. McroxoIt Shared Source 1ntatve {MSS1}
MicrosolI also creaIed a series ol over Ien "semi-lree" licences lor parI ol iIs
programs. They applied Io Ihe CE operaIing sysIem lor porIable devices, CLI
(Common Language InlrasIrucIure) and Ihe specilicaIions ol C#, and also in-
cluded elemenIs ol Windows 2000 and XF. This "gesIure" especially allowed
Ihe academic sIudy ol Ihe Iechnologies in quesIion and, lor commercial com-
panies creaIing producIs running on such plaIlorms, a beIIer inIegraIion ol
M55I
AbouLLheMSSl,seeLheMi-
crosofLwebsiLe.
Iheir programs wiIh Ihose ol MicrosolI. II also allowed MicrosolI Io disclose
Ihe source code ol several applicaIions Io governmenI organisaIions, under
very sIricI secrecy condiIions.
There were several Iypes ol licence as parI ol iIs Shared Source iniIiaIive. The
basic model, lor insIance, Ihe Shared Source licence ol CE, opened Ihe code Io
researchers and sIudenIs: Ihe source code could be downloaded and sIudied,
and code modilicaIions could only be used, modilied and disIribuIed lor non
commercial use, provided Ihe same licence was mainIained. LaIer, wiIh Ihe
Windows CE Shared Source Fremium Licensing Frogram, manulacIurers ol
OEM devices had access Io Ihe source code ol Windows CE and Ihe righI Io
modily and disIribuIe Ihe modilicaIions commercially. They were noneIheless
required Io license any modilicaIion Io MicrosolI lree ol charge, allowing lor
iI Io incorporaIe such modilicaIions in subsequenI versions ol Ihe solIware
alIer a six-monIh period.
OIher MSSI licences conIain variaIions ol Ihese righIs granIed and reserved. The licence
lor ASF.neI, lor insIance, allows any commercial and non commercial use, buI prohibiIs
combining and disIribuIing Ihe ASF.neI program wiIh any lree programs and especially
under copylelI condiIions.
In OcIober 200S, MicrosolI reduced iIs Shared Source licences Io live: Ihree
basic licences and Iwo varianIs, limiIed Io Ihe Windows plaIlorms. The Ihree
basic licences are:
MIcrosoIt PublIc LIcense (Ms-PL). This is a permissive licence, copylelI
lor disIribuIions made in source code lormaI, buI permissive lor disIribu-
Iions in binary lormaI. ConIains a variaIion limiIed Io Iechnologies lor
Windows. Approved by Ihe OSI and compaIible wiIh Ihe GFLv3.
MIcrosoIt RecIprocal LIcense (Ms-CL). This is a reciprocal licence or
copylelI, wiIh ellecIs similar Io IhaI ol Ihe Mozilla licence: Ihe copylelI
ellecI is delined based on Ihe original liles and Ihe liles ol a "greaIer work"
(using Ihe original liles) may be disIribuIed under any licence. II also has
a varianI limiIed Io Iechnologies lor Windows. II is approved by Ihe OSI
buI noI compaIible wiIh Ihe GFL.
MIcrosoIt ReIerence LIcense (Ms-RL). This is a licence similar Io Ihe lor-
mer Shared Source licences, which allows copying Ihe program lor inIer-
nal use, buI noI iIs modilicaIion or disIribuIion.
4.5. Free documentaton Icencex
Eree licences are applied mosIly, buI noI exclusively, Io solIware. A series ol
lree licences have been creaIed lor documenIaIion, especially as solIware is
accompanied by Iechnical documenIaIion, which is olIen necessary lor iIs
use. II would noI make sense Io disIribuIe lree solIware wiIhouI disIribuIing
Ihe relevanI documenIaIion under similar Ierms. This led Ihe ESE Io creaIe
Ihe General Eree DocumenI License Io accompany iIs programs. AddiIionally,
lollowing Ihe Irend Io open knowledge, oIher licences have been creaIed on
documenIaIion and maIerials, especially academic. We shall presenI an exam-
ple: Ihe CreaIive Commons iniIiaIive.
4.5.1. The GNL Free Oocumentaton Lcenxe {GFOL}
The GEDL is generally used lor licensing Iechnical documenIaIion, user man-
uals and oIher relevanI IexIs lor lree solIware. II is modelled upon Ihe GFL, buI
changes iIs condiIions Io adapI Io wriIIen IexI raIher Ihan solIware. The li-
cence seeks balance Io allow modilicaIions (especially Ihose necessary Io doc-
umenI a modilicaIion ol Ihe solIware), mainIain Ihe auIhorship ol Ihe iniIial
work and respecI Ihe ideas and opinions ol Ihe original auIhors.
The licence delines several elemenIs ol a documenI Io esIablish Ihe righIs
and obligaIions corresponding Io each, lor insIance "secondary secIions" (legal
noIices, dedicaIions, acknowledgemenIs, eIc.) and "invariable secIions" (sec-
ondary secIions IhaI cannoI be modilied).
The GEDL granIs several righIs relaIing Io copying, disIribuIion, modilicaIion,
aggregaIion and combinaIion, collecIion and IranslaIion ol Ihe original doc-
umenI. These righIs generally granIed, subjecI Io Ihe respecIing Ihe original
auIhorship, mainIaining cerIain idenIilied parIs ol Ihe IexI unchanged, and
supplying access Io a "IransparenI" version ol Ihe documenI (Ihe equivalenI
ol Ihe source code ol a program, being a legible copy, modiliable by a Ihird
parIy using lree or generic programs, such as ASCII, XML wiIh public DTD,
HTML lormaIs, eIc.,).
TranslormaIion ol Ihe IexI gives rise Io a series ol obligaIions: any derived
work musI change Ihe IiIle on Ihe cover, indicaIe Ihe original auIhors and any
modilicaIions, indicaIe where Ihe original version may be lound and mainIain
copyrighI noIices and Ihe licence. AddiIionally, cerIain delined secIions musI
be mainIained and Ihe Ione and general conIenI ol Ihe secondary secIions
musI remain unalIered. Any indicaIion ol endorsemenIs musI be eliminaIed
lrom derived works.
As Ihe GFL, Ihe GEDL mainIains Ihe copylelI ol Ihe documenIs: any modili-
caIion musI be disIribuIed under Ihe same licence and cannoI be combined
wiIh IexI lrom work under a more resIricIive licence.
The licence noI only applies Io Iechnical documenIaIion lor solIware. II may
also be used lor any IexI, specilically any "liIerary" work developed as lree
solIware: in collaboraIive works. In lacI, Wikipedia (aI www.wikipedia.org) is
published under Ihe GEDL.
In 2008, a new minor release ol Ihe licence was published, version 1.3, so as
Io achieve compaIibiliIy wiIh Ihe CreaIive Commons BY-SA 3.0 licence which
we commenI below. This is mainly so IhaI wikis such as Wikipedia can use
conIenI under Ihis CC licence in Ihe wiki.
The GEDL is noI Ihe only lree documenIaIion licence. In parI due Io Ihe con-
Iroversy in relaIion IhereIo, many lree solIware projecIs have creaIed Iheir
own licences: Ihe EreeBSD DocumenIaIion License, Ihe Apple Common Doc-
umenIaIion License or Ihe Open FublicaIion License, and Ihe OR Magazine
License (by O'Reilly).
4.5.2. The Creatve Commonx ntatve
The CreaIive Commons iniIiaIive, olIen abbreviaIed Io CC, is a projecI ol SIan-
lord UniversiIy, in Calilornia, creaIed by a series ol copyrighIs experIs, includ-
ing Frol. Lawrence Lessig. II seeks Io aid auIhors and creaIors Io lreely dis-
IribuIe Iheir works lor use by Ihe public, Ihus increasing Ihe number ol cre-
aIive works available Io all. II is especially direcIed Io liIerary and arIisIic cre-
aIions and noI solIware, and expressly recommends Ihe GEDL lor any com-
puIer documenIaIion. AddiIionally, Ihe CC proposes a privaIe sysIem, under
UniIed SIaIes law, Io limiI Ihe duraIion ol copyrighI proIecIion Io lourIeen
years, raIher Ihan Ihe Ierm agreed by law (generally, Ihe lile ol Ihe auIhor plus
sevenIy years) based on a public sIaIemenI. Einally, iI allows dedicaIing works
Io Ihe public domain, also under condiIions ol UniIed SIaIes copyrighI.
Some righIs reserved. The CreaIive Commons
iniIiaIive operaIes under a slogan IhaI is

a play on words on Ihe regular copyrighI reserve ol "all righIs reserved". The slogan is
"Some righIs reserved", similar Io IhaI ol Ihe ESE, which is "All righIs reversed". The lreesI
CC licence would even allow including Ihe expression "No righIs reserved".
()
The CreaIive Commons projecI may be lound aI creaIivecommons.org.
In addiIion Io a generic version ol Ihe licence, which is soughI Io conlorm
Io Ihe inIernaIional convenIions on auIhor's righIs, Ihere are versions adapI-
ed Io Ihe legal lramework ol each counIry: Spain, Feru, England, Japan, eIc.
(and linguisIic versions, in CaIalan, lor insIance). The laIesI generic version,
3.0, conIains a compaIibiliIy agreemenI Io allow Ihe equivalence ol licences
beIween Ihese "local" versions.
The sIraIegy ol Ihe CC has been Io creaIe a series ol modular licences esIab-
lishing whaI righIs are granIed Io Ihe licensees.
The licences conIain a core ol Ierms IhaI are common Io all varianIs and Ihen
parIiculariIies regarding Ihe granI ol righIs. The core elemenIs include:
NoIices ol auIhorship and copyrighI are required Io be mainIained ("BY").
InIerneI links may be esIablished in works published on such medium.
No modilicaIions Io Ihe licence are permiIIed.
No Iechnological mediums may be used Io resIricI Ihe legiIimaIe use ol
Ihe work (in oIher words, no DRM Iechnologies).
They apply in all counIries ol Ihe world.
They are irrevocable and have a duraIion equal Io Ihe Ierm ol Ihe copy-
righI proIecIion.
They oller a warranIy ol ownership and non violaIion ol Ihird-parIy righIs
(Io increase conlidence in Ihe reuse and redisIribuIion ol Ihe work).
The auIhor or owner ol righIs is allowed Io disIribuIe Ihe work under a
dillerenI licence.
They conIain a special excepIion allowing F2F lile-sharing, which is noI
considered a commercial acIiviIy, provided iI is noI lor proliI.
Regarding Ihe granI ol righIs, auIhors may choose Ihe righIs IhaI are reserved
and granIed in Ihe licence based on Ihree criIeria:
Commercial use ("NC", lor non commercial use resIricIion).
Allowing derivaIive works or noI ("ND" no derivaIives).
ReciprociIy or copylelI ("SA", lor share alike).
The websiIe www.creaIivecommons.org also conIains an auIomaIed Iool lor
creaIing Ihe licence based on Ihe answers Io quesIions on such criIeria. A CC
licence is proposed Io users upon Ihe basis ol Iwo quesIions:
WheIher or noI Io permiI commercial use:
Commercial. Allows any Iype ol use, including commercial.
Non commercial (NC). Allows any Iype ol exploiIaIion and derivaIion,
provided iI is lor non commercial purposes.
WheIher or noI Io allow Ihe creaIion ol derived works:
No derived works (ND). ModilicaIions are noI allowed lor Ihe creaIion
ol derived works.
Share alike (SA). Il derivaIive works are allowed, Ihen redisIribuIion ol
Ihe work and derived works musI be solely upon equal Ierms as Ihe
original licence (copylelI).
Thus Ihe mosI basic and permissive licence is Ihe AIIribuIion license (BY), which merely
requires IhaI crediI be given where due and allows everyIhing else, similar Io a BSD sIyle
lree solIware licence: no commercial resIricIion, no share alike.
The AIIribuIion-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (BY-NC-SA) allows modilicaIion, requires
mainIaining Ihe same licence in derived works and prohibiIs commercial use. The MIT
OpenCourseWare licence is ol Ihis Iype. AnoIher IexI wiIh Ihis licence is "HOWTO: In-
sIalling Web Services wiIh |lree solIware]".
The AIIribuIion-NonCommercial licence requires IhaI crediI be given where due and
resIricIs commercial uses. The ElecIronic Ereedom EoundaIion, aI www.ell.org, uses Ihis
licence.
The Iool creaIes and ollers Ihe user Ihe IexI ol Ihe licence. Licences come in
Ihree lormaIs:
An easy Io read version: a very easily undersIandable summary ("Com-
mons deed" or "Human code"), wiIh icons, which we shall menIion here-
under.
A legal version lor lawyers: Ihe compleIe version ol Ihe licence ("Legal
code").
A machine-readable version: an expression in RDE and XML meIadaIa so
IhaI an auIomaIed compuIer process may undersIand Ihe licence in Ihe
conIexI ol Ihe semanIic web ("DigiIal code").
4.5.3. Freeware and xhareware Icencex
We only wish Io sIress here IhaI shareware and lreeware licences are noI lree
solIware licences. AlIhough Ihe relevanI programs may be disIribuIed lree ol
charge, Ihey do noI provide access Io Ihe source code and, in Iheir majoriIy,
Ihey do noI respecI Ihe minimum condiIions lor being lree or open: Ihe lour
basics lreedoms ol Ihe ESE or Ihe OSD deliniIion.
5. Free xoItware Icencex n gractce
AlIer Ihe previous analysis ol lree solIware licences, Ihis secIion sIarIs wiIh
a commenI on and clarilicaIion ol cerIain myIhs or misconcepIions wiIh re-
specI Io various legal aspecIs ol lree solIware. We Ihen commenI on several
key issues relaIed Io lree solIware licensing, including how Io choose a lree
licence, Ihe issues raised by conIribuIions Io lree solIware projecIs, compaIi-
biliIy beIween licences, and oIher Iopics.
5.1. Some IegaI mthx about Iree xoItware ... to debunR
Over Ihe years cerIain myIhs or misconcepIions have arisen wiIh respecI Io
various legal aspecIs ol lree solIware, noI leasI due Io EUD (Eear UncerIainIy
and DoubI) spread by Ihose who do noI necessarily agree wiIh Ihe IeneIs ol
Ihe lree solIware movemenI. Here, we commenI on Ihese misconcepIions and
Iry Io deIermine Ihe IruIh ol lallacy behind Ihem.
There are oIher myIhs relaIing Io Ihe Iechnological or commercial aspecIs ol lree solIware
IhaI we shall noI address here: lack ol supporI and mainIenance, lack ol securiIy, risk ol
lorking, Ihe possibiliIy ol inIroducing damaging elemenIs in lree solIware, lack ol viable
business models based on lree solIware, eIc.
5.1.1. CogIeIt goex aganxt author'x rghtx
This myIh is based on Ihe beliel IhaI copylelI (and lree licences in general)
creaIes a new inIellecIual properIy legal lramework: copylejt "raIher Ihan" copy-
rht.
QuiIe Ihe opposiIe, as seen above, lree solIware licences are based direcIly on
Ihe currenI auIhor's righIs or copyrighI law, wheIher iI be auIhor's righIs under
conIinenIal sIyle or Ihe copyrighI ol English-speaking counIries. The auIhors
ol lree solIware use Ihe righIs esIablished by Ihis legal lramework (exclusive
righIs Io exploiI and}or auIhorise Ihe exploiIaIion ol Iheir work) Io granI Ihe
licensees Ihe non-exclusive righIs esIablished in Ihe lree licences and delend
Ihese righIs lrom inlringemenI.
In MySQL AB vs Frogress SolIware, MySQL AB delended iIs ownership ol righIs in Ihe
daIabase applicaIion MySQL. II iniIiaIed proceedings againsI Frogress SolIware lor Ihe
violaIion ol auIhor's righIs and ol Ihe licence Ierms ol Ihe GFL Io Ihe MySQL program.
In Germany, Ihe several courIs have now decided in lavour ol Ihe righIsholders in Ihe
neIlilIer}ipIables projecI, in relaIion Io inlringemenI ol Ihe Ierms ol Ihe GFL based on
auIhors' righIs } copyrighI law. They could Ihus enlorce Ihe licence obligaIions on a
licensee who had breached Ihe Ierms ol Ihe licence and (lor disIribuIion wiIhouI Ihe
source code and wiIhouI a copy ol Ihe licence) Ihus poIenIially inlringed Iheir copyrighI.
LeI's consider, lor insIance, Iwo imporIanI characIerisIics ol lree solIware: lree-
dom ol use and copylelI condiIions.
Regarding Ihe lirsI, Ihe legal lramework allows Ihe owners ol work Io de-
line Ihe scope ol Ihe exploiIaIion righIs granIed Io Ihird parIies. RaIher
Ihan resIricIing Ihe uses (as is done by mosI non-lree licences), a lree solI-
ware licence permiIs Ihem Io Ihe maximum permiIIed by law. This does
noI go againsI auIhor's righIs, buI raIher is an exercise Ihereol.
Regarding copylelI, a developer may creaIe and disIribuIe a derivaIive
work ol lree solIware as permiIIed, under cerIain condiIions, by Ihe owner
ol Ihe original work on which iI is based. Il such condiIions lor insIance,
Io disIribuIe Ihe derivaIive work under Ihe same licence (copylelI) are
noI meI, Ihe original licence shall be cancelled and Ihe disIribuIion ol Ihe
derived work shall consIiIuIe a breach ol Ihe copyrighI righIs ol Ihe licen-
sor. The copylelI acIs legally as a IerminaIion clause.
In Ihe USA, in Jacobsen v. KaIzer Ihe US CourI ol Appeals held IhaI ArIisIic licence Ierms
were enlorceable condiIions on Ihe permission Io exercise copyrighI righIs granIed in Ihe
licence, and Iherelore a licensee in breach ol Ihe licence would be in breach ol copyrighI,
Ihe licence being revoked.
Therelore, Ihere is no conIradicIion or opposiIion beIween legislaIed auIhor's
righIs and Ihe righIs granIed or reserved under a lree licence. Moreover, iI
could be argued IhaI, given IhaI a lree solIware licence respecIs Ihe excepIions
and uses permiIIed Io Ihe user under our legal lramework, iI conlorms beIIer
Io Ihe law Ihan many non-lree licences.
E. MogIen, "EnIorcng the GNL GPL", Lnux Lxer, 12/8/21
"The GFL, on Ihe oIher hand, subIracIs lrom copyrighI raIher Ihan adding Io iI |user
resIricIions, lor insIance]... CopyrighI granIs publishers power Io lorbid users Io exercise
righIs Io copy, modily, and disIribuIe IhaI we believe all users should have, Ihe GFL Ihus
relaxes almosI all Ihe resIricIions ol Ihe inIellecIual properIy sysIem".
LnIorcIng the GNU GPL
ArIicle Io be read online aI E. Moglen's siIe.
5.1.2. Free xoItware hax no ownerx
There is noIhing lurIher lrom Ihe IruIh, lrom a legal viewpoinI. The auIhor's
righIs}copyrighI legal lramework auIomaIically granIs auIhor's righIs Io Ihe
creaIors ol solIware. And Ihe sole obligaIion or almosI sole obligaIion com-
mon Io all lree licences is Io mainIain Ihe noIices ol Ihe righIs ol Ihe iniIial
creaIors ol Ihe solIware (Ihe lamous "copyrighI noIice"). There is Iherelore al-
ways an owner ol Ihe righIs Io Ihe solIware and, in Ihe case ol lree solIware,
ownership is clearly indicaIed in Ihe liles.
5.1.3. Free Icencex comgeI authorx to axxgn ther rghtx
WiIh Ihe excepIion ol moral righIs, which are non-Iranslerable, auIhor's righIs
may be assigned or licensed, buI solely wiIh Ihe express consenI ol Ihe owner.
Eree licences are "non exclusive" and cannoI "sIrip" Ihe ownership ol Ihe solI-
ware lrom Iheir creaIors. Eree licences subjecI Io copylelI do compel licensees
Io use Ihe same licence (non exclusive) in any luIure disIribuIion ol modili-
caIions or work derived lrom Ihe original solIware wiIh Ihese licences and Io
publish Ihe relevanI source code, as a condiIion ol Ihe righI Io redisIribuIe Ihe
modilicaIion, buI do noI lorce Ihem Io "assign Ihe solIware" (or Iheir righIs
Ihereupon) Io anyone.
5.1.4. Free xoItware cannot be xub]ect to commercaI uxe
AnoIher misconcepIion: as we have seen, Ihere are no limiIaIions Io Ihe use
ol lree solIware (lreedom 0), Ihe only condiIions imposed, someIimes, reler Io
iIs subsequenI modilicaIion and disIribuIion. Eree licences do noI allecI Ihe
end users.
5.1.5. Free xoItware and non-Iree xoItware are ncomgatbIe
AnoIher myIh is IhaI lree solIware is incompaIible wiIh non-lree solIware il
Ihey are run on Ihe same compuIer sysIem or plaIlorm. Il Ihis were Irue, no
non-lree applicaIion, such as Ihe Oracle daIabases, could be run on GNU} Lin-
ux, OpenBSD or Ihe web Apache servers. And vice-versa, lree applicaIions such
as MySQL could noI be run on non-lree operaIing sysIems such as Oracle's
Solaris or IBM's AIX. WhaI may give rise Io incompaIibiliIies is Ihe inIegra-
Iion or mixing ol copylelI solIware and non-lree solIware, as we shall discuss
herealIer.
5.1.. Free xoItware cannot be ntegrated or mxed wth
non-Iree xoItware
This claim holds IhaI lree solIware, in general, cannoI be mixed or inIegraIed
wiIh non-lree solIware in Ihe same applicaIion wiIhouI allecIing iI and, ac-
cordingly, wiIhouI breaching iIs condiIions ol user. A sIronger way ol express-
ing Ihis is claiming IhaI lree solIware and GFL solIware in parIicular is viral
and "inlecIs" oIher applicaIions: any applicaIion inIegraIing GFL solIware be-
comes GFL solIware. This sIaIemenI is parIially unIrue.
InIegraIion by end user. Eree licences do noI resIricI Ihe use ol solIware
wiIh oIher applicaIions: Ihe possibiliIy ol iIs modilicaIion is a condiIion ol
iIs being lree and Ihere are no resIricIions on iIs use. II is Iherelore neces-
sary Io disIribuIe Ihe source code wiIh Ihe objecI code or Io make iI avail-
able Io Ihe recipienI. NoneIheless, any inIegraIion ol lree solIware (permiI-
Ied by Ihe lree licence) wiIh non-lree solIware may be considered a modi-
licaIion ol Ihe inIegraIed non-lree solIware (il Ihe source code is available
Io make iI). Depending on Ihe resIricIions conIained in Ihe non-lree li-
cence, such modilicaIion could consIiIuIe a breach, regardless ol wheIher
Ihe inIegraIed program is lree, non-lree or redisIribuIed. This is noI a prob-
lem ol Ihe lree solIware, buI ol Ihe non-lree solIware licence.
InIegraIion by an inIermediary. Where resIricIions may exisI in relaIion
Io Ihe inIegraIion ol solIware ol various Iypes, wheIher lree or non-lree,
is wiIh respecI Io iIs subsequenI disIribuIion. Fermissive licences allow
mixing and redisIribuIing Iheir solIware wiIh non-lree licences. On Ihe
oIher hand, copylejt licences prohibiI redisIribuIion wiIh non-lree licences
ol a "mix" ol solIware wiIh Ihese non-lree solIware licences, which pracIice
has come Io be known as Ihe privaIisaIion ol lree solIware. CerIain lree
licences conIain clauses seeking Io parIially allow Ihis inIegraIion, such as
Ihe LGFL or Ihe MFL, which we have discussed previously.
5.1.7. AII Iree xoItware x Icenxed n the xame manner {ugon the
termx oI the GPL}
There are subsIanIial variaIions beIween Ihe more Ihan sevenIy lree and open
source solIware licences recognised by Ihe OSI. When discussing licences, iI
is imporIanI Io be much more carelul in Ihe use ol Ihe Ierm lree solIware,
and disIinguish beIween lree licences in general, licences subjecI Io copylelI
and licences IhaI are neiIher lree nor open. II is imporIanI Io clearly under-
sIand Ihe Ierms open source, persisIence or reciprociIy and copylelI, which
are characIerisIic ol such lree licences.
5.1.8. Free Icencex regure the gubIcaton oI modIcatonx to
the code
This is one ol Ihe mosI incorrecI ideas propagaIed in respecI ol Ihe workings
ol lree licences. We shall disIinguish beIween Ihe posiIion ol end users and
inIermediaries (developers ol programs lor Ihird parIies):
Lnd users. MosI lree licences do noI require IhaI users should disIribuIe
Iheir modilicaIions or adapIaIions ol lree solIware (derived works, in legal
jargon) or should publish Ihem or conIribuIe Ihem Io Ihe developmenI
ol Ihe modilied applicaIion. Some licences do require Ihe laIIer, in some
parIicular cases, solely in relaIion Io correcIions or modilicaIions ol Ihe
cenIral code or kernel ol Ihe program. As we shall see, Ihese obligaIions
do noI apply Io addiIional elemenIs added Io Ihe kernel or any exIension
ol Ihe applicaIion. Therelore, Ihe end user shall noI be required Io publish
Iheir works based on lree solIware.
ProIessIonals and companIes developIng programs. Those developing
programs lor clienIs are noI required Io disIribuIe Io Ihe public (or Io Ihe
original auIhors) any modilicaIions Io lree solIware. WhaI Ihey are re-
quired Io do is respecI Ihe original lree licences, many ol which require
providing Ihe source code Io users or clienIs receiving Ihem or, il only Ihe
objecI code is disIribuIed, ollering Ihe source code Io any Ihird parIy (Ihe
GFLv2) or Ihe recipienI (Ihe MFL, GFLv3) lor a cerIain period. This is one
ol Ihe requiremenIs lor using lree solIware subjecI Io copylelI.
1heApplePublicLicense1.x
requiredLhaLanymodifica-
LionofLheoriginalprogrambe
senLLoAppleandLhiswasone
ofLhereasonsforiLnoLbeing
consideredafreelicence.
5.1.9. Wth Iree xoItware there are no IabItex or warrantex
II is necessary Io recognise IhaI Ihis may be Irue, under currenI lree solIware
licences, especially when Ihe solIware is disIribuIed lree ol charge. NoneIhe-
less, Ihere are legal doubIs in Ierms ol Ihe ellecIiveness ol warranIy disclaimers
and liabiliIy limiIaIion clauses, which may noI be valid wiIh respecI Io con-
sumers, aI leasI.
The myIh, in realiIy, consisIs ol Ihinking IhaI non-lree licences give greaIer
warranIies and accepI a higher level ol liabiliIy. Many non-lree licences seek Io
limiI Ihe liabiliIy ol Ihe licensor (auIhor or disIribuIor) in Ierms quiIe similar
Io lree solIware licences. Indeed, Ihey usually seek Io limiI conIracIual war-
ranIies, lor insIance, Io Ihe repaymenI ol Ihe purchase price in case ol a laulI
wiIh Ihe solIware is idenIilied wiIhin a limiI ol nineIy days.
AnoIher argumenI regarding warranIies and liabiliIy is IhaI wiIh virIual disIri-
buIion sysIems over Ihe inIerneI, iI is dilliculI Io idenIily licensors and Ihereby
claim any compensaIion. Many siIes disIribuIing lree solIware, such as Source-
lorge, are noI Ihe owners licensors, or even "ollicial" disIribuIors similar Io
Ihose who disIribuIe proprieIary packages.
NoneIheless, in some cases, such as IhaI ol Ihe ESE or in businesses based on
Ihe disIribuIion ol lree solIware packages such as Red HaI or Suse (Novell),
Ihere is an idenIiliable legal enIiIy IhaI could be subjecI Io an acIion lor li-
abiliIies il necessary. EurIhermore, Ihe obligaIion Io mainIain Ihe copyrighI
noIice allows righIsholders ol any componenI IhaI could prove delecIive Io
be idenIilied, even il Ihey are noI necessarily who disIribuIed Ihe program Io
Ihe allecIed parIy.
In addiIion, lree licences allow lree solIware disIribuIors Io add warranIy claus-
es (wiIh or wiIhouI an economic consideraIion), which is done wiIh many
packages desIined lor commercial disIribuIion.
5.2. Some IegaI xxuex reIatng to the Icencex
AlIer going over Ihe myIhs surrounding Ihe legal ellecIs ol lree solIware li-
cences, Ihis secIion is inIended Io provide some pracIical commenIs on Ihe
legal issues ol lree solIware and lree solIware licensing.
Besides Iechnical and economic aspecIs, Ihere are a varieIy ol imporIanI legal
issues Io be considered so as Io ensure Ihe success ol any acIiviIy involving
lree solIware, wheIher iI be iIs creaIion and disIribuIion or iIs implemenIaIion
in public or privaIe organisaIions, and iI is highly recommended Io esIablish
Ihe appropriaIe legal sIraIegies.
UndersIanding broader legal issues relaIing Io lree solIware, such as Ihe legal
consequences ol inbound licences or inIerrelaIions beIween various concepIs
we have discussed here (copylelI, compaIibiliIy, licensing regime, eIc.), should
help us Io manage lree solIware projecIs beIIer and reduce perceived dillicul-
Iies and EUD.
The subjecIs IhaI we shall address in Ihis secIion, Ihe "pracIical ellecIs" ol lree
solIware licences, relaIe especially Io Ihe managemenI ol inIellecIual and in-
dusIrial properIy in lree solIware based projecIs. We will specilically commenI
on:
How Io choose a lree licence.
How Io manage Ihe conIribuIions Io lree solIware projecIs.
CompaIibiliIy beIween licences.
Dual or mulIiple licensing.
The ellecI ol licences on lree solIware lorking.
5.2.1. Chooxng a Iree Icence
The Ierms ol a lree solIware licence Io be applied Io a projecI normally resulI
lrom a compromise beIween several objecIives, deIermined by Ihe auIhors or
Ieam leaders (coordinaIors) ol Ihe projecI in quesIion. Generally speaking, Ihe
lollowing objecIives are considered, which may Io a cerIain exIenI conllicI
wiIh one anoIher:
GuaranIeeing cerIain basic lreedoms common Io all lree solIware (use,
copy, modilicaIion, redisIribuIion, paIenIs, eIc.).
Imposing some condiIions or resIricIions (recogniIion ol auIhorship, ab-
sence ol warranIy, use ol Irademarks, eIc.).
Frocuring IhaI Ihe modilicaIions and derived works should also be lree,
or noI.
Reserving some righIs.
MainIaining conIrol over Ihe evoluIion ol Ihe program.
Each projecI Iherelore has iIs objecIives and criIeria in Ierms ol Ihe licence.
In general when choosing a license lor a projecI, iI is recommended Io use an
already-exisIing licence raIher Ihan wriIing a new one. This issue has become
increasingly more imporIanI due Io Ihe prolileraIion ol lree solIware licences
(Io Ihe poinI IhaI Ihe OSI is aIIempIing Io reduce Ihe number ol cerIilied li-
cences). A general Irend is Io rely on one ol Ihe more common licences: GFL,
LGFL, BSD, MIT, MFL, Apache, CFL, eIc. This ollers Ihe advanIage ol increas-
ing compaIibiliIy probabiliIies beIween programs and componenIs. AnoIher
possibiliIy is Io look Io a "Ihird generaIion" licence, such as Ihe GFLv3, OSL
3.0 or EUFL 1.1 licences (copylelI}reciprocal), or Ihe Apache 2.0 or AEL 3.0 li-
cences (permissive), which cover cerIain issues IhaI have arisen recenIly, such
as paIenIs, Irademarks, remoIe use over a neIwork, eIc. and, lor our purposes,
may be beIIer suiIed Io Ihe European legal lramework.
Many lree solIware exponenIs recommend Ihe use ol a licence compaIible wiIh GFL,
especially as iI is used by almosI 7S% ol Ihe lree solIware projecIs (noI necessarily 7S% ol
Ihe available lree solIware), buI also as GFL generally receives more supporI lrom Ihe lree
developmenI communiIy. There is some conIroversy in Ihis regard, inasmuch as Ihere
are projecIs and developers IhaI reluse Io accepI GFL code and oIhers solely accepI code
under GFL or a compaIible licence.
The main criIerion is usually wheIher a projecI wishes Io impose copylelI or
reciprociIy obligaIions: Ihe obligaIion lor developmenIs based on Ihe original
solIware, generally derived works, Io mainIain Ihe same licence lor redisIri-
buIion. The GFL, lor insIance, seeks Io enlarge Ihe pool ol lree solIware avail-
able and maximise Ihe lreedom ol end users: iI Iherelore includes Ihe copy-
lelI clause. The GFL also has Ihe pracIical ellecI ol limiIing lorking (a separaIe
evoluIion ol Ihe same solIware over various projecIs see below). As we have
seen, oIher licences such as Ihe LGFL or MFL have a weaker copylelI ellecI,
applied solely Io Ihe original work (or componenI) and Io any specilic mod-
ilicaIion. II does noI exIend Io applicaIions "inIegraIing" or "using" Ihe lree
componenI. These allow lor Ihe inIegraIion or linking ol Ihe original compo-
nenIs wiIh anoIher code, Io creaIe whaI are known as "larger works".
Some quesIions IhaI are olIen considered include:
Do I wish Io allow Ihe privaIisaIion ol derived works and modilicaIions7
Do I wanI Ihe developers Io reIurn Iheir modilicaIions Io Ihe lree communiIy in
general, or Io me, Ihe iniIial auIhor, in parIicular7
Do I wanI Io allow Ihe licensees Io merge or link Iheir program Io mine7
Do I wanI a greaIer disseminaIion ol Ihe program and Io aIIempI Io esIablish a sIan-
dard7
Do I wanI Io obIain licence lees lrom my program, based on iIs use (commercial or
oIherwise), while aI Ihe same Iime permiIIing lree developmenI7
Do I have a unique innovaIive program, or is iI jusI anoIher conIenI managemenI
sysIem, lor insIance, when Ihere are already many ol Ihem available, boIh lree and
non-lree7
Do I have obligaIions wiIh Ihird parIies in relaIion Io Ihe code incorporaIed in my
program7
Does my program need Io be run wiIh any oIher program in parIicular7 Are Ihere
resIricIions Ihereon7
Do I wanI Io encourage oIher developers Io parIicipaIe in my projecI and conIribuIe
code or IesI hours7
Has my applicaIion been designed Io be embedded inIo a device, along wiIh oIher,
non-lree, solIware7
Is Ihere a "predominanI" licence in Ihe secIor ol my parIicular solIware (lor insIance,
a language or libraries)7
Is Ihere any risk lor anyone holding or applying lor a paIenI on an elemenI or an
aspecI ol Ihe program7
The lollowing charI, which is already a "classic" and appears in almosI all doc-
umenIs on Ihe subjecI, Iakes inIo accounI Ihe main lree licences and assisIs
in Ihe selecIion ol a licence.
Crlterlon
Llcence
Allows llnklng
wlth non-free
programs
Can be
mlxed
wlth other
software
Allows
derlva-
tlve works
to be non-free
Crants a
patent
llcence
GPLv2/v3 es
LGPLv2/v3 es es
MPL es es es
SD es es es (no)
AnoIher opIion lies in Ihe choice ol a dual licence policy, which we shall dis-
cuss below. This sysIem, in which Ihe program is disIribuIed wiIh dillerenI li-
cences (normally one copylelI, Ihe oIher resIricIive licence), allows income Io
be obIained based on Ihe non-lree version ol Ihe solIware, and collaboraIing
wiIh a "communiIy" Io improve Ihe lree program on Ihe lree version.
AddiIionally, il Ihe program is modular, iI is possible Io use dillerenI licences
lor dillerenI componenIs, provided Ihey are compaIible in relaIion Io Ihe
communicaIion mechanism used by Ihe componenIs (i.e. depending on Ihe
degree ol inIegraIion).
AnoIher sIraIegy lor clienI}server sysIems is Ihe use ol a lree licence lor Ihe
clienI and a non-lree licence lor Ihe server.
Suggexted readng
Zooko O'Whielacronx: Quick Relerence Eor Choosing a Eree SolIware License
hIIp:}}zooko.com}license_quick_rel.hIml.
Bruce Ferens: The Open Source DeliniIion, en "OFEN SOURCES", p18S.
Donald K. Rosenberg: EvaluaIion ol Fublic SolIware Licenses, online aI
hIIp:}}www.sIromian.com}Fublic_Licenses.hIml (lasI visiIed March 2, 2001).
Erank Hecker: SeIIing Up Shop: The Business ol Open Source SolIware, online aI
hIIp:}}www.hecker.org}wriIings}seIIing-up-shop.hIml.
Mike Ferry: Open Source Licenses, online aI
hIIp:}}lscked.org}wriIings}OpenSource.hIml.
Brian Behlendorl: Open Source as Business SIraIegy, en "OFEN SOURCES".
Rex Brooks: Open Source Licenses Overview, online aI
hIIp:}}www.vrml.org}TaskGroups}vrmlipr}open_source_overview.hIml.
Eric Kidd: A HisIory ol "Open Source", online aI
hIIp:}}discuss.userland.com}msgReader$1844#188 (Aug. 1, 2000).
EsIudio FOSS } IDA (Unysis para la Unin Europea), ppo0-oS.
The MiIre CorporaIion: Use ol Eree and Open-Source SolIware (EOSS) in Ihe U.S.
DeparImenI ol Delense, Version 1.2, 28 OcIubre 2002, p. 1S.
5.2.2. Lcencex Ior contrbutonx and authorxhg
An essenIial elemenI IhaI musI be Iaken inIo consideraIion when managing
Ihe legal issues ol a lree projecI is IhaI ol conIribuIions Io Ihe projecI. The
hisIory ol NeIscape shows Ihe dilliculIies IhaI one could lace il required Io
choose Io lree one's solIware or change lrom one lree licence Io anoIher.
1hisisLhelicensingsysLem
usedbyMySQLand1rollLech}
QL,amongoLhercompanies,
seebelow.
The problems IhaI could arise when accepIing Ihird parIy conIribuIions in-
clude:
SolIware obIained lrom an unsale source (may have been copied).
SolIware conIribuIed wiIh anoIher licence (an incompaIible licence).
SolIware covered by pre-exisIing obligaIions, eiIher by Ihird-parIy li-
cences or commiImenIs binding Ihe auIhor-licensor (Ihe problem laced
by NeIscape).
FaIenIs granIed on an elemenI ol Ihe code.
ConIribuIors Iend Io conIribuIe code under various legal insIrumenIs: Ihe
projecI licence, a licence compaIible wiIh IhaI ol Ihe projecI or a more in-
dividualised assignmenI (an agreemenI on conIribuIions). There is a debaIe
abouI wheIher conIribuIion agreemenIs should be mere permissive licences
or joinI or lull assignmenI.
Eor Ihose in charge ol Ihe projecI, iI is imporIanI Io have sullicienI righIs Io
incorporaIe and disIribuIe Ihe conIribuIion in Ihe projecI code. On Iop ol Ihis,
Ihey may wish Io have wide righIs so as Io be able Io change Ihe licence in
Ihe luIure (e.g. evolve lrom GFLv2 Io GFLv3), and linally, Iake legal acIion Io
delend againsI breaches ol IF righIs.
lorLhoseinchargeofLhe
projecL,iLisnecessaryLofol-
lowcarefullyLhecodeLhaLis
conLribuLedandkeepalogof
auLhorshipandversions,iden-
LifyingeachsofLwarecompo-
nenL.
Accordingly, Ihere are projecIs IhaI requesI conIribuIors Io granI a compleIe
and exclusive licence Io Ihe enIiIy coordinaIing Ihe projecI (in Anglo-Saxon
counIries, an assignmenI) wiIh warranIies in respecI ol Ihe ownership ol Ihe
righIs Io Ihe conIribuIion and, evenIually, a paIenI licence. This allows projecI
coordinaIors Io keep cerIain conIrol over Ihe ouIcome ol a lree projecI and
proIecI Ihemselves lrom Ihe risk IhaI Ihe code have come lrom unsale sources
(lor insIance, copied lrom oIher solIware) or IhaI any original auIhor IhaI has
requesIed a paIenI on Ihe solIware or, in Ihe law ol English-speaking counIries,
revoke Ihe licence.
OIher projecIs are happy Iaking conIribuIions under Ihe projecI licence or a
compaIible licence (olIen a permissive licence such as a Ihree clause BSD or
MIT) or under a non-exclusive conIribuIion licence agreemenI.
5.2.3. ComgatbIt between Icencex
We have raised Ihe issue code and licence compaIibiliIy on several occasions.
A program is legally compaIible wiIh anoIher il Iheir codes may be mixed so as
Io creaIe a derived work (made up ol elemenIs ol each) and you can disIribuIe
Ihe resulI ol Ihe inIegraIion wiIhouI inlringing upon Ihe licences ol boIh i.e.
Ihe condiIions ol boIh licences may be meI when redisIribuIing Ihe resulIs.
1helSlusuallydemandsLhaL
anyprogrammerconLribuL-
ingmoreLhanLenlinesofsofL-
wareLoaCNprojecLshould
assignLhecodeexclusivelyLo
LhelSl.
To disIribuIe solIware inIegraIing several lree solIware componenIs legally, iI
is essenIial IhaI Ihe licences on Ihe componenIs (inbound licences) be com-
paIible wiIh Ihe licence chosen lor Ihe disIribuIion ol Ihe linal producI (ouI-
bound licence). Eor insIance, as Ihe new (or Ihree clause) BSD licence allows
almosI any lorm ol exploiIaIion ol Ihe associaIed solIware, BSD solIware may
be mixed or inIegraIed wiIh oIher programs wiIh almosI any licence (Ihe GFL,
lor insIance) and Ihe resulI may be disIribuIed under such licence wiIhouI
inlringing upon Ihe BSD.
SeveralprojecLshavesLrivedLo
becompaLiblewiLhLheCPL,
suchasPyLhon,QLandvim,
andevenMozillaaddedanad-
diLionalclauseLopermiLdual
licensing.
Licences wiIh copylelI are incompaIible among each oIher, excepI where
specilically agreed (such as Ihe EUFL, LGFL or AGFLv3, or mulIiple licensed
MFL code). When redisIribuIing a program inIegraIing Iwo componenIs wiIh
dillerenI copylelI licences, Ihe use ol one ol Ihe licences lor Ihe disIribuIion ol
Ihe linal producI would consIiIuIe an inlringemenI ol Ihe Ierms ol Ihe oIher.
Frobably Ihe greaIesI debaIe surrounding lree solIware is Ihe quesIion ol li-
cence compaIibiliIy and linking: even il Iwo programs cannoI be inIegraIed
IogeIher as a whole (e.g. sIaIically compiled IogeIher and linked Io creaIe Ihe
execuIable), could Ihey be dynamically linked7 This may be achieved in vari-
ous lorms, as we have discussed in relaIion Io GFLv2: lor insIance, inserIing
an AFI beIween one componenI and anoIher or creaIing dynamic links IhaI
acIivaIe when run.
The MFL expressly provides IhaI applicaIions under oIher licences may be linked wiIh
or use solIware under Ihis licence, as a larger work. Usually, Ihe non-lree program musI
be linked Io Ihe solIware under MFL by means ol an AFI. The AFI would generally be
parI ol Ihe original program, or a cusIomised modilicaIion, and will Iherelore be subjecI
Io Ihe MFL, while Ihe linking program can be licensed under any licence, even non-lree.
5.2.4. OuaI or muItgIe Icenxng regmex
As lree solIware licences are non exclusive, a program may be disIribuIed by
iIs righIsholder under Iwo or more lree licences, or under a lree licence and a
non-lree licence, under a dual licensing sysIem. A righIsholder is noI resIricIed
as Io licensing Ihe code, unless an exclusive licence has been granIed or, in
cerIain cases, conlidenIialiIy agreemenIs have been esIablished.
Several programs are disIribuIed in Ihis manner:
MySQL is a daIabase engine disIribuIed under GFL lor independenI use and wiIh a
non-lree licence lor inIegraIion wiIh commercial producIs.
eZ-publish is an inIerneI conIenI managemenI program IhaI also has a dual GFL}
non-lree licence.
The MFL 1.1. allows Ihe owner Io esIablish wheIher Ihe program is disIribuIed wiIh
Ihe MFL or oIher licences (Clause 13).
Erom Ihe viewpoinI ol Ihe solIware righIsholder, Ihe possibiliIy ol using a
second licence allows him}her Io oller dillerenI soluIions Io dillerenI sIake-
holders: communiIy members (lree licence) or clienIs (non-lree licence or lree
1helSloffersacomplexcharL
onLhecompaLibiliLybeLween
LheCPLv2andLheCPLv3,
coveringseveralcases.SeeLhe
lSlsiLe.
subjecI Io resIricIions). This also allows conIrolling Ihe price, qualiIy and lia-
biliIies wiIh respecI Io Ihe solIware on Ihe commercial side, and, evenIually,
releasing iI (as Sun has wiIh Ihe Java Iechnologies).
To accomplish Ihis sIraIegy, in Ihe case ol using a non-lree licence as a second
licence, iI is essenIial IhaI Ihe righIsholder ensures ownership ol Ihe righIs in
all componenIs incorporaIed in Ihe producI, or aI leasI IhaI Ihe licences on
any Ihird parIy componenIs are permissive (BSD, MIT), Ihus permiIIing reli-
censing under many Ierms. Therelore, projecIs IhaI dual license Iheir producIs
Iend Io cenIralise Ihe auIhor's righIs in sub-componenIs in Iheir hands, as is
done by companies such as MySQL AB and TrollIech.
This requires communiIy conIribuIors Io assign Iheir righIs Io Iheir conIribuIion Io Ihe
projecI, Io ensure Ihere is no parallel use ol valuable conIribuIions (or provide very wide
conIribuIion licence Ierms). FrojecIs should also esIablish resIricIive licences wiIh com-
mercial parIners and conIrol paIenI risk.
The success ol Ihe sIraIegy depends on Ihe likelihood ol Ihird parIies (wheIher
commercial or wiIhin Ihe lree solIware communiIy) creaIing a similar producI
or lork, which would compeIe lor Ihe producI wiIh a non-lree licence. The
use ol a copylelI licence lor Ihe lree licence usually prevenIs Ihird parIies lrom
Iaking Ihe lree program and privaIising iI lor commercial purposes, compeIing
wiIh Ihe commercial version wiIh a non-lree licence.
AnoIher elemenI lor conIrolling solIware in Ihe conIexI ol Ihis sIraIegy lies in
Irademarks, a legal Iool IhaI we have already discussed. Trademarks are used
by Ihe Apache EoundaIion wiIh respecI Io iIs solIware (Ihe web server, Tom-
caI, eIc.), by Sun in relaIion Io Java
and by several prolessional lree solIware

companies such as Sugar
(CRM), Compiere
and Openbravo
(ERF), FenIa-
ho
(Business InIelligence), Allresco
(documenI managemenI) and Zimbra
(mail and groupware), SocialIexI
, eIc.
5.2.5. Free xoItware Icencex and IorRng
The concepI ol lorking or division comes lrom compuIer mulIiIasking: iI relers
Io Ihe division ol one Iask or process inIo Iwo. Eor insIance, a Iask may remain
acIive while anoIher is sIopped. The division or lorking ol a program Iakes
place when Ihe solIware is modilied and Ihe modilicaIion is developed sepa-
raIely as a separaIe branch or projecI, under anoIher coordinaIion Ieam, and is
olIen disIribuIed under anoIher name and perhaps anoIher licence. Examples
ol Ihese are OpenBSD and NeIBSD, divisions ol Ihe original Unix BSD, and
Compiere and Adempiere, eIc.
MySQL delines lorking as: "Eorking |ol MySQL] means Io divide Ihe source code ol Ihe
MySQL daIabase in a reposiIory kepI separaIely, so as any developmenI ol Ihe original
code requires a manual operaIion Io be Iranslerred Io Ihe lorked solIware, or IhaI Ihe
lorked solIware begins Io incorporaIe luncIions noI presenI in Ihe original solIware".
The program IhaI has sullered Ihis phenomenon mosI is UNIX, leading Io Ihe creaIion
ol up Io Ien varianIs. Some UNIX varianIs were creaIed because Iheir original auIhors
(AT&T and Ihe UniversiIy ol Calilornia, Berkeley) disIribuIed Ihem under permissive lree
licences, allowing new versions (even non-lree) Io be creaIed: Unixware by Novell, Open
Server SCO, Solaris by Oracle, AIX by IBM, eIc. This has given rise Io legal problems, lor
insIance, in Ihe original case beIween AT&T and Ihe UniversiIy ol Calilornia, and more
recenIly beIween SCO and IBM, and oIhers.
The possibiliIy ol lorking is relevanI Io developers, inasmuch as iI provides an
indicaIion ol Ihe possible Iechnical and legal or commercial evoluIion ol Ihe
solIware. Erom a Iechnical viewpoinI, "lorked" versions Iend Io be Iechnically
incompaIible (or "non inIeroperable") wiIh Ihe original programs. Erom a le-
gal and commercial viewpoinI, Ihese versions may compeIe wiIh Ihe original
producI and be disIribuIed wiIh a dillerenI licence, eiIher lree or commercial,
losIering legal incompaIibiliIy.
There are several reasons lor lorking.
Developers lork lree solIware because Ihey (legally) can: lree licences al-
low Ihe modilicaIion ol lree solIware and Ihe redisIribuIion ol such mod-
ilicaIions. Eor insIance, Ihe BSD licence allows derived works Io be creaI-
ed lrom Ihe original solIware and changing Ihe licence on Ihe modilied
code. The new program could sIarI as a mere varianI lrom Ihe original (lor
insIance, OpenBSD wiIh regard Io NeIBSD) and Ihen diverge more and
more.
AnoIher reason lies in Ihe managemenI ol Ihe developmenI equipmenI
and in disagreemenIs beIween Ihe programmers or owners ol Ihe solIware
(Mambo}Joomla, is an example). Eor insIance, il Ihe need lor an exIen-
sion or new module is idenIilied and Ihe coordinaIor does noI agree, iI
is quiIe likely IhaI someone may creaIe a lorked version Io inIegraIe such
a module.
Eree licences have a direcI inlluence on lorking:
Generally speaking, lree solIware licences enable lorks: solIware subjecI Io
a non-lree licence or shareware cannoI be lorked.
SolIware licensed under Ierms IhaI do noI allow commercial use and}or
demanding Ihe reIurn ol Ihe modilicaIions Io Ihe original auIhor cannoI
be lorked due Io Ihe cenIralising conIrol exercised by Ihe auIhor (lor in-
sIance, GhosIscripI and Ihe Aladdin licence).
SolIware under sIrong copylelI licences such as Ihe GFL Iend noI Io be
lorked: derived works musI be made available Io licensees under Ihe Ierms
ol Ihe same licence, and Ihe original projecI may, Iherelore, usually have
access Io Ihe derived code so as Io reincorporaIe any improvemenI and
make iI parI ol iIs own version.
SolIware wiIh weak copylelI licences, such as Ihe ArIisIic, Ihe MFL or Ihe
LGFL may be lorked more easily, as Ihey allow Ihe creaIion ol non-lree or
lree varianIs by "aggregaIion".
SolIware under a permissive licence (BSD or similar) can and is easily
lorked, as iI allows binary disIribuIions wiIhouI Ihe obligaIion Io publish
Ihe source code, and Iherelore, Ihe original projecI may noI have access
Io Ihe changes made in Ihe lork.
. ConcIuxon
In Ihis module, we have looked aI solIware licensing in general and aI Ihe
legal aspecIs ol lree solIware licences and licensing in parIicular.
There are currenIly "many" lree licences and lree licensing models. In lacI,
Ihere are so many recognised licences (some sevenIy have been approved by
Ihe OSI as "open sourced") IhaI Ihe OSI has esIablished a commiIIee againsI
licence prolileraIion, someIhing IhaI we commenI upon here.
On iIs websiIe, Ihe OSI has classilied (arbiIrarily, according Io some) Ihe available licences
as "mosI popular", "special purpose", and "oIher" and "redundanI". We have observed
wiIh inIeresI on Sourcelorge, Ihe largesI reposiIory ol lree solIware, Ihe evoluIion ol Ihe
use ol Ihe various licences, wiIh Ihe GFLv2 sIill in Ihe lead, accounIing lor some oS% ol
Ihe projecIs (which does noI necessarily imply 70% ol Ihe code).
However, solIware and licences are noI creaIed and used in a sIable and in-
variable environmenI, buI raIher are immersed in a changing medium, evolv-
ing quickly, boIh Iechnically and legally. Eor insIance, dynamic linking and
inIerpreIed languages did noI really exisI when Ihe GFL v.2.0 was dralIed, nor
was Ihere legislaIion lor Ihe proIecIion ol righIs managemenI inlormaIion and
Iechnological proIecIion measures. ConsequenIly, Io mainIain solIware lree-
dom, boIh Iechnology and Ihe legal lramework need Io evolve IogeIher, e.g.
by adapIing licences Io new Iechnological developmenIs (SaaS, web-services)
and legal developmenIs (DRM).
Also, we wish Io sIress Ihe imporIance ol undersIanding solIware licences,
Iheir choice and how Io comply wiIh Iheir Ierms, in relaIion Io Ihe use, dis-
IribuIion and markeIing ol lree solIware or producIs based on lree solIware
in increasingly-complex developmenI and producIion environmenIs, such as
disIribuIed environmenIs (web-services, solIware as a service, eIc.):
Eor solIware developers iI is also lundamenIal Io manage Iheir own inIel-
lecIual properIy and IhaI ol Ihe conIribuIors ol code Io Ihe projecIs Ihey
run.
Eor users, iI is imporIanI Io undersIand Ihe licences applied Io Ihe pro-
grams Ihey use, Ihe righIs Ihey enjoy and Ihe obligaIions Ihey musI com-
ply wiIh, and Ihe dillerences and compaIibiliIies beIween licences.
Regarding Ihe prolessional lile ol Ihe sIudenI, we Ihink IhaI iI is imporIanI
IhaI Ihey be able Io assess Ihe commercial and Iechnological consequences ol
Ihe legal issues IhaI we have described and commenIed on here: whaI may be
done in relaIion Io Ihe legal ellecIiveness or inellecIiveness ol licences, how Io
Iake advanIage ol Ihe possibiliIies ol mulIiple licences, whaI documenIaIion
WehaveseenLhaLLheCPLv3
wasdrafLedLakinginLoac-
counLboLhLechnologyand
legalchange,andLheMozil-
laprojecLhasjusLannounced
(March2010)LhaLiLissLarL-
ingacommuniLyprocessLo
reviewLheMPL1.1.
or checklisIs could be uselul lor IF managemenI, whaI sIraIegy or IacIic musI
be adopIed when lacing legal doubIs wiIh respecI Io lree solIware, and which
decision process is mosI appropriaIe.
Legal aspecIs ol
online acIiviIies
(InIerneI)

GNUEDL Legal aspecLs of online acLiviLies (lnLerneL)
lcense"
1ndex
1. 1ntroducton........................................................................................ S
1.1. DigiIal righIs ............................................................................... S
1.2. InIerneI governance .................................................................... 10

2. OnIne actvtex................................................................................. 12
2.1. InlormaIion socieIy services ....................................................... 12
2.2. CounIry ol origin rule and applicable law ................................. 14
2.2.1. Applicable law and jurisdicIion ..................................... 14
2.3. Service Frovider obligaIions ........................................................ 1o

3. LabIt oI nIormaton xocet xervce grovderx................... 18
3.1. AcIiviIies covered and condiIions lor liabiliIy limiIaIion ........... 18
3.2. OIher acIiviIies ............................................................................ 20
3.3. ISFs and IFR enlorcemenI ........................................................... 22

4. Ecommerce ~ OnIne Contractng.................................................. 24
4.1. Valid elecIronic conIracIs ........................................................... 24
4.2. InlormaIion and processes .......................................................... 24
4.3. ObligaIions associaIed wiIh remoIe selling Io consumers .......... 2S
4.4. Commercial communicaIions and publiciIy .............................. 2o

5. EIectronc xgnaturex........................................................................ 27
S.1. ElecIronic signaIures ................................................................... 27
S.2. Legal ellecIs ol elecIronic signaIures .......................................... 28

. Cbercrme........................................................................................... 30
o.1. InIroducIion ................................................................................ 30
o.2. DeliniIions and Iypology ol cybercrime ..................................... 31
o.3. Technical and legal challenges ................................................... 32
o.4. InIernaIional dimension ............................................................. 34
o.S. SubsIanIive (cyber) criminal law ................................................ 3o
o.o. Frocedural Law ............................................................................ 37
o.7. Conclusions ................................................................................. 3
GNUEDL 5 Legal aspecLs of online acLiviLies (lnLerneL)
1. 1ntroducton
This module looks brielly aI Ihe regulaIory lramework ol online acIiviIies, in
boIh civil and criminal law areas. This Iopic has been wriIIen on exIensively,
indeed iI would need a whole book (raIher, several) Io cover all Ihe relevanI
issues and Ihe objecIive here is jusI Io provide an overview ol key Iopics: in-
IerneI governance, online service provider liabiliIy and Ihe regulaIion ol elec-
Ironic commerce and digiIal signaIures. We will also look brielly aI Ihe lighI
againsI cybercrime.
EirsI, as an inIroducIion, we brielly commenI on Ihe iniIiaIives lor Ihe proIec-
Iion ol "digiIal righIs" and on inIerneI governance.
OnIne readng
WSIS bibliography aI hIIp:}}www.iIu.inI}wsis}documenIs}bibliography.hIml pro-
vides an inIeresIing lisI ol readings on Ihis Iopic.
OIher online reading includes:
European Commission: hIIp:}}europa.eu}pol}inlso}index_en.hIm
The InIerneI SocieIy: hIIp:}}www.isoc.org}inIerneI}law}
EEE: The InIerneI Law TreaIise hIIp:}}ilI.ell.org}index.php}Table_ol_ConIenIs
SIanlord UniversiIy: hIIp:}}cyberlaw.sIanlord.edu}
Harvard UniversiIy: hIIp:}}cyber.law.harvard.edu}
BILETA: hIIp:}}www.bileIa.ac.uk}delaulI.aspx
Journals:
JILT: hIIp:}}www2.warwick.ac.uk}lac}soc}law}elj}jilI}
InI. Jnl. ol Law and Inlo. Technology:
hIIp:}}www.oxlordjournals.org}our_journals}inIIec}ediIorial_board.hIml
1.1. OgtaI rghtx
The Ierm "digiIal righIs" describes Ihe righIs ol persons in respecI ol Ihe use ol
compuIers or elecIronic devices, or a communicaIions neIwork. In parIicular,
Ihe concepI ol digiIal righIs relaIes Io Ihe proIecIion ol exisIing righIs, such
as Ihe righI Io lreedom ol expression or privacy, in Ihe online world, i.e. in
Ihe conIexI ol new digiIal Iechnologies.
The righIs in quesIion IhaI are considered relevanI in an online conIexI in-
clude lundamenIal human righIs such as lreedom ol expression, privacy and
lreedom ol associaIion, and cerIain oIher imporIanI righIs like Ihe righI Io
educaIion or consumer righIs.
These issues have mainly arisen as Ihe exIension ol digiIal Iechnologies inIo
our lives has modilied a previously exisIing balance beIween Ihe individual
and Ihe sIaIe, and beIween individuals. The main IhrusI ol Ihe iniIiaIives and
regulaIion has been Io proIecI exisIing righIs in Ihe new conIexI (lree speech),
and creaIe or develop oIher righIs in relaIion Io Iechnology wiIhin Ihe con-
IexI ol proIecIing basic human righIs and digniIy in Ihe digiIal "panopIicon"
(digiIal anonymiIy).
To a cerIain exIenI, Ihe exIension ol cerIain righIs Io Ihe digiIal conIexI is
lairly evidenI. Take lor example Iwo areas: lree speech and privacy.
As Ihe inIerneI is basically a communicaIion Iool, Ihe righI Io lree expres-
sion or lreedom ol speech is obviously a major issue, and has given rise Io
a series ol cases and declaraIions regarding journalisI righIs, individual's
righIs Io sell-expression (Ihrough web 2.0 Iechnologies such as blogs, IwiI-
Ier, eIc.), Ihe delence ol criIicism and parody, and how Io deal wiIh online
delamaIion.
The massive use ol inlormaIion (and Ihe opporIuniIy Io massively use
and connecI inlormaIion) combined wiIh cerIain moniIoring or priva-
cy invasive acIiviIies lrom Ihe simple webpage cookie Io daIa scraping
and harvesIing lrom Ihe web Io real-Iime moniIoring ol acIiviIies (Car-
nivore, key logging, eIc.), has impinged on individuals' righIs Io privacy.
This has in Iurn led Io , giving rise Io greaIer use ol encrypIion (and Ihus
Ihe governmenI's desire Io regulaIe encrypIion Iechnologies and privaIe
keys).
OIher issues are noI so evidenI:
The deIerminaIion ol where an acIiviIy Iakes place (e.g. publicaIion ol
delamaIory work), so as Io decide where Io Iake acIion Io proIecI or delend
one's righIs.
The righI Io anonymiIy (e.g. using TOR neIworks or oIher idenIiIy hiding
sysIems) and access by governmenI Io crypIographic keys (e.g. see Ihe EEE
siIe).
DigiIal righIs managemenI sysIems IhaI moniIor or conIrol a person's use
ol cerIain Iechnologies (e.g. Sony RooIkiI maIIer).
Behaviour Iracking on Ihe web (e.g. Google's email screening, see Ihe
Working FarIy 2).
Travel screening (Ihe US conIrol on air passenger inlormaIion, see Ihe EFIC
and Ihe SIaIewaIch siIes).
Misuse ol "cease and desisI" leIIers (leIIers requiring cerIain inlormaIion Io
be Iaken down or an acIiviIy Io sIop, alleging inlringemenI ol inIellecIual
properIy or oIher righIs). While Ihese C+D leIIers are a valid means lor
delending a person's righIs such as privacy or IF righIs, Ihey have olIen
been abused so as Io censure legiIimaIe acIiviIies such as criIicism, reporI-
ing or linking (see Ihe Chilling ellecIs siIe).
This is noI Ihe space Io cover Ihese issues in greaI deIails, as Ihis course locuses
on Iechnologies, however iI is inIeresIing Io noIe IhaI a series ol iniIiaIives
have been underIaken in Ihis area, which provide inIeresIing lurIher reading:
The World SummIt on the InIormatIon SocIety (WSIS). These conler-
ences were seI up in 2003 and 200S under Ihe UniIed NaIions. This sum-
miI was highly conIroversial (parIicularly regarding ICANN), aiming Io
provide a discussion lorum and lramework lor Ihe proIecIion ol righIs in
Ihe digiIal environmenI, leading Io signilicanI negoIiaIions beIween gov-
ernmenIs, businesses and civil socieIy. This is an ongoing acIiviIy, and has
currenIly lead Io Ihe WSIS DeclaraIion ol Frinciples, reallirming human
righIs.
WS1S OecIaraton oI PrncgIex
The WSIS DeclaraIion ol Frinciples is a series ol sIaIemenIs or principles aiming Io esIab-
lish "an inlormaIion socieIy accessible Io all and based on shared knowledge". There is
an associaIed "AcIion Flan" Io bring more Ihan S0% ol Ihe world's populaIion online by
201S. The o7 principles allirm, among oIher Ihings:
A commiImenI Io build a "people-cenIred", inclusive and developmenI-orienIed In-
lormaIion SocieIy.
The universaliIy, indivisibiliIy, inIerdependence and inIerrelaIion ol all human righIs
and lundamenIal lreedoms, including lreedom ol opinion and expression.
The sovereign equaliIy ol sIaIes (i.e. no inIerlerence wiIh inIernal maIIers... such as
censorship!).
The recogniIion ol diversiIy, special needs, Ihe need Io supporI Ihe poor, and Ihe
need ol inclusiveness, parInership and cooperaIion among governmenIs and oIher
sIakeholders.
To meeI Ihese challenges by:
improving access Io inlormaIion and communicaIion inlrasIrucIure and Iech-
nologies,
providing access Io inlormaIion and knowledge,
building capaciIy and IT applicaIions,
increasing conlidence and securiIy in Ihe use ol ICTs,
creaIing an enabling environmenI aI all levels (legal, economic, social, sIandard-
isaIion, eIc.),
recognising Ihe role ol Ihe media,
addressing Ihe eIhical dimensions ol Ihe InlormaIion SocieIy, and
encouraging inIernaIional and regional cooperaIion.
Work is ongoing, wiIhin Ihe conIexI ol Ihe "WSIS lollow up" and Ihe Tunis Agenda.
One inIeresIing aspecI ol WSIS lrom a Iechnological poinI ol view is Ihe One LapIop
Fer Child iniIiaIive ol Nicholas NegroponIe, chairman and lounder ol Ihe MassachuseIIs
InsIiIuIe ol Technology Media Labs. This iniIiaIive was lirsI presenIed aI Ihe WSIS and
Ihe objecIive was Io presenI, aI Ihe 200S Tunis meeIing, a 100 USD lapIop (running
GNU}Linux, ol course).
The Global NetworR InItIatIve (GNI). This iniIiaIive was lounded wiIh a
sIaIed objecIive ol "FroIecIing and advancing lreedom ol expression and
privacy in InlormaIion and CommunicaIions Technologies". This oddly
enough includes a series ol a mulIi-sIakeholder group ol companies, civil
socieIy organisaIions (including human righIs and press lreedom groups),
invesIors and academics. These parIies spenI Iwo years negoIiaIing and
creaIing a collaboraIive approach Io proIecI and advance lreedom ol ex-
pression and privacy in Ihe ICT secIor. They have developed Frinciples and
Guidelines and Governance charIer lor Ihis purpose, Io provide direcIion
and guidance in relaIion Io Ihe use ol ICTs.
The GN1 PrncgIex and GudeInex and Governance
The GNI principles are aimed aI delending lreedom ol expression and privacy in ICTs,
basically sIaIing IhaI ICT companies have Ihe responsibiliIy Io respecI and proIecI Ihe
lreedom ol expression and privacy righIs ol Iheir users. The principles are based on Ihe
Universal DeclaraIion ol Human RighIs and oIher inIernaIional documenIs, and cover
Ihe lollowing issues:
Ereedom ol Expression. On Iop ol Ihe generally accepIed principal ol lree speech and
absence ol governmenI resIricIions, Ihe principles recognise IhaI broad public access
Io inlormaIion and Ihe lreedom Io creaIe and communicaIe ideas are criIical Io Ihe
advancemenI ol knowledge, economic opporIuniIy and human poIenIial.
FarIicipaIing companies will respecI and proIecI Ihe lreedom ol expression ol Iheir
users by seeking Io avoid or minimise Ihe impacI ol governmenI resIricIions on lree-
dom ol expression, including resIricIions on Ihe inlormaIion available Io users and
Ihe opporIuniIies lor users Io creaIe and communicaIe ideas and inlormaIion, re-
gardless ol lronIiers or media ol communicaIion.
Frivacy: Ihis is sIaIed as a human righI and guaranIor ol human digniIy, imporIanI
Io mainIaining personal securiIy, proIecIing idenIiIy and promoIing lreedom ol ex-
pression.
FarIicipaIing companies will employ proIecIions wiIh respecI Io personal inlorma-
Iion in all counIries where Ihey operaIe in order Io proIecI Ihe privacy righIs ol users.
To implemenI Ihese principles, Ihe guidelines locus on:
Responsible company decision making: inIegraIion ol Ihe principles inIo company
managemenI and culIure.
MulIi-sIakeholder collaboraIion: developmenI ol collaboraIive sIraIegies involving
business, indusIry associaIions, civil socieIy organisaIions, invesIors and academics.
Governance, AccounIabiliIy and Transparency: implemenIing a governance sIruc-
Iure and demanding accounIabiliIy Ihrough Iransparency and public scruIiny.
Luropean DIgItal RIghts (EDRi) is an inIernaIional advocacy group
lounded in 2002 by members lrom several European counIries Io delend
civil righIs in Ihe inlormaIion socieIy. This group moniIors regulaIion
regarding Ihe inIerneI, copyrighI and privacy in European and InIerna-
Iional insIiIuIions. They have covered daIa reIenIion requiremenIs, spam,
IelecommunicaIions inIercepIion, copyrighI and lair use resIricIions, Ihe
cyber-crime IreaIy, raIing, lilIering and blocking ol inIerneI conIenI and
noIice-and-Iakedown procedures ol websiIes.
The LlectronIc FrontIer FoundatIon (EEE) is an inIernaIional non-proliI
digiIal righIs advocacy based in Ihe UniIed SIaIes. IIs sIaIed mission is Io
delend lree speech, privacy, innovaIion, and consumer righIs online. EEE
was one ol Ihe early players in delending digiIal righIs, helping educaIion-
al acIiviIies policy-makers (e.g. wiIh regard Io lree and open Ielecommuni-
caIions neIworks), raising public awareness abouI civil liberIies issues aris-
ing lrom Ihe rapid advancemenI in Ihe area ol new compuIer-based com-
municaIions media, and, inIeresIing lrom a legal perspecIive, supporIing
liIigaIion Io proIecI Ihese righIs. Among oIher issues, Ihey have been ac-
Iive wiIh regard Io:
F2F Technologies (MGM v. GroksIer, INDUCE AcI).
Online journalism and delending Ihe conlidenIialiIy ol sources (Apple v.
Does).
Frivacy proIecIing Iechnologies (BernsIein v. U.S. DepI. ol JusIice).
Online censorship (ACLU v. Reno } CommunicaIions Decency AcI).
MGM v. GroRster
The conIenI indusIry has been lighIing againsI online peer-Io-peer F2F lile-sharing sys-
Iems since NapsIer, in 18. Their argumenIs are IhaI Ihese sysIems inlringe Ihe IF righIs
ol Ihe conIenI holders, inducing and acIually commiIIing breaches ol copyrighI. How-
ever, since Ihe Sony v. BeIamax case ol 184, Ihe US courIs have held IhaI a company is
noI liable lor creaIing a Iechnology IhaI some cusIomers may use lor copyrighI inlring-
ing purposes, so long as Ihe Iechnology is capable ol subsIanIial non-inlringing uses.
F2F lile sharing sysIems Ihemselves, while permiIIing users Io share copyrighI proIecIed
works, are also used Io disIribuIe works under lree conIenI licences and works in Ihe
public domain. NapsIer was shuI down (in Ihe end, volunIarily) because Ihe cenIralised
sysIem did in lacI conIain Ihe works IhaI were being shared, and Ihus Ihe sysIem iIsell
was inlringing IF righIs. In Ihe GroksIer case, "Hollywood" sued GroksIer, a disIribuIor ol
Ihe lile-sharing solIware. In Ihis case, GroksIer iIsell never acIually reproduced Ihe shared
works in iIs sysIems jusI provided a mechanism lor sharing Ihe links. AlIer lengIhy
legal baIIles, Ihe courIs did noI overIurn Ihe BeIamax docIrine, however lound GroksIer
guilIy ol "secondarily liabiliIy" lor IF inlringemenI (i.e. noI direcIly commiIIing Ihe acI,
buI "inducing" iI), sIaIing IhaI iI acIively promoIed illegal lile sharing, did noI implemenI
any lilIers on conIenI passing Ihrough iIs sysIems, and builI a business model based on
Ihe use ol Ihird parIy proIecIed works.
Apple v. Does
In 2004, Apple Iook legal acIion againsI unnamed individuals who allegedly leaked in-
lormaIion abouI new Apple producIs Io several online news siIes, in parIicular concern-
ing a EireWire audio inIerlace. Apple also liled a separaIe Irade secreI suiI againsI a siIe
called Think SecreI in 200S. Apple soughI Ihe idenIiIies ol Ihe persons who had leaked
Ihe inlormaIion Io Ihe journalisIs ol Ihese siIes. EEE successlully delended Ihe journalisIs
and siIes in quesIion againsI revealing Iheir sources, on Ihe basis ol Ihe conlidenIialiIy
ol media sources.
BernsteIn v. US Dept. JustIce
In 1S, Daniel BernsIein, a Berkeley universiIy researcher, planned Io disIribuIe an
encrypIion program he had wriIIen (called Snullle) IhaI could help prevenI Ihird par-
Iies lrom inIercepIing online communicaIions, discovering passwords and, lor example,
sIealing crediI card numbers. US laws (exporI conIrol and Irallic in arms regulaIion) re-
sIricIed Ihe publicaIion ol his program, as encrypIion Iechnology lalls wiIhin weapons
conIrol laws (Waasemar IreaIy), IreaIed as a poIenIial IhreaI Io naIional securiIy. The US
lederal courIs allirmed, lor Ihe lirsI Iime, IhaI solIware code deserves EirsI AmendmenI
(lree speech) proIecIion and Ihus BernsIein could publish Ihe code and scienIilic papers
abouI Ihe algoriIhm.
ACLU v. Reno
In 1o, Ihe US promulgaIed Ihe CommunicaIions Decency AcI, a law in lavour ol Sale
InIerneI and criminalising Ihe publicaIion ol cerIain conIenI online (IhaI Ihe govern-
menI could noI prohibiI ollline). EEE and a group ol inIeresIed parIies (ACLU being one
ol Ihem) quesIioned Ihe consIiIuIionaliIy ol Ihe law and Ihe Supreme CourI evenIually
declared iI unconsIiIuIional on Ihe basis ol Ihe proIecIion ol lree speech. US Congress
Ihen passed Ihe Children Online FroIecIion AcI (criminalising "commercial" disIribuIion
ol maIerial deemed "harmlul Io minors") and Ihe courIs have granIed orders againsI iIs
enlorcemenI, basically lor being Ioo wide in scope.
The Open RIghts Group (ORG) is a UK-based organisaIion campaigning
on digiIal righIs issues and online lreedom, and acIs as a media clearing-
house service puIIing journalisIs in Iouch wiIh experIs, "jostern a com-
munty oj rassroots actvsts". II campaigns againsI digiIal righIs manage-
menI (DRM), Ihe exIension ol Ihe Ierm ol copyrighI proIecIion allorded
Io sound recordings, e-voIing, as well as numerous oIher issues.
OIher inIeresIing organisaIions Io lollow include:
Statewatch "moniIoring Ihe sIaIe and civil liberIies in Europe".
Luropean CIvIl LIbertIes NetworR (ECLN) "seeking Io creaIe a European
socieIy based on lreedom and equaliIy, ol lundamenIal civil liberIies and
personal and poliIical lreedoms, ol lree movemenI and lreedom ol inlor-
maIion, and equal righIs lor minoriIies".
LlectronIc PrIvacy InIormatIon Center (EFIC) "Eocusing public aIIen-
Iion on emerging privacy and civil liberIies issues".
FoundatIon Ior a Iree InIormatIon InIrastructure (EEII) "inlormaIion
abouI lree and compeIiIive solIware markeIs, genuine open sIandards and
paIenI sysIems wiIh lesser barriers Io compeIiIion".
1.2. 1nternet governance
One Iopic IhaI gave rise Io signilicanI concerns aI Ihe origins ol Ihe inIerneI
is Ihe Iechnology governance model (i.e. who regulaIes Ihe communicaIions
neIwork). While iI is sIill an issue, iI has gone oll Ihe agenda more recenIly, as
oIher "hoI Iopics" such as "conIenI piracy" or "digiIal Ierrorism" have arisen.
Originally, Ihe inIerneI was a privaIe (academic) and US-cenIred neIwork, and
governance was esIablished on a closed model, carried ouI by engineers and
scienIisIs. The privaIe secIor provided a signilicanI amounI ol Ihe invesImenI
and inlrasIrucIure (Ihe inIernaIional backbone inlrasIrucIure, Ihe naIional ca-
ble neIworks, and provides services IhaI laciliIaIe and manage Irallic).
As regards communicaIions sIandards and Ihe Iechnological operaIion ol Ihe
inIerneI, Ihe IETE (InIerneI Engineering Task Eorce), a privaIe body, developed
cerIain Iechnical rules lor Ihe luncIioning ol Ihe inIerneI (proIocol deliniIion,
eIc.). They were reinlorced by Ihe W3C (world wide web consorIium) delining
sIandards and proIocols lor IhaI parI ol Ihe inIerneI IhaI is Ihe world wide
web.
However, overall, a key elemenI ol Ihe neIwork has been Ihe resources lor
neIwork names and addresses: domain names, IF addresses. Originally, Ihe
IANA (InIerneI Assigned Numbers AuIhoriIy) was responsible lor assigning
inIerneI names and addresses. However, Ihe American governmenI decided,
in Ihe laIe 10s, Io conIracI some ol Ihe services provided by IANA lrom
ICANN (Ihe InIerneI CorporaIion lor Assigned Numbers and Names).
ICANN is a US non-proliI public-beneliI corporaIion and is responsible lor
coordinaIing Ihe managemenI ol Ihe Domain Name SysIem (DNS), Ihe allo-
caIion ol inIerneI proIocol address spaces, Ihe coordinaIion ol new inIerneI
coordinaIion parameIers and Ihe managemenI ol Ihe inIerneI's rooI name
server sysIem. While ICANN is a quasi privaIe organisaIion, iI is assisIed and
moniIored by a GovernmenIal Advisory CommiIIee (GAC) which is open Io
all governmenIs and a number ol inIernaIional organisaIions wiIh a direcI
inIeresI in ICANN policy, including ITU, WIFO, OECD, eIc.
DomaIn names: Domain names are names by which inIerneI hosIs may
be easily idenIilied, as opposed Io Ihe numerical IF addressing sysIem used
lor neIwork communicaIion. ICANN seI ouI Iwo Iypes ol regisIry:
a number ol generic Iop-level domains (gTLDs), such as ".com", ".neI",
and ".org" which are used worldwide (expanded Io .biz, .inlo, eIc.),
abouI 240 naIional or IerriIorial regisIries mainIain similar sysIems ol
names under a counIry code (ccTLD regisIries), such as ".uk", ".lr".
NaIional regisIrars were seI up lor Ihe ccTLDs (NomineI, ES-NIC, eIc.) and
ICANN accrediIed a number ol privaIe regisIrars (like Verisign) lor regis-
Iering domain names.
UDRP (Unilorm DispuIe ResoluIion Folicy) is a process esIablished lor Ihe
resoluIion ol issues regarding Ihe regisIraIion and use ol domain names,
supervised aI an inIernaIional level by WIFO, and aI naIional level by Ihe
corresponding regisIrars. We have commenIed on Ihis issue in Ihe module
on Irademark use on Ihe inIerneI.
While ICANN argues iI has succeeded in mainIaining Ihe sIabiliIy ol Ihe Do-
main Name SysIem lor Ien years now, and encouraged a parIicipaIive decision-
making process, Ihere have been a series ol criIicisms concerning iIs privaIe
naIure, iIs lack ol represenIaIiveness and even iIs monopolisIic Iendencies.
The legal sIrucIure and incorporaIion ol ICANN under Calilornian law
poses problems, including conllicIs ol applicable law and jurisdicIions.
LegiIimaIe concerns remain as Io wheIher a governmenIal commiIIee ad-
vising a privaIe corporaIion is an appropriaIe and ellecIive mechanism Io
enable governmenIs Io exercise Iheir public policy responsibiliIies.
On Iop ol Ihis, Ihe sell-regulaIory approach as pracIised by ICANN means
IhaI incumbenI operaIors play a poIenIially inappropriaIe role (e.g. lrom
Ihe sIandpoinI ol compeIiIion policy) in seIIing enIry condiIions lor new
compeIiIors.
Eor lurIher inlormaIion on Ihe Iopic, see an early arIicle
1
and conIrasI wiIh inlormaIion
aI Icann WaIch, GIFI and IGE.
(1)
Eor example, aI Ihe Duke Law & Technology Review.
2. OnIne actvtex
We consider IhaI iI is imporIanI Io have minimum knowledge ol Ihe righIs
and obligaIions regarding online acIiviIies, parIicularly in respecI ol inIerneI
relaIed services (access, hosIing, linking, eIc.) and web plaIlorms, boIh Ihose
IhaI merely broadcasI inlormaIion ("passive" siIes) as well as Ihose ol elecIron-
ic commerce (dynamic siIes), and Ihe mosI recenI social neIworks (Eacebook,
YouTube, Elickr, TwiIIer, eIc.).
There has been a signilicanI amounI ol legislaIion Io adapI Ihe legal lrame-
works ol Ihe "analogue world" Io Ihe digiIal world, Ihe "InlormaIion SocieIy".
This has mainly occurred aI regional (i.e. European) level, Io harmonise laws
beIween member sIaIes ol Ihe EU so as Io remove barriers againsI elecIronic
Irading: boIh providing inlormaIion socieIy services, and online conIracIing.
Applicable regulaIion in Ihis area aI EU level includes:
DirecIive 2000}31}EC ol Ihe European FarliamenI and ol Ihe Council
ol 8 June 2000 on cerIain legal aspecIs ol inlormaIion socieIy services,
in parIicular elecIronic commerce, in Ihe inIernal markeI. (Ecommerce
DirecIive).
ol 22 May 2001 on Ihe harmonisaIion ol cerIain aspecIs ol copyrighI
and relaIed righIs in Ihe inlormaIion socieIy (CopyrighI in Ihe Inlor-
maIion SocieIy DirecIive).
DirecIive 7}7}EC ol Ihe European FarliamenI and ol Ihe Council ol
20 May 17 on Ihe proIecIion ol consumers in respecI ol disIance
conIracIs ("DisIance Selling DirecIive").
DirecIive S}4o}EC ol Ihe European FarliamenI and ol Ihe Council ol
24 OcIober 1S on Ihe proIecIion ol individuals wiIh regard Io Ihe
processing ol personal daIa and on Ihe lree movemenI ol such daIa
(Frivacy DirecIive).
ol 2 April 2004 on Ihe enlorcemenI ol inIellecIual properIy righIs
(IFR EnlorcemenI DirecIive).
We have presenIed and commenIed on Ihe lasI Iwo DirecIives in Ihe module
on InIellecIual FroperIy RighIs.
2.1. 1nIormaton xocet xervcex
The services supplied by Ihe "lrovJers oj servces oj the njormaton socety" are
basically regulaIed on a European Level by Ihe ElecIronic Commerce Direc-
Iive, Iransposed naIionally Ihrough various laws such as Ihe Spanish "Ley de
los Servicios de la Sociedad de la Inlormacin y el Comercio ElecIrnico" or
Ihe English ElecIronic Commerce (EC DirecIive) RegulaIions 2002, Consumer
FroIecIion (DisIance Selling) RegulaIions 2000.
In Ihis secIion we will consider Ihe adminisIraIive and legal lramework lor
Ihe provision ol services (Ihe scope ol applicaIion ol Ihe regulaIions, adminis-
IraIive requiremenIs and Ihe legal regime applicable Io inIernaIional Iransac-
Iions) as well as Ihe obligaIions IhaI are binding lor providers. In Ihe lollow-
ing secIion, we will commenI on elecIronic conIracIing and Ihe regulaIion ol
commercial acIiviIies over Ihe inIerneI.
Online privacy issues are covered in Ihe module on privacy.
The deliniIion ol inlormaIion socieIy services already exisIs in CommuniIy
law in DirecIive 8}34}EC laying down a procedure lor Ihe provision ol in-
lormaIion in Ihe lield ol Iechnical sIandards and regulaIions and ol rules on
inlormaIion socieIy, Ihis deliniIion covers "any service normally provided lor
remuneraIion, aI a disIance, by means ol elecIronic equipmenI lor Ihe pro-
cessing (including digiIal compression) and sIorage ol daIa, and aI Ihe indi-
vidual requesI ol a recipienI ol a service".
Thus basically Ihe Ecommerce DirecIive applies Io all acIiviIies carried ouI
by elecIronic means and having a commercial naIure or pursuing a linancial
objecIive (Io obIain linancial income direcIly or indirecIly). In oIher words,
iI applies Io web pages IhaI carry ouI elecIronic commerce acIiviIies as well
as Io Ihose IhaI supply inlormaIion or oller services lree lor users, when Ihey
represenI an economic acIiviIy lor Iheir owner.
The DirecIive and naIional laws cover boIh services beIween enIerprises (B2B)
and services beIween enIerprises and consumers (B2C), as well as services pro-
vided lree Io Ihe recipienI (depending on Ihe counIry, Ihese may need Io be
linanced, lor example, by adverIising income or sponsoring).
InlormaIion socieIy services are noI solely resIricIed Io services giving rise Io
online conIracIing buI also, in so lar as Ihey represenI an economic acIiviIy,
exIend Io services which are noI remuneraIed by Ihose who receive Ihem,
such as Ihose ollering online inlormaIion or commercial communicaIions, or
Ihose providing Iools allowing lor search, access and reIrieval ol daIa.
II covers Ihe all secIors and acIiviIies, including in parIicular: newspapers, daIabases,
linancial services, prolessional services (soliciIors, docIors, accounIanIs, esIaIe agenIs),
enIerIainmenI services (video on demand, lor example), direcI markeIing and adverIising
and InIerneI access services.
2.2. Countr oI orgn ruIe and aggIcabIe Iaw
In an inIernaIional environmenI such as Ihe inIerneI, iI is imporIanI Io deIer-
mine Ihe acI IhaI applies Io Ihe provision ol a service. OIherwise, providers ol
services over Ihe inIerneI could be exposed Io Ihe conIrol and applicable acI
ol all Ihe counIries ol Ihe world. In order Io avoid Ihis problem, on a European
level iI has been ruled IhaI, in mosI cases, Ihe place where Ihe service provider
is esIablished will deIermine Ihe acI and compeIenI auIhoriIies IhaI regulaIe
Ihem (Ihe "counIry ol origin" principle).
Thus under ArIicle 3 ol Ihe DirecIive, providers ol inlormaIion socieIy services
are subjecI Io Ihe legislaIion ol Ihe Member SIaIe in which Ihey are esIablished.
The DirecIive delines a provider's place ol esIablishmenI as Ihe place in which
a service provider ellecIively pursues an economic acIiviIy using a lixed esIab-
lishmenI lor an indeliniIe period. Thus service providers esIablished in Erance
only need be concerned by Erench regulaIion, service providers esIablished
in Spain comply wiIh Spanish laws, and so on (subjecI Io whaI we menIion
below as Io applicable law and jurisdicIion, especially as regards consumers).
II is imporIanI Io noIe IhaI Ihe presence and use ol Ihe Iechnical means and
Iechnologies required Io provide Ihe service do noI, in Ihemselves, consIiIuIe
an esIablishmenI ol Ihe provider. So a UK based service provider wiIh equip-
menI in Erance would noI a priori be subjecI Erench regulaIion ol iIs acIiviIies
(excepI as regards consumer sales direcIed aI Erance, see below).
2.2.1. AggIcabIe Iaw and ]urxdcton
AnoIher area ol doubI is which law applies Io online relaIions and which
courIs should solve dillerences (in Ihe evenI ol inIernaIional issues). This has
always been a dilliculI issue, an area ol law called FrivaIe InIernaIional Law
or ConllicI ol Laws.
WiIh regards Io elecIronic conIracIing, in general Ihe law and compeIenI
courIs agreed in Ihe conIracI will apply. Eailing IhaI, Ihe sIandard rules ol
FrivaIe InIernaIional Law will apply. WiIh conIracIs beIween consumers and
prolessionals Ihe applicable law is IhaI ol Ihe counIry ol residence ol Ihe
consumer, provided IhaI Ihis is also Ihe counIry where Ihe prolessional carries
ouI his}her acIiviIies or Io which his}her acIiviIies are direcIed. The parIies
may also, based on lreedom ol choice, apply anoIher law, as long as iI provides
Ihe same level ol proIecIion Io Ihe consumer as IhaI ol his}her counIry ol res-
idence (This is why, lor example, consumer producI disIribuIion plaIlorms are
olIen cusIomised lor each IargeI counIry lor example www.pixmania.com).
As regards non-conIracIual obligaIions and liabiliIies (IorIs, IFR issues, eIc.),
Ihe "Rome II" convenIion (since 200, RegulaIion (EC) No 8o4}2007 ol Ihe
European FarliamenI and ol Ihe Council ol 11 July 2007 on Ihe law applicable
Io non-conIracIual obligaIions) provides IhaI Ihe applicable law is:
The law ol Ihe counIry where Ihe damage occurs.
The law ol Ihe counIry where boIh parIies were habiIually residenI when
Ihe damage occurred.
The law ol Ihe counIry wiIh which Ihe case is manilesIly more closely con-
necIed Ihan Ihe oIher counIries (using Ihe "poinIs ol conIacI" docIrine").
As regards Ihe courIs IhaI would hear any conllicI ("jurisdicIion"), Ihis is also
covered aI European level and case law. Council RegulaIion (EC) No 44}2001
ol 22 December 2000 on jurisdicIion and Ihe recogniIion and enlorcemenI ol
judgmenIs in civil and commercial maIIers (as amended) provides IhaI:
The basic principle is IhaI jurisdicIion is Io be exercised by Ihe Member
SIaIe in which Ihe delendanI is domiciled, regardless ol his}her naIional-
iIy. This will always be Ihe case lor consumer delendanIs.
AparI lrom Ihe basic principle on jurisdicIion, in cerIain circumsIances a
delendanI may be sued in Ihe courIs ol anoIher Member SIaIe, including:
(IFR issues, oIher).
ConIracIs: where Ihe parIies have agreed or where Ihe obligaIion is
perlormed.
Eamily mainIenance: where Ihe crediIor (Ihe person paying mainIe-
nance) is domiciled.
TorIs (wronglul acIs): where Ihe harmlul acI occurred (including IF
inlringemenI).
Consumers: always in Iheir own domicile (see nexI).
Insurance: where Ihe insurer is domiciled.
In order lor Ihe consumer Io enjoy Ihis proIecIion in his}her home domi-
cile in oIher cases, Ihe consumer conIracI musI have been concluded wiIh
a person eiIher who pursues has commercial or prolessional acIiviIies in
in Ihe Member SIaIe in which Ihe consumer's Member SIaIe (e.g. a local or
naIional business), or is domiciled Ihis company}prolessional "or direcIs"
such Ihese acIiviIies Io IhaI Member SIaIe (e.g. a business is domiciled in
Ihe UK, buI has an online plaIlorm lor selling producIs across Ihe resI ol
Europe, including e.g inIernaIional delivery, and Ihe websiIe is in several
European languages, in Ihis case, Ihe consumer can argue IhaI Ihe plaI-
lorm is direcIing iIs acIiviIies aI Ihe consumer in anoIher counIry).
A consumer may eiIher bring proceedings eiIher in Ihe courIs ol Ihe Mem-
ber SIaIe in which Ihe delendanI is domiciled or in Ihe courIs lor Ihe place
where Ihe consumer (as plainIill) is domiciled.
2.3. Servce Provder obIgatonx
In order Io provide services over Ihe inIerneI, companies do noI need Io re-
quesI auIhorisaIion or sign any regisIry. However, wiIh a view Io improving
Ihe Iransparency ol "remoIe" commerce, service providers are obliged Io pub-
lish cerIain daIa abouI Ihemselves and Iheir producIs.
General InIormatIon oblIgatIons. Service providers musI indicaIe on
Iheir web page:
Their company name and conIacI deIails (address, email address and
any oIher deIail allowing direcI and ellecIive communicaIion, lor ex-
ample a Ielephone or lax number).
Il Ihe company is inscribed in Ihe Company RegisIer or any oIher pub-
lic regisIer, sIaIing also Ihe corresponding inscripIion number.
The company's Iax idenIilicaIion number (lor VAT purposes).
InlormaIion regarding producI prices, wheIher or noI Ihey include ap-
plicable Iaxes, delivery cosIs, and any oIher daIa IhaI oughI Io be in-
cluded under applicable norms ol Ihe auIonomous communiIies.
DeIails regarding any adminisIraIive auIhorisaIion where necessary, as
well as Ihe relevanI supervisory body.
DeIails ol Ihe prolessional body lor regulaIed prolessions (Lawyers, aI-
Iorneys, docIors, eIc.), and Ihe alliliaIion number, academic qualili-
caIion and SIaIe ol Ihe European Union IhaI issued iI wiIh Ihe corre-
sponding approval where applicable.
Codes ol ConducI adhered Io, where applicable, and Ihe means ol
consulIing Ihem elecIronically.
OblIgatIons regardIng cooRIes and securIty. The use ol cooles is noI
prohibiIed, since Ihey are someIimes necessary in order Io laciliIaIe com-
municaIions or Io cusIomise websiIes, however, as a modilicaIion Io Ihe
original DirecIive, service providers musI provide clear and compleIe in-
lormaIion on Ihe use and purpose ol cooles, ollering Ihe possibiliIy ol
rejecIing Ihe processing ol daIa Ihrough a simple and lree procedure (ba-
sically, by deacIivaIing Ihem in Ihe browser).
AI Ihe same Iime, nternet access supplers are obliged Io inlorm Iheir users
(lor example, on Iheir main web page or siIe), abouI:
Ihe Iechnical measures IhaI ensure proIecIion againsI securiIy IhreaIs
over Ihe inIerneI (compuIer viruses, spyware, spam),
Iools lor lilIering unwanIed conIenI,
securiIy measures applied in Ihe provision ol Iheir services (IogeIher
wiIh email service providers),
poIenIial liabiliIies IhaI could be incurred Ihrough use ol Ihe inIerneI
lor illiciI purposes.
AddItIonal oblIgatIons to collaborate and lIabIlIty oI IntermedIate
servIce provIders. There is also an addiIional provision, arIicles 1S and
1, requiring member sIaIes Io ensure Ihe service provider supplies (and
Ihus collaboraIes wiIh) naIional auIhoriIies (adminisIraIive and police)
wiIh "requisiIe inlormaIion", specilically regarding alleged illegal acIivi-
Iies, when so required , e.g. in order Io inIerrupI Ihe provision ol a service
or Io idenIily an online user.
However, Ihe law releases lrom liabiliIy cerIain inIerneI "inIermediaries" ac-
cess, daIa Iransmission, hosIing and search engine services wiIh regards Io
Ihe conIenIs IhaI Ihey hosI, IransmiI, provide access Io or classily in a link
direcIory (see below). They are noI obliged Io supervise said conIenI, lor ex-
ample. BuI Ihey can be liable il Ihey Iake an acIive parI in iIs preparaIion or il,
knowing IhaI parIicular maIerial is illegal, Ihey do noI acI speedily Io remove
iI or Io prevenI access Io iI.
3. LabIt oI nIormaton xocet xervce grovderx
NoI all ol Ihe inlormaIion IransmiIIed Ihrough Ihe inIerneI is in compliance
wiIh naIional legal sysIems. The disseminaIion ol some inlormaIion is unlaw-
lul, e.g. images relaIed Io child pornography or works proIecIed by inIellecIual
properIy righIs (lor insIance, Ihe online publicaIion ol music or video works
wiIhouI auIhorisaIion). The dillusion ol such conIenI inIerleres wiIh public
or privaIe inIeresIs.
The legal responsibiliIy is borne by Ihe auIhors ol Ihe online publicaIions.
NoneIheless, Ihe quesIion ol inIermediaries on Ihe communicaIion neIworks
arises. Those inIermediary players serve Io IransmiI and hosI inlormaIion
and Io provide access Io a communicaIion neIwork (ISFs InIerneI Service
Froviders).
The inIermediaries do noI have real conIrol over all Ihe inlormaIion IransmiI-
Ied Ihrough Iheir equipmenI. II would be expensive and Iechnically dilliculI.
EurIhermore, considering inIermediaries liable could be prejudicial Io Ihe de-
velopmenI ol Ihe inIerneI.
Eor IhaI reason, Ihe Ecommerce DirecIive provides a balanced soluIion lor Ihe
inIeresIs aI sIake and aims Io end Ihe growing dillerences beIween Member
SIaIes' legislaIion and case law IhaI were emerging on Ihe liabiliIy ol inIerneI
inIermediaries.
The direcIive does noI jusI apply Io copyrighI inlringemenI buI is esIablished
in a horizonIal manner, so IhaI iI applies Io all kinds ol illegal maIerials (in-
cluding copyrighI, unlawlul commercial pracIises, breach ol privacy, criminal
liabiliIy, eIc.).
However, Io beneliI lrom Ihe proIecIions, Ihe service provider musI be an
"inIermediary" and, Iherelore, Ihe inlormaIion musI be provided by Ihe Ihird
parIy recipienIs ol services and musI be IransmiIIed or sIored aI Iheir requesI.
The European direcIive covers Ihree caIegories ol online inIermediary acIivi-
Iies, and dillerenI condiIions musI be lullilled lor each one.
3.1. Actvtex covered and condtonx Ior IabIt Imtaton
This direcIive creaIes a sysIem IhaI prevenIs online inIermediaries lrom being
held liable lor specilic acIiviIies under cerIain condiIions.
Eor Ihe acIiviIies or inIermediaries noI covered by Ihe direcIive, or lor inIer-
mediaries IhaI do noI lullil Ihe liabiliIy limiIaIions condiIions, Ihe DirecIive
relers Io Ihe applicable naIional law ol liabiliIy ol Member SIaIes.
Frimarily, Ihe DirecIive prohibiIs member sIaIes lrom obliging ISFs Io moniIor
Ihe conIenI ol Ihe daIa Ihey process. However, Io beneliI lrom Ihe exempIions,
Ihey musI saIisly Ihe condiIions, on an ongoing basis:
Mere conduIt: A mere conduiI is delined as "a servce provJeJ that conssts
oj the transmsson n a communcaton networl oj njormaton provJeJ hy a
recpent oj the servce, or the provson oj access to a communcaton networl."
II relers, lor insIance, Io Ihe luncIions ol an inIerneI access provider or
neIwork operaIors. An inIermediary engaging in mere conducI acIiviIy
will noI be liable lor Ihe damages caused by Ihe inlormaIion IransmiIIed
as long as iI does noI:
IniIiaIe Ihe Iransmission.
SelecI Ihe receiver ol Ihe Iransmission.
SelecI or modily Ihe inlormaIion conIained in Ihe Iransmission.
The provider cannoI play an acIive role in Ihe Iransmission ol inlormaIion. IIs
role has Io be limiIed Io Ihe Iechnical process ol operaIing and giving access
Io a communicaIion neIwork. The condiIion ol noI having modilied Ihe in-
lormaIion does noI exIend Io Ihe Iechnical manipulaIions enabling Ihe Irans-
mission ol inlormaIion since Ihese do noI alIer Ihe inIegriIy ol Ihe inlorma-
Iion conIained in Ihe Iransmission.
Thus, insolar as Ihe provider has a passive and neuIral role, iI may noI be held
liable lor Ihe inlormaIion IransmiIIed Ihrough iIs equipmenI, eiIher aI a civil
or aI a criminal level.
1) CachIng: Caching consisIs ol "Ihe auIomaIic, inIermediaIe and Iemporary
sIorage ol IhaI inlormaIion, perlormed lor Ihe sole purpose ol making more
ellicienI Ihe inlormaIion's onward Iransmission Io oIher recipienIs ol Ihe ser-
vice upon Iheir requesI". Any inIermediary provider IhaI carries ouI a caching
acIiviIy will noI be held liable as long as iI meeIs Ihe lollowing condiIions:
II does noI modily Ihe inlormaIion.
II complies wiIh condiIions lor accessing Ihe inlormaIion.
II complies wiIh rules lor updaIing Ihe inlormaIion, specilied in a manner
widely recognised and used by indusIry.
II does noI inIerlere wiIh Ihe lawlul use ol Iechnology widely recognised
and used by indusIry Io obIain daIa on Ihe use ol Ihe inlormaIion.
II acIs expediIiously Io remove or disable access Io Ihe inlormaIion iI has
sIored upon obIaining knowledge ol Ihe lacI IhaI:
The inlormaIion aI Ihe iniIial source ol Ihe Iransmission has been re-
moved lrom Ihe neIwork.
Access Io iI has been disabled.
A courI or an adminisIraIive auIhoriIy has ordered such removal or
disablemenI.
In oIher words, Ihe inIermediary provider musI sIay neuIral concerning Ihe
conIenI ol Ihe inlormaIion.
2) HostIng actIvIty: HosIing is delined as an inlormaIion socieIy service IhaI
consisIs ol Ihe "sIorage ol inlormaIion provided by a recipienI ol Ihe service
and aI his requesI."
Eor insIance, iI includes Ihe acIiviIies ol Ihe inIerneI access providers who
provide space on a server in order Io sIore Iheir clienIs' websiIes and Iherelore
make Ihem accessible on Ihe inIerneI.
To enjoy Ihe liabiliIy limiIaIion, Ihe provider ol hosIing acIiviIies musI:
noI have acIual knowledge ol illegal acIiviIy or inlormaIion and,
upon obIaining such knowledge or awareness, acI expediIiously Io remove
or Io disable access Io Ihe inlormaIion.
Therelore, Ihe inIermediary providing hosIing will be held liable il iI is proven
IhaI he had knowledge ol Ihe exisIence ol unlawlul inlormaIion (lor insIance
by Ihird parIy noIilicaIion denouncing Ihe exisIence ol such inlormaIion) and
did noI remove iI or disable access Io iI.
There are dillerences as regards implemenIaIion ol Ihese provisions, wiIh
some naIional laws requiring ellecIive knowledge ol an illegal acI Ihrough
courI order (so IhaI Ihe ISF does noI have Io Iake a decision as Io wheIher
some maIerial is inlringing or noI) or Ihrough being served privaIe noIice (e.g.
a Iake-down noIice).
3.2. Other actvtex
InIeresIingly, cerIain naIional legislaIion has exIended Ihe ecommerce direc-
Iive proIecIions Io oIher inIermediary acIiviIies, namely linking and search
engines.
LInRs: Hyperlinks are aI Ihe base and origin ol inIerneI Iechnology. They
consIiIuIe Iechnical mechanisms IhaI, like poinIers, permiI a logical link
Io be made beIween dillerenI hyperIexI conIenIs, allowing lor highly dy-
namic browsing and obIaining ol conIenIs. While iI is generally IhoughI
IhaI no liabiliIy arises in respecI ol links creaIed Io inlringing or illegal
maIerials, unless "sponsoring" Ihese maIerials, Spain lor example has ex-
pliciIly excluded liabiliIy lor links where Ihe linker does noI know ol Ihe
naIure ol Ihe daIa Io which he}she is linking and removes Ihe link when
he}she does have such knowledge.
Search engInes. Search engines like Google or Yahoo are also essenIial
leaIures ol Ihe neI, enabling inlormaIion Io be lound among liIerally mil-
lions ol pages. Again, iI is IhoughI IhaI search engines should noI be liable
lor Ihe conIenI ol Ihe pages Ihey link Io as a resulI ol a search, and specil-
ic exempIion has also been given in Ihe same condiIions as lor linking.
This is noI Ihe case, however, lor search engines "caches", when Ihey lall
ouIside Ihe caching exempIion commenIed above, as olIen Ihese search
engines Ihemselves sIore old or removed (illegal) inlormaIion and Ihus
provide access Io iI.
Linking and oIher lorms ol inIerneI leaIures such as meIaIags in general have
caused a series ol case law and decision, wiIh Ihe courIs approaching Ihe maI-
Ier in dillerenI ways. In parIicular, Ihey have considered:
LInRIng is generally held (SheIland Times) Io be legal, provided Ihe acIual
IexI o l Ihe link iIsell is noI a breach ol Iirad Ihird parIy RighIs (e.g. copy-
righIed work, such as arguably a newspaper IiIle see SheIland Times
case, where a newspaper used Ihe headlines ol a compeIing newspaper Io
link Io IhaI paper, bypassing Ihe lronI page.
Deep lInRIng: linking Io a page IhaI is noI Ihe "home" page ol Ihe linked
siIe. Again Ihis has been deemed Io be liciI, as iI is undersIood IhaI Ihe
whoel poinI ol havinge "pages" is Io be able Io link Io any ol Ihem, and
Ihe linked websiIe owner has Iechnical means lor prevenIing linkers going
direcI Io a sub-page.
FramIng: using a separaIe segmenI ol Ihe browser Io display anoIher
company's linked webpage, noI expliciIly showing iIs URL i.e. creaIing a
lrame round Ihe linked siIe. This is generally undersIood Io be a breach ol
Ihe linked siIe owner's righIs, il noI unlair compeIiIion (where Ihe linked
conIenI cannoI be disIinguished lrom Ihe linker's own conIenI, Ihus caus-
ing conlusion). This is even more so when Ihe lramed conIenI includes
Irademarks and oIher proIecIed works.
InlInIng: creaIing webpages lrom Ihird parIy conIenI (sIored on anoIher
siIe). Again, il Ihe Ihird parIy conIenI is proIecIed by copyrighI, iI is gen-
erally considered Io be illegal Io "inline", aI leasI when iI is done wiIhouI
aIIribuIion. This is more conIroversial, lor example, when search engines
inline Ihumbnails or abbreviaIed parIs ol Ihird parIy conIenI. Again Ihis
is a Iechnical issue, as Ihe Ihumbnails or exIracIs Ihemselves may noI be
inlined, buI reproduced by Ihe linking siIe.
Metatags are a means ol using cerIain daIa Io mark up or inlorm on Ihe
conIenI ol a siIe. CerIain siIes will use Irademarks and oIher proIecIed
signs Io aIIracI search engine aIIenIion (Ihus rising in Ihe resulIs ranking)
a pracIice which is generally considered illegal unless auIhorised by Ihe
righIs holder or beneliIIing lrom oIher exempIions (lair use).
Eor more reading: see BechIold's page (updaIed Io 2004 only) and more inlormaIion aI
Ihe Wikipedia siIe. Also commenIed aI BiIlaw Legal Resource.
3.3. 1SPx and 1PR enIorcement
While ISFs may beneliI lrom exempIions wiIh regard Io Ihe daIa Ihey pro-
cess on behall ol oIhers, we have seen in Ihe module in IFR IhaI DirecIive
2004}48}EC on Ihe enlorcemenI ol inIellecIual properIy righIs (IFR Enlorce-
menI DirecIive), requires cerIain involved parIies Io provide inlormaIion on
Ihe possessors ol inlringing producIs, Ihe recipienIs ol inlringing services and
Ihose IhaI have provided services Io Ihe inlringer.
Thus in Ihe lield ol e-commerce, Ihe quesIion may arise wheIher Ihe inIerme-
diary service provider has Ihe obligaIion Io provide inlormaIion on Ihe recip-
ienIs ol iIs services (Ihe inlringers}Ihe conIenI providers carrying ouI illegal
acIiviIies), or is exempIed lrom such obligaIion by relerring Io Ihe regulaIions
on limiIaIion ol liabiliIy and exempIion lrom moniIoring obligaIion seI ouI
in Ecommerce DirecIive.
Under ArIicle 8 ol Ihe EnlorcemenI DirecIive, Member SIaIes musI ensure IhaI
in Ihe conIexI ol proceedings concerning an inlringemenI ol an inIellecIual
properIy righI and in response Io a jusIilied and proporIionaIe requesI ol a
claimanI, Ihe compeIenI judicial auIhoriIies may order IhaI inlormaIion on
Ihe origin and disIribuIion neIworks ol Ihe goods or services which inlringe
an inIellecIual properIy righI be provided by Ihe inlringer and}or any oIher
person who:
Was lound in possession ol Ihe inlringing goods on a commercial scale.
Was lound Io be using Ihe inlringing services on a commercial scale.
Was lound Io be providing services used in inlringing acIiviIies on a com-
mercial scale.
Was indicaIed by Ihe person relerred Io in poinIs (a), (b) or (c) as being
involved in Ihe producIion, manulacIure or disIribuIion ol Ihe goods or
Ihe provision ol Ihe services.
The EnlorcemenI DirecIive deIermines Ihe scope ol Ihe inlormaIion Io be pro-
vided and regulaIions Io be Iaken inIo accounI when enlorcing Ihe righI Io
inlormaIion in parIicular, regulaIion as Io Ihe processing ol personal daIa.
So ISFs lind Ihemselves aI Ihe hearI ol a conllicI beIween Ihree laws (IFR, Fri-
vacy, Ecommerce).
BbIogragh
See lor example hIIp:}}
searchenginewaIch.com}
21SoSS1, commenI aI hIIp:}
}cyber.law.harvard.edu}prop-
erIy00}meIaIags}main.hIml
and hIIp:}}ilI.ell.org}
index.php}Trademark:_Links,
_Erames,_Search_Engines_
And_MeIa-Tags.
ISFs are usually Ihe IargeI ol IFR enlorcemenI acIiviIies as Ihey hold Ihe da-
Ia Io idenIily users (IF address } domain name) and olIen hosI Ihe allegedly
illegal maIerials. Therelore, Ihe quesIion may arise wheIher Ihe ISF has Ihe
obligaIion Io provide inlormaIion on Ihe recipienI ol iIs service, Ihe conIenI
provider commiIIing inlringemenI, or may be exempIed lrom such obligaIion
by relerring Io Ihe regulaIions on liabiliIy limiIaIion (SecIions 7-13 ol Ecom-
merce DirecIive) or Ihe exempIion lrom moniIoring obligaIions (SecIion 7 (S)
ol Ecommerce DirecIive).
II is undersIood IhaI Ihe EnlorcemenI DirecIive generally does noI allecI Ihe
principles ol Ihe Ecommerce DirecIive and does noI aI all allecI Ihe limiIaIion
ol liabiliIy exisIing in lavour ol Ihe inIermediary service providers and seI
ouI in ArIicles 12-1S. The inIroducIion ol Ihe righI Io inlormaIion is only
compulsory in cases ol illegal acIiviIies or services carried ouI on a commercial
scale (lor direcI or indirecI economic or commercial advanIage, Ihis would
normally exclude acIs carried ouI by end consumers acIing in good laiIh). So
IhaI is already one area ol comlorI lor ISFs.
However, iI is also undersIood, on Ihe basis ol Ihe reciIals Io Ihe Ecommerce
DirecIive, IhaI limiIaIions ol Ihe liabiliIy ol ISFs do noI allecI Ihe "possibiliIy
ol injuncIions ol dillerenI kinds, such injuncIions can, in parIicular, consisI
ol orders by courIs or adminisIraIive auIhoriIies requiring Ihe IerminaIion or
prevenIion ol any inlringemenI, including Ihe removal ol illegal inlormaIion
or Ihe disabling ol access Io iI." This is reinlorced by inlormaIion and collab-
oraIion obligaIions seI ouI in naIional implemenIaIions ol Ihe Ecommerce
DirecIive.
Thus iI is noI a quesIion ol whaI ISFs have Io do, buI when and how: do Ihey
need a courI order (so Ihey are noI considered Io censure Iheir user's conIenI
and breach privacy laws) or is iI sullicienI lor a noIice7 This is an issue IhaI is
sIill unresolved, and will depend on how naIional laws are implemenIed and
inIerpreIed by courIs.
So lar, courI cases vary (see L'Oral v eBay in England, which has been re-
lerred Io Ihe ECJ), buI on Ihe whole inIermediaries have escaped signilicanI
liabiliIy, e.g. in Ihe recenI Google Adwords case (CourI ol JusIice ol Ihe EU, 23
March 2010, Cases C-23o}08 Io C-238}08). BuI IFR holders will noI sIop Ihere.
4. Ecommerce ~ OnIne Contractng
Beyond Ihe "inlormaIion socieIy service provider" inlormaIion obligaIions
and ISF exempIions, Ihe ecommerce regulaIions deal wiIh elecIronic conIracIs
and online conIracIing, and oblige cerIain processes Io be implemenIed lor
Ihe correcI sale ol producIs over Ihe inIerneI (presenIed in Ihis secIion).
4.1. aId eIectronc contractx
NaIional laws pursuanI Io Ihe Ecommerce DirecIive musI guaranIee Ihe valid-
iIy and ellecIiveness ol conIracIs celebraIed elecIronically, even il Ihere is no
copy in paper lormaI. In oIher words, a conIracI's elecIronic lormaI is equiva-
lenI Io IhaI wriIIen on paper and Ihe ellecIiveness ol elecIronic documenIs as
prool in courI is reinlorced (also admissible as evidence in courI proceedings,
as we discuss below in relaIion Io Ihe elecIronic signaIure whereby elecIronic
signaIures are equivalenI il noI beIIer Ihan manuscripI signaIures).
4.2. 1nIormaton and grocexxex
In order Io guaranIee Ihe legaliIy ol Ihe conIracIing process, on Ihe basis ol
Ihe Ecommerce DirecIive and Ihe DisIance Sales DirecIive, service providers
musI esIablish cerIain minimum processes:
Belore iniIiaIing Ihe conIracIing procedure, Ihe lollowing inlormaIion
musI be made available Io Ihe user, in a simple, lree, clear, undersIandable
and unequivocal manner:
The sIeps or processes Io be lollowed in order Io enIer inIo Ihe con-
IracI.
WheIher Ihe elecIronic documenI ol Ihe conIracI will be liled and
wheIher iI will be accessible.
The Iechnical means made available in order Io idenIily and correcI
errors in daIa inpuI, belore daIa is conlirmed.
The language or languages in which Ihe conIracI may be held.
The general condiIions governing Ihe conIracI, where applicable.
Once Ihe conIracI has been enIered inIo, Ihe provider musI conlirm re-
ceipI ol Ihe conIracI's accepIance (by means ol an acknowledgemenI ol
receipI by email or similar, or oIher equivalenI means ol communicaIion
Io IhaI used in Ihe conIracIing process sales conlirmaIion screens, lor
example wiIh an order or relerence number).
These elecIronic conIracIing processes can be verilied on mosI e-commerce siIes, lor ex-
ample, lor Ihe purchase ol Irain or plane IickeIs, or downloads ol commercial solIware
(anIivirus packages, eIc.). They allow buyers Io check Ihe general condiIions ol Ihe sale,
lL will be imporLanL Lo include
Lhese processes in Lhe design
(and budgeL!) of any inLerac-
Live porLal and Lhe "back-of-
fice" sysLems LhaL supporL iL.
and oblige Ihem Io accepI Ihese (Iicking an "accepI" check box) belore conlirming Ihe
purchase.
4.3. ObIgatonx axxocated wth remote xeIIng to conxumerx
Eor Ihe proIecIion ol consumers, naIional conIracI law may sIill allecI B2C
(Business Io Consumer) IransacIions, which are deliberaIely noI subjecI Io
counIry ol origin principle: usually Ihe naIional law ol Ihe consumer's coun-
Iry applies.
Luckily, consumer proIecIion law is parIly harmonised in Ihe EU, including
The DisIance Selling DirecIive provides lor Ihe consumer's righI Io wiIh-
draw conIracIs and lor dillerenI perlormance and crediI card provisions.
The DirecIive on unlair Terms in Consumer ConIracIs imposes Ihe exclu-
sion and limiIaIion ol liabiliIy.
The Consumer sales and guaranIees DirecIive esIablishes minimum levels
ol guaranIees.
There is on Ihe Iable a proposal Io review and consolidaIe EU consumer pro-
IecIion laws.
In parIicular, Ihe lramework provide lor:
The provision ol comprehensive inlormaIion belore Ihe purchase.
ConlirmaIion ol IhaI inlormaIion in a durable medium (such as wriIIen
conlirmaIion).
Consumer's righI Io cancel Ihe conIracI wiIhin a minimum ol 7 working
days wiIhouI giving any reason and wiIhouI penalIy, excepI Ihe cosI ol
reIurning Ihe goods (righI ol wiIhdrawal).
Where Ihe consumer has cancelled Ihe conIracI, Ihe righI Io a relund wiIh-
in 30 days ol cancellaIion.
Delivery ol Ihe goods or perlormance ol Ihe service wiIhin 30 days ol Ihe
day alIer Ihe consumer placed his order.
FroIecIion lrom unsoliciIed selling.
FroIecIion lrom lraudulenI use ol paymenI cards.
Non-validiIy ol any waiver ol Ihe righIs and obligaIions provided lor un-
der Ihe direcIive, wheIher insIigaIed by Ihe consumer or Ihe supplier.
Some Iypes ol conIracIs are excluded lrom Ihese obligaIions, including con-
IracIs lor linancial services and conIracIs concluded Ihrough an aucIion (NB:
conIracIs lor linancial services are covered by Ihe DisIance MarkeIing ol Ei-
nancial Services DirecIive 2002}oS}EC.).
4.4. CommercaI communcatonx and gubIct
Einally in Ihe area ol ecommerce, laws have seI ouI provisions regulaIing "com-
mercial communicaIions" "spam", when unsoliciIed (ArI 7 Ecommerce Di-
recIive, as updaIed by Frivacy DirecIives). These require Ihe addressee's pri-
or consenI, boIh lor email as well as lor mobile messages. NeverIheless, Ihe
sending ol commercial communicaIions Io Ihose users wiIh whom Ihere is a
previous conIracIual relaIionship is allowed, in which case Ihe provider may
send publiciIy regarding similar producIs or services Io Ihose conIracIed by
Ihe clienI.
Eor Ihe proIecIion ol users, Ihe provider musI oller Ihe addressee Ihe possibil-
iIy ol opposing Ihe processing ol his daIa lor promoIional purposes, boIh aI
Ihe Iime ol collecIing Ihe daIa as well as in each commercial communicaIion
addressed Io him. This opIion Iends Io be hidden in Ihe general condiIions
ol sale or subscripIion, which Ihe user accepIs when regisIering or conlirming
a purchase over Ihe inIerneI. The service provider musI esIablish simple and
lree procedures lor Ihis purpose, as commenIed below in Ihe secIion on daIa
proIecIion.
Eor Ihe purpose ol mainIaining Iransparency and proIecIing Ihe consumer,
elecIronic publiciIy (emails, web pages, "YouTube" videos) musI be presenIed
as such, so IhaI Ihey cannoI be conlused wiIh any oIher Iype ol conIenI, and
clearly idenIily Iheir naIure Io Ihe adverIiser.
FromoIional ollers (in oIher words, Ihose IhaI include gilIs or prizes, or dis-
counIs, and compeIiIions, or promoIional games, eIc.) musI be clearly iden-
Iilied as such and Ihe condiIions ol access and parIicipaIion musI be easily
accessible and expressed in clear and unequivocal Ierms.
5. EIectronc xgnaturex
One ol Ihe areas ol work ol legislaIors over Ihe lasI 10 or more years has been
Ihe use ol elecIronic signaIures and documenIs, Io replace wriIIen signaIures
and paper copies ol conIracIs, adminisIraIive lorms and oIher commercial and
adminisIraIive "documenIs". The basic lramework aI European level is Direc-
Iive 1}3}CE ol Ihe European FarliamenI, ol 13 December 1 esIablish-
ing communiIy lramework lor elecIronic signaIures.
AI Ihis level, Ihe regulaIions sIaIe IhaI whenever cerIain minimum require-
menIs are meI in relaIion Io Ihe cerIilicaIes, then equIvalent legal eIIectIve-
ness Is gIven to the electronIc and handwrItten sIgnatures. The DirecIive
goes on Io esIablish Ihe criIeria lor legal acknowledgemenI ol Ihe digiIal sig-
naIure, locusing on Ihe services ol cerIilicaIion.
These include:
Common obligaIions lor cerIilicaIion service providers in order Io secure
Iransborder recogniIion ol signaIures and cerIilicaIes IhroughouI Ihe Eu-
ropean CommuniIy.
Common rules on liabiliIy Io help build conlidence among users, who rely
on Ihe cerIilicaIes, and among service providers.
CooperaIive mechanisms Io laciliIaIe Iransborder recogniIion ol signa-
Iures and cerIilicaIes wiIh Ihird counIries.
5.1. EIectronc xgnaturex
The DirecIive delines various lorms ol elecIronic signaIures:
The electronIc sIgnature, being daIa in elecIronic lorm which are aI-
Iached Io or logically associaIed wiIh oIher elecIronic daIa and which serve
as a meIhod ol auIhenIicaIion. This could be an email signaIure.
The advanced electronIc sIgnature, which meeIs Ihe lollowing require-
menIs:
II is uniquely linked Io Ihe signaIory.
II is capable ol idenIilying Ihe signaIory.
II is creaIed using means IhaI Ihe signaIory can mainIain under Iheir
sole conIrol.
II is linked Io Ihe daIa Io which iI relaIes in such a manner IhaI any
subsequenI change in Ihe daIa is deIecIable.
The qualIIIed certIIIcate, whIch must In partIcular Include:
An indicaIion IhaI iI is issued as a qualilied cerIilicaIe.
The idenIilicaIion ol Ihe cerIilicaIion service provider.
The name ol Ihe signaIory.
Frovision lor a specilic aIIribuIe ol Ihe signaIory Io be included il rel-
evanI, depending on Ihe purpose lor which Ihe cerIilicaIe is inIended.
SignaIure-verilicaIion daIa corresponding Io signaIure-creaIion daIa
under Ihe conIrol ol Ihe signaIory.
An indicaIion ol Ihe beginning and end ol Ihe period ol validiIy ol
Ihe cerIilicaIe.
The idenIiIy code ol Ihe cerIilicaIe.
The advanced elecIronic signaIure ol Ihe issuing cerIilicaIion service
provider.
The cerIilicaIe musI also be issued by a cerIilicaIion service provider, which
meeIs specilic requiremenIs laid down in Ihe DirecIive, esIablishing minimum
requiremenIs lor recogniIion across Europe.
To guaranIee pan-European markeI access and recogniIion ol signaIures, Ihe
DirecIive prohibiIs Member SIaIes lrom making Ihe provision ol cerIilicaIion
services subjecI Io prior auIhorisaIion ol any kind (Ihey may inIroduce or
mainIain volunIary accrediIaIion schemes aimed aI enhancing levels ol cerIi-
licaIion-service provision), nor may Ihey limiI Ihe number ol accrediIed cer-
IilicaIion service providers lor reasons which lall wiIhin Ihe scope ol Ihe Di-
recIive, nor may Ihey resIricI Ihe provision ol cerIilicaIion services originaIing
in anoIher Member SIaIe in Ihe areas covered by Ihe DirecIive.
5.2. LegaI eIIectx oI eIectronc xgnaturex
The main provision ol Ihe DirecIive sIaIes IhaI an advanced elecIronic signa-
Iure based on a qualilied cerIilicaIe creaIed by a secure-signaIure-creaIion de-
vice saIislies Ihe legal requiremenIs ol a signaIure in relaIion Io daIa in elec-
Ironic lorm in Ihe same manner as a handwriIIen signaIure saIislies Ihose re-
quiremenIs in relaIion Io paper-based daIa (lor convenience Ihis Iype ol sig-
naIure is usually called a "qualilied signaIure". II is also admissible as evidence
in legal proceedings.
In addiIion, an elecIronic signaIure may noI legally be relused simply because:
II is in elecIronic lorm.
II is noI based on a qualilied cerIilicaIe.
II is noI based upon a qualilied cerIilicaIe issued by an accrediIed cerIili-
caIion service provider.
II is noI creaIed by a secure signaIure-creaIion device.
Spain had legislaIed on Ihe elecIronic signaIure in 1, buI came back Io iI in 2003 Io
adapI Ihe regulaIion and Iranspose Ihe direcIive menIioned above in AcI S}2003, ol 1
December, on Ihe elecIronic signaIure. The laIIer regulaIes Ihe legal ellecIiveness ol Ihe
elecIronic signaIure and Ihe provision ol cerIilicaIion services.
More recenIly, AcI So}2007, ol 28 December, on Measures Io FromoIe Ihe InlormaIion
SocieIy modilies some precepIs ol Ihe AcI S}2003, incorporaIing a new obligaIion lor
Ihe Fublic AdminisIraIion and cerIain companies, which enIails Ihe use ol recognised
elecIronic signaIure cerIilicaIes in relaIions wiIh ciIizens and clienIs, respecIively.
. Cbercrme
The growIh ol Ihe InlormaIion SocieIy has been accompanied by new series ol
crimes and misdemeanours, eiIher direcIly againsI inlormaIion socieIy Iech-
nologies (e.g. denial ol service aIIacks, eIc.) or using Ihese Iechnologies Io
commiI IradiIional crimes such as lraud. The ITU believes IhaI aIIacks againsI
inlormaIion inlrasIrucIure and inIerneI services now have Ihe poIenIial Io
harm socieIy in new and criIical ways, due Io Ihe lundamenIal imporIance
IhaI Ihese services and neIworks acquire in Ioday's socieIy and economy. On-
line lraud, Ihe disseminaIion ol child pornography and hacking aIIacks are
jusI some examples ol compuIer-relaIed crimes IhaI are commiIIed on a large
scale.
.1. 1ntroducton
The legal, Iechnical and insIiIuIional challenges posed by Ihe issue ol cyher-
crme and iIs counIerparI, "cybersecuriIy", are global and lar-reaching, and iI is
IhoughI and has been argued IhaI iI can only be addressed Ihrough a coher-
enI sIraIegy Iaking inIo accounI Ihe role ol dillerenI sIakeholders and exisIing
iniIiaIives, wiIhin a lramework ol inIernaIional cooperaIion.
CerIain sIeps have been Iaken, boIh in Ihe policy and Ihe legal arenas. As
regards policy, lor example, Ihe World SummiI on Ihe InlormaIion SocieIy
(WSIS) recognised Ihe risks posed by inadequaIe cybersecuriIy and included
iI on iIs agenda in Ihe 2003 and 200S conlerences. This led Io Ihe ITU seIIing
up Ihe Global CybersecuriIy Agenda (GCA) in May 2007, a global lramework
lor dialogue and inIernaIional cooperaIion Io coordinaIe Ihe inIernaIional
response Io Ihe growing challenges Io cybersecuriIy. Among Ihe GCA work
areas, Ihe work on "leal measures" locuses on how Io address Ihe legislaIive
challenges posed by criminal acIiviIies commiIIed over ICT neIworks in an
inIernaIionally compaIible manner.
Due Io Ihe "novelIy" ol cybercrime (compared wiIh crimes such as murder or
IhelI), dealing wiIh iI requires lirsI ol all Ihe necessary subsIanIive criminal
law provisions Io criminalise acIs such as compuIer lraud, illegal access, da-
Ia inIerlerence, digiIal copyrighI violaIions and child pornography. NoIe IhaI
Ihe lacI IhaI provisions exisI in Ihe criminal code IhaI are applicable Io simi-
lar acIs commiIIed ouIside Ihe neIwork (e.g. creaIion or disIribuIion ol child
pornography in paper lormaI), does noI mean IhaI Ihey can be applied Io
acIs commiIIed over Ihe inIerneI as well, because ol Ihe sIricI inIerpreIaIion
ol criminal law.
The compuIerisaIion ol ollences is relaIively recenI, as compuIer sysIems and compuIer
daIa were only developed around sixIy years ago. The ellecIive prosecuIion ol Ihese acIs
requires IhaI exisIing criminal law provisions noI only proIecI Iangible iIems and physi-
cal documenIs lrom manipulaIion, buI also exIend Io include Ihese new legal principles.
Then, once Ihe crimes are delined, by subsIanIive criminal law provisions, law
enlorcemenI agencies need Ihe necessary Iools and insIrumenIs Io invesIigaIe
cybercrime, using Ihe same Iools IhaI Ihe perpeIraIors use.
On a wider scale, Ihe concepI ol "sale inIerneI" has been used Io cover Ihe
aIIempIs Io make Ihe inIerneI saler (and proIecIing inIerneI users) and has
become inIegral Io Ihe developmenI ol new services as well as governmenIal
policy. IniIiaIives in Ihis area are boIh public (e.g. Ihe European Commission
work) and privaIe (e.g. Sale InIerneI Alliance).
.2. OeIntonx and tgoIog oI cbercrme
One ol Ihe lirsI dilliculIies has been Ihe deliniIion ol "Cybercrime". Consid-
erable dilliculIies have arisen in delining Ihe Ierm, buI a general consensus
is building Iowards iI being delined as "any acIiviIy in which compuIers or
neIworks are a Iool, a IargeI or a place ol criminal acIiviIy" or "compuIer-me-
diaIed acIiviIies which are eiIher lleal or consJereJ llct by cerIain parIies
and which can be conducIed throuh lohal electronc networls".
See ConvenIion on Cybercrime Council ol Europe ConvenIion on Cybercrime (CETS
No. 18S).
Once we have a deliniIion, we can sIudy whaI acIiviIies specilically lall wiIhin
Ihe concepI and see Ihe measures IhaI have been Iaken againsI Ihem.
To assisI in undersIanding Ihe scope and scale ol cybercriminal acIiviIies, a use-
lul sIarIing poinI is Ihe Council ol Europe ConvenIion on Cybercrime (2001),
being an InIernaIional TreaIy signed and raIilied by mosI European counIries
and wiIh addiIional parIies such as USA, Canada, Japan, and Mexico. This
ConvenIion disIinguishes beIween lour dillerenI Iypes ol ollences, seI ouI in
Ihe lollowing Iable:
Category 5peclflc crlmes
lllegal Access (Hacking, Cracking)
DaLa Espionage
lllegal lnLercepLion
DaLa lnLerference
Offences againsL Lhe confidenLialiLy, inLegriLy
and availabiliLy of compuLer daLa and sysLems
SysLem lnLerference
EroLic or Pornographic MaLerial (excluding
Child-Pornography)
Child Pornography
ConLenL-relaLed offences
kacism, HaLe Speech, ClorificaLion of violence
Category 5peclflc crlmes
keligious Offences
lllegal Cambling and Online Cames
Libel and lalse lnformaLion
Spam and kelaLed 1hreaLs
OLher lorms of lllegal ConLenL
CopyrighL-relaLed Offences lPk-relaLed offences
1rademark-relaLed Offences
lraud and CompuLer relaLed lraud (e.g. auc-
Lion fraud)
CompuLer-relaLed lorgery
ldenLiLy 1hefL
CompuLer-relaLed offences (offences LhaL need
a compuLer sysLem Lo be commiLLed)
Misuse of Devices (Carry ouL DoS aLLacks, de-
signing and disLribuLing compuLer viruses, De-
crypL encrypLed communicaLion, lllegally ac-
cess compuLer sysLems)
Obviously, Ihere is signilicanI disagreemenI beIween counIries or areas wiIh
dillerenI culIures regarding Ihe illegaliIy ol cerIain acIiviIies: while Ihere is
general agreemenI IhaI child pornography should be prevenIed in all lorms
and manners, adulI pornography is generally accepIable in mosI wesIern so-
cieIies. BuI wiIhin Ihese, lor example, Ihere are signilicanI dillerenI views on
gambling, racism and haIe speech (wiIness Erance and Germany's prohibiIion
ol any delence or promoIion ol Nazism, whereas USA IoleraIes Ihis under iIs
Ereedom ol Speech principles).
In Europe, child pornography in parIicular has had addiIional legislaIion, among oIhers:
The European Union Council Eramework Decision on combaIing Ihe sexual exploiIa-
Iion ol children and child pornography (2003).
The Council ol Europe ConvenIion on Ihe FroIecIion ol Children againsI Sexual
ExploiIaIion and Sexual Abuse (2007).
On Ihe oIher hand, gambling lor example has widely dillering regulaIion over and ouI-
side Ihe inIerneI and Ihe ellecI ol dillerenI regulaIions is evidenI in success ol "oll-shore"
gambling counIries (MalIa, Bahamas, UK...).
.3. TechncaI and IegaI chaIIengex
A number ol challenges Io creaIing an ellicienI inIernaIional lramework and
process lor dealing wiIh cybercrime have been idenIilied, mosI ol Ihe posed
by Ihe very Iechnologies IhaI underlie Ihe InlormaIion SocieIy:
RelIance on ICTs: Ihe greaIer Ihe reliance our socieIy has on ICTs, Ihe
more vulnerable iI is Io widespread aIIacks and Ihe greaIer Ihe impacI.
Number oI Users: Ihe increasing number ol ICT users makes iI increas-
ingly dilliculI Io idenIily criminals ... and increasingly easy lor Ihem Io
idenIily IargeIs.
AvaIlabIlIty oI DevIces and Access: cybercrime was noI really a pub-
lic issue unIil personal compuIers and access Io global neIworks be-
came widespread, and wiIh new and more sophisIicaIed devices (mobile
phones, "pads", eIc.) and Ihe pervasiveness ol compuIing (home, ollice,
eIc.).
AvaIlabIlIty oI InIormatIon: Ihe global neIworks have given rise Io easy
access on Iopics such as how Io make a home-made bomb, how Io wriIe
compuIer viruses, eIc.
MIssIng MechanIsms oI Control: Ihe inIerneI has no global regulaIor
oIher Ihan lor Iechnical reasons (DNS), which makes iI dilliculI lor au-
IhoriIies Io exercise Iheir powers.
InternatIonal DImensIons: Folice lorces and judicial auIhoriIies have lo-
cal, regional or naIional jurisdicIion, and processes lor pursuing criminals
across digiIal borders have noI adapIed wiIh Ihe speed ol Ihe neIworks.
Independence oI LocatIon and Presence at the CrIme SIte: crimes may
be iniIiaIed in one place, cause damage in anoIher and Ihe criminal may
be locaIed in a Ihird (e.g. online publicaIion by a person in Erance on a
UK web-server IhaI is delamaIory Io a person in Spain).
AutomatIon and speed oI data exchange processes: auIomaIion speeds
up Ihe spread ol illegal conIenI, damaging malware and oIher criminal
acIiviIies. By Ihe Iime Ihe auIhoriIies inIervene, olIen Ihere is no longer
any Irace ol Ihe criminals.
Anonymous CommunIcatIons: while IoIal anonymiIy is dilliculI Io
achieve, Iechnologies are builI Io proIecI individuals' privacy... wiIh Ihe
ellecI also ol assisIing hiding Ihe idenIiIy ol Ihose engaging in criminal
acIiviIies.
LncryptIon TechnologIes: Ihis is becoming a IargeI ol naIional crime
lighIing auIhoriIies, as one ol Ihe mosI imporIanI sIeps in any criminal
invesIigaIion is idenIilying Ihe person who commiIIed or parIicipaIed in
a criminal acIiviIy.
Erom a legal poinI ol view, Ihere are lurIher dilliculIies in dealing wiIh cyber-
criminal acIiviIies:
DraItIng crImInal law: Ihe speed ol Iechnological developmenI means
IhaI law-makers musI conIinuously respond Io inIerneI developmenIs and
moniIor Ihe ellecIiveness ol exisIing provisions. The main challenge lor
naIional criminal legal sysIems is Ihe delay beIween Ihe recogniIion ol
poIenIial abuses ol new Iechnologies and necessary amendmenIs Io Ihe
naIional criminal law.
New OIIences: olIen, crimes commiIIed using ICTs are noI new crimes,
buI illegal acIiviIies modilied Io be commiIIed online. This can normally
be dealI wiIh is Ihe dralIing ol exisIing criminal legislaIion is wide enough
Io cover Ihe new Iechnological means or circumsIances. The siIuaIion is
dillerenI, il Ihe acIs perlormed are no longer addressed by exisIing laws,
so iI becomes necessary Io adopI new laws criminalising compuIer-relaIed
lraud, in addiIion Io Ihe regular lraud.
Use oI ICTs. II is ever more imporIanI lor law enlorcemenI agencies and
Ihe judicial auIhoriIies Io use ICTs wiIhin Iheir luncIions lor dealing wiIh
ICT relaIed crime. New Iools mean Ihe need lor more Iraining and new
invesIigaIive insIrumenIs (wiIhin Ihe area ol digiIal lorensics).
DIgItal LvIdence: digiIal evidence daIa sIored or IransmiIIed using ICTs
IhaI may show how an ollence occurred is now noI jusI a "new source ol
evidence", buI is becoming a principal source ol evidence. Handling Ihis
digiIal evidence has unique dilliculIies (Io preserve inIegriIy and make iI
available in courI) and requires specilic procedures.
New developmenIs such as cloud compuIing can have a signilicanI ellecI on dealing
wiIh digiIal evidence. EnlorcemenI agencies can no longer simply locus on Ihe suspecI's
premises Ioday a loI ol compuIing is done online wiIh online Iools and reposiIories lor
remoIe access. These may well be ouIside jurisdicIion.
.4. 1nternatonaI dmenxon
One ol Ihe major challenges is IhaI cybercrime olIen has an inIernaIional
dimension. Criminal law is usually naIional law, and oIher Ihan war crimes
Ihere is liIIle inIernaIional legislaIion in Ihis area. Cybercrime is Ihe one area
where in lacI progress has been made Io deal wiIh inIernaIional criminal ac-
IiviIies, or simply local criminal acIiviIies IhaI use inIernaIional neIworks. In
Ierms ol illegal conIenI, lor example, inIerneI users can access inlormaIion
lrom around Ihe world, enabling Ihem Io access inlormaIion available legally
abroad, IhaI could be illegal in Iheir own counIry.
WiIhin cybercrime invesIigaIions, a close cooperaIion beIween Ihe counIries
involved is very imporIanI. This has been Ihe locus ol EU acIion, which can-
noI regulaIe crime buI can provide a pan-EU sysIem lor police cooperaIion.
However, a number ol counIries base Iheir muIual legal assisIance regime on
Ihe principle ol "dual criminaliIy" (inIernaIional invesIigaIions are limiIed Io
Ihose crimes IhaI are criminalised in all parIicipaIing counIries). One ol Ihe
key aims ol inIernaIional legal approaches is Io prevenI Ihe creaIion ol sale
havens by providing and applying global sIandards.
AI EU level, Ihere have been several iniIiaIives and legal documenIs:
EurojusI.
CommunicaIion on "NeIwork and InlormaIion SecuriIy (2001). CreaIing
a Saler InlormaIion SocieIy by Improving Ihe SecuriIy ol InlormaIion In-
lrasIrucIures and CombaIing CompuIer-relaIed Crime.
Eramework Decision on AIIacks againsI InlormaIion SysIems (NB Ihis has
been challenged and parIially invalidaIed by Ihe European CourI ol JusIice
lor lack ol legal basis).
DaIa reIenIion DirecIive: EU DirecIive on Frivacy and ElecIronic Commu-
nicaIion (see privacy module).
In 2008 Ihe European Union sIarIed a discussion abouI a DralI AmendmenI ol Ihe Erame-
work Decision on CombaIing Terrorism. The EU highlighIs IhaI Ihe exisIing legal lrame-
work criminalises aiding or abeIIing and inciIing buI does noI criminalise Ihe dissemi-
naIion ol IerrorisI experIise Ihrough Ihe inIerneI. WiIh Ihe amendmenI Ihe European
Union is aiming Io Iake measures Io close Ihe gap and bring Ihe legislaIion IhroughouI
Ihe European Union closer Io Ihe Council ol Europe ConvenIion on Ihe FrevenIion ol
Terrorism.
Eor a general overview, see Ihe JusIice, lreedom and securiIy area ol Ihe European Union
and in parIicular Ihe judicial cooperaIion in criminal maIIers.
OIher inIernaIional iniIiaIives are:
ITU Global CybersecuriIy Agenda.
Council ol Europe:
Conventon on Cyhercrme IhaI we have already menIioned and com-
menI on below. In addiIion Io Ihe signaIories, oIher counIries such
as ArgenIina, FakisIan, Fhilippines, EgypI, BoIswana and Nigeria have
already dralIed parIs ol Iheir legislaIion in accordance wiIh Ihe Con-
venIion.
lrst AJJtonal lrotocol to the Conventon on Cyhercrme, covering racism
and Ihe disIribuIion ol xenophobic maIerial (Ihis was a conIroversial
maIIer especially due Io Ihe conllicIs wiIh lreedom ol speech princi-
ples).
Conventon n on the protecton oj mnors aanst sexual explotaton
(2007). AparI lrom Ihe criminalisaIion ol Ihe sexual abuse ol children
Ihe ConvenIion conIains a provision dealing wiIh Ihe exchange ol
child pornography and Ihe soliciIaIion ol children lor sexual purposes.
OECD: OECD Guidelines lor Ihe SecuriIy ol InlormaIion SysIems and NeI-
works., aI
As a resulI ol Ihe dilliculIy ol enlorcing naIional criminal law in a conIexI ol
inIernaIional neIworks, naIional approaches Iend Io require addiIional mea-
sures (crimes) so as Io be able Io apply local law Io Ihese acIiviIies. One ap-
proach is Io criminalise Ihe provision or use ol services (wiIhin jurisdicIion)
used in Ihe commiIIing a crime. This puIs an addiIional burden on service
providers, Io police Iheir own neIworks (see Ihe debaIe on IFR enlorcemenI
and Ihe HADOFI law in Erance, soon Io be replicaIed Io a cerIain exIenI in
Spain and maybe Ihe UK). This does noI always work as mosI crimes are noI
sIricI liabiliIy buI require an elemenI ol knowledge (mens rea) so IhaI neIwork
service providers can avoid liabiliIy by arguing lack ol knowledge. The EU
Ecommerce DirecIive bases ISF exempIions on Ihis argumenI, and only en-
gages Iheir liabiliIy when Ihey have ellecIive knowledge ol Ihe acIiviIy or sul-
licienI ancillary indicaIions.
Hadog Law ~ Lo Iavorxant Ia dIIuxon et Ia grotecton de Ia craton xur
1nternet
In May 200 Erance promulgaIed a law Io conIrol and regulaIe inIerneI access as a means
Io encourage compliance wiIh copyrighI laws. "HADOFI" is Ihe governmenI agency cre-
aIed by Ihe law Io moniIor enlorcemenI.
HADFOFI: Haute Autorte pour la Ojjuson Jes Guvres et la lrotecton Jes Orots sur lnternet
(High AuIhoriIy ol Dillusion ol Ihe Works and FroIecIion ol Ihe RighIs on InIerneI.
The general idea is "Ihree sIrikes and ouI", meaning IhaI alIer HADOFI has given a lirsI
warning Io inIerneI users il iI suspecIs Ihe user is carrying ouI illegal acIiviIies (i.e. subIexI:
lile sharing), Ihe ISF musI moniIor Ihe inIerneI connecIion. Il Ihe user does noI sIop, a
second leIIer may be senI by HADOFI, Ihe ISF or Ihe righIs holders. Il Ihe use sIill doesn'I
sIop, Ihe ISF is required Io suspend Ihe service lor 2 monIhs up Io 1 year (and Ihe user
is blacklisIed lrom geIIing services lrom oIher ISFs).
This raises serious quesIions regarding lundamenIal righIs, including as Io privacy (ISF
moniIoring Ihe service), access Io inlormaIion (suspension ol Ihe inIerneI connecIion),
burden ol prool and righI Io a judicial delence, eIc.
Spain has a similar projecI underway (wiIh a similar commission) and Ihe UK, in April
2010, passed Ihe conIroversial DigiIal Economy AcI
2
, including righIs Io block inIerneI
access, obligaIions on ISFs Io noIily users il Ihe ISF iIsell is noIilied by IF righIs holders
IhaI Ihere "appears" Io be an inlringemenI.
(2)
See iI online aI Ihe OFSI (Ollice ol Fublic SecIor InlormaIion) siIe, commenI aI Ihe
Open RighIs Group siIe and Wikipedia.
.5. Subxtantve {cber} crmnaI Iaw
While Ihis is noI Ihe place lor a lull IreaIise on cybercrimes, in Ihis secIion
we commenI on some ol Ihe mosI imporIanI measures againsI cybercriminal
acIiviIies, locussing on Ihe ConvenIion on Cybercrime (CoC).
OIIences agaInst the conIIdentIalIty, IntegrIty and avaIlabIlIty oI com-
puter data and systems:
Illegal Access (HacRIng). The CoC criminalises "unauIhorised access
Io a sysIem" Ihus proIecIing Ihe inIegriIy ol Ihe compuIer sysIems
(ArIicle 2 Illegal access).
Illegal InterceptIon. The CoC includes a provision proIecIing Ihe in-
IegriIy ol non-public Iransmissions by criminalising Iheir unauIho-
rised inIercepIion (ArIicle 3 Illegal inIercepIion).
Data InterIerence. The CoC includes proIecIs proIecIion ol Ihe in-
IegriIy ol daIa againsI unauIhorised inIerlerence. II provides compuIer
daIa and compuIer programmes wiIh proIecIions similar Io Ihose en-
joyed by Iangible objecIs againsI Ihe inIenIional inllicIion ol damage
(ArIicle 4 DaIa inIerlerence).
System InterIerence: To proIecI access ol operaIors and users Io ICTs,
Ihe CoC includes a provision criminalising Ihe inIenIional hindering
ol lawlul use ol compuIer sysIems (ArIicle S SysIem inIerlerence)
i.e. any acI inIerlering wiIh Ihe proper luncIioning ol Ihe compuIer
sysIem.
Content-related oIIences:
ChIld Pornography. The CoC includes an ArIicle addressing child
pornography Io improve and harmonise Ihe proIecIion ol children
againsI sexual exploiIaIion (ArIicle Ollences relaIed Io child
pornography). This is reinlorced by ArI. 20 ol Ihe Council ol Europe
ConvenIion on Ihe FroIecIion ol Children againsI Sexual ExploiIaIion
and Sexual Abuse.
IPR related oIIences:
CopyrIght InIrIngements (e.g. allegedly F2F lile sharing, eIc.) is a ma-
jor concern ol Ihe conIenI indusIry, which has signilicanI presence
and pressure in legislaIive circles. The CoC Iherelore includes provi-
sions covering Ihese copyrighI ollences IhaI seeks Io harmonise Ihe
various regulaIions in Ihe naIional laws (ArIicle 10 Ollences relaIed
Io inlringemenIs ol copyrighI and relaIed RighIs). Unlike oIher legal
lrameworks Ihe convenIion does noI expliciIly name Ihe acIs Io be
criminalised, buI relers Io a number ol inIernaIional agreemenIs IhaI
already deal wiIh Ihis issue (WIFO TreaIies, eIc.).
Computer-related oIIences:
Computer related Fraud. The CoC aims Io criminalise any undue ma-
nipulaIion in Ihe course ol daIa processing wiIh Ihe inIenIion Io allecI
an illegal Iransler ol properIy (ArIicle 8 CompuIer-relaIed lraud): "a.
any inpuI, alIeraIion, deleIion or suppression ol compuIer daIa, b. any
inIerlerence wiIh Ihe luncIioning ol a compuIer sysIem, wiIh lraud-
ulenI or dishonesI inIenI ol procuring, wiIhouI righI, an economic
beneliI lor onesell or lor anoIher person".
.. ProceduraI Law
As noIed above, while achieving consensus on Ihe deliniIion and scope ol var-
ious cybercrimes is one area, Ihe oIher side ol Ihe coin is Ihe inIroducIion ol
procedures Io enable enlorcemenI agencies Io Iake ellecIive acIion againsI cy-
ber-delinquency (in addiIion Io Iraining and equipmenI): procedural insIru-
menIs IhaI enable Ihem Io Iake Ihe measures IhaI are necessary Io idenIily Ihe
ollender and collecI Ihe evidence required lor Ihe criminal proceedings.
The main issue here is Ihe digiIal naIure ol Ihe evidence IhaI is processed (col-
lecIed, sIored and produced), and Ihe new media}means lor IransmiIIing iI:
Ihe global ITC neIworks. This has led Io Ihe developmenI ol a new invesIiga-
Iory "science", CompuIer Eorensics (including compuIer and neIwork Inves-
IigaIions) being specilic daIa-relaIed invesIigaIion Iechniques, including col-
lecIion and analysis ol relevanI daIa.
Specilic measures Io laciliIaIe Ihe deIecIion ol cybercrimes include,
DaIa reIenIion obligaIions (obligaIion Io preserve cerIain daIa aI all Iimes,
e.g. Irallic daIa) (ArI. 1o CoC).
DaIa preservaIion obligaIions (orders Io preserve cerIain daIa once noIi-
lied, noI jusI limiIed Io Irallic daIa) (ArI. 17 CoC).
DaIa producIion obligaIions (orders Io produce and disclose reIained or
preserved daIa) (ArI. 18 CoC).
Search and seizure orders (ArI. 1 CoC).
Real Time CollecIion ol DaIa (ArI. 20 CoC).
DaIa inIercepIion (ArI. 21 CoC).
On Ihe oIher hand, care musI be given Io proIecI basic human righIs and
lreedoms, ensuring IhaI IradiIional saleguards are mainIained in Ihe digiIal
environmenI. CriIicism has been locused on Ihe ConvenIion on Cybercrime
as iI conIains a number ol provisions IhaI esIablish invesIigaIion insIrumenIs
buI only one provision (ArI. 1S) IhaI deals wiIh saleguards, including some
specilic saleguards and a generic proIecIion ol "righIs arising pursuanI Io obli-
gaIions iI has underIaken under Ihe 1S0 Council ol Europe ConvenIion lor
Ihe FroIecIion ol Human RighIs and EundamenIal Ereedoms, Ihe 1oo UniI-
ed NaIions InIernaIional CovenanI on Civil and FoliIical RighIs, and oIher
applicable inIernaIional human righIs insIrumenIs..."
AnoIher key Iopic and requiremenIs lor ICT relaIed invesIigaIions is Ihe in-
IernaIional dimension: IransnaIional invesIigaIions olIen require immediaIe
reacIion ol counIerparIs in Ihe counIry where Ihe ollender is locaIed or daIa
has eiIher IransiIed or been sIored. The CoC provides a general lramework lor
inIernaIional cooperaIion, and in Ihe EU Ihis has been reinlorced by insIru-
menIs creaIed by Ihe European Commission under Ihe Judicial CooperaIion
iniIiaIives we menIioned above.
ArI. 23 CoC noIes IhaI Ihe general principles do noI only apply in invesIigaIions ol
cybercrimes, buI in any invesIigaIion ol any crimes where evidence in elecIronic lorm
needs Io be collecIed (e.g. il Ihe suspecI in a murder cases used an email service abroad).
Areas covered by Ihis lramework include,
ExIradiIion (arI 2o).
MuIual help (arI. 27): designaIed conIacI poinIs lor muIual legal assisIance
requesIs, direcI communicaIion beIween Ihe conIacI poinIs Io avoid long
lasIing procedures and Ihe creaIion ol a daIabase wiIh all conIacI poinIs.
MuIual assisIance regarding provisional measures (in relaIion Io Ihe mea-
sures seI ouI above lor criminal invesIigaIions: daIa reIenIion, preserva-
Iion, producIion, eIc.).
Transborder access Io sIored daIa.
Einally, iI musI be noIed IhaI signilicanI pressure is being puI on ISF (access
and service providers) Io cooperaIe and acIively parIicipaIe in Ihe persecuIion
and deIecIion ol cybercrime. While Ihe operaIors Ihemselves may beneliI lrom
exempIions ol liabiliIy, Ihese laws have also ensured and imposed obligaIions
ol collaboraIion wiIh auIhoriIies and even carve-ouIs lrom exempIions when
public or naIional securiIy is involved.
.7. ConcIuxonx
Compared wiIh privaIe law (commercial, IorI, eIc.), criminal law in Ihe ICT do-
main is less developed. However, mosI jurisdicIions have implemenIed provi-
sions, olIen deriving lrom Ihe CoE ConvenIion on Cybercrime, in Iheir Crim-
inal Codes or equivalenI specilic laws (like Ihe UK CompuIer Misuse AcI and
oIhers). So as regards subsIanIive law, aparI lrom Ihe major areas ol culIural
dillerences Ihere has been signilicanI progress Iowards creaIing a harmonious
inIernaIional lramework.
On Ihe oIher hand, Ihe Council ol Europe has noIed Iwo signilicanI problems:
The process ol implemenIaIion ol Ihe procedural law provisions, such as
search and seizure, daIa reIenIion in parIicular regarding Ihe conllicIs
wiIh higher laws such as consIiIuIional or inIernaIional IreaIy saleguards
ol privacy.
ObligaIions on ISFs and Iheir involvemenI in deIecIion and prevenIion.
Einally, we noIe IhaI Ihis area is one ol a perpeIual race beIween Iechnologies
used Io perpeIraIe or hide crimes, and Ihe same Iechnologies used by auIhor-
iIies Io deIecI (criminal lorensics) and prosecuIe (cybercourIs) crimes, on Ihe
one hand, and proIecI ciIizens and organisaIions on Ihe oIher (cybersecuriIy).
Further readng
SiIes:
ITU: hIIp:}}www.iIu.inI}ITU-D}cyb}cybersecuriIy} and hIIp:}}www.cybersecuriIy-
gaIeway.org}legal_conIexI.hIml
Council ol Europe:
US DepI. ol JusIice: hIIp:}}www.cybercrime.gov}
EU work:
CommunicaIion lrom Ihe Commission Io Ihe Council, Ihe European FarliamenI,
Ihe Economic and Social CommiIIee and Ihe CommiIIee ol Ihe Regions: CreaIing
a saler inlormaIion socieIy by improving Ihe securiIy ol inlormaIion inlrasIrucIures
and combaIing compuIer-relaIed crime |COM(2000) 80 linal: hIIp:}}europa.eu}
legislaIion_summaries}inlormaIion_socieIy}l3313b_en.hIm
Council Eramework Decision 200S}222}JHA ol 24 Eebruary 200S on aIIacks againsI
inlormaIion sysIems: hIIp:}}europa.eu}legislaIion_summaries}inlormaIion_socieIy}
l3313_en.hIm
ReporI lrom Ihe Commission Io Ihe Council based on ArIi-
cle 12 ol Ihe Council Eramework Decision ol 24 Eebruary 200S
on aIIacks againsI inlormaIion sysIems hIIp:}}eur-lex.europa.eu}LexUriServ}
LexUriServ.do7uri=CELEX:S2008DC0448:EN:NOT
OIher:
hIIp:}}www.cyberIelecom.org}securiIy}IreaIy.hIm
hIIp:}}www.privacyinIernaIional.org}
hIIp:}}en.wikipedia.org}wiki}CompuIer_crime
hIIp:}}www.crime-research.org}
hIIp:}}www.cybercrimelaw.org}
hIIp:}}www.cybercrime-insIiIuIe.com}
Frivacy

GNUEDL Privacy
lcense"
GNUEDL Privacy
1. Prvac ~ the grotecton oI gerxonaI data.................................. S

2. Baxc concegtx..................................................................................... 7
2.1. Key deliniIions ............................................................................ 7
2.2. Roles ............................................................................................ 8
2.3. DaIa processing ...........................................................................
2.4. TerriIorial applicaIion .................................................................

3. GeneraI grncgIex.............................................................................. 11

4. Rghtx and obIgatonx..................................................................... 13
4.1. DaIa subjecI righIs ...................................................................... 13
4.2. DaIa conIroller and processor obligaIions .................................. 14

5. Accexx to data and data tranxIerx................................................. 1S
S.1. Access by daIa processors ........................................................... 1S
S.2. DaIa Translers .............................................................................. 1S
S.3. InIernaIional daIa Iranslers (ouIside Ihe EEA) ........................... 1o

. Securt obIgatonx.......................................................................... 18

7. ReguIator xugervxon.................................................................... 1

8. The IegaI IrameworR Ior data grvac n other ]urxdctonx 20

9. Prvac n the xector oI eIectronc communcatonx................ 21
.1. TelecommunicaIions secrecy ....................................................... 21
.2. ElecIronic communicaIions ........................................................ 22
.2.1. Trallic daIa and LocaIion daIa ...................................... 22
.2.2. SecuriIy requiremenIs .................................................... 23
.3. DaIa ReIenIion ............................................................................ 23

1. ConcIuxonx: the mgact oI grvac on technoIogcaI
gro]ectx.................................................................................................. 2S
GNUEDL 5 Privacy
1. Prvac ~ the grotecton oI gerxonaI data
The processing ol daIa IhaI idenIilies people or "personal daIa" is necessary
lor Ihe provision ol Ihe vasI majoriIy ol inlormaIion socieIy services. Think
ol Ihe parIies Io a conIracI or Ihe names ol passengers lor an elecIronic IickeI,
Ihe email address ol users regisIered wiIh web plaIlorms, eIc. WhaI is olIen
unnecessary is Ihe exIenI ol personal daIa processing carried ouI, in Ierms ol
Ihe daIa gaIhered, Ihe uses made ol such daIa or daIa Iranslers Io Ihird parIies.
ExamgIe
Eor example, many ol us receive unsoliciIed emails or Ielephone calls, olIen as a resulI
ol Ihe illiciI use ol our personal conIacI deIails (e.g. which have been provided Io an-
oIher IelecommunicaIions operaIor or Io Ihe same operaIor lor anoIher purpose, such
a billing).
This has led Io signilicanI abuses and sIricI regulaIion wiIhin Ihe EU on Ihe
use ol personal daIa.
In Ihis module we will consider Ihe proIecIion and conIrol ol Ihe use ol per-
sonal daIa wiIhin Ihe European Union, boIh generally speaking and in Ihe
conIexI ol elecIronic services and communicaIions.
EirsI we inIroduce Ihe concepI ol privacy and iIs legal lramework (which es-
Iablishes Ihe obligaIions ol companies and Ihe righIs ol individuals), and Ihen
we will discuss how inlormaIion socieIy services can be allecIed by privacy
obligaIions.
The legal IexIs currenIly in lorce wiIhin Ihe European Union are:
Council ol Europe ConvenIion 108 ol 28Ih January 181.
European DirecIive S}4o, relaIed Io Ihe proIecIion ol privaIe individuals
in Ierms ol Ihe processing ol personal daIa and Ihe lree circulaIion ol such
daIa (Ihe Oata lrotecton Orectve or OlO). The aim ol Ihe DaIa FroIecIion
DirecIive is Io reconcile privacy proIecIion wiIh Ihe lree llow ol Irade. In
parIicular, iI seIs ouI requiremenIs lor Ihe legiIimaIe processing ol personal
daIa and requires IhaI specilic care is given Io sensiIive daIa.
European DirecIive (2002}S8}EC) concerning Ihe processing ol personal
daIa and Ihe proIecIion ol privacy in Ihe elecIronic communicaIions sec-
Ior (L-communcatons Orectve). The E-communicaIions DirecIive provides
specilic rules lor Ihe processing ol daIa relaIed Io provision ol services over
elecIronic communicaIions neIworks (e.g. Irallic and locaIion daIa) and
inlormaIion securiIy requiremenIs in such neIworks.
European DirecIive 200o}24}CE on Ihe reIenIion ol daIa generaIed or pro-
cessed in connecIion wiIh Ihe provision ol publicly available elecIronic
GNUEDL Privacy
communicaIions services or ol public communicaIions neIworks (Oata Re-
tenton Orectve).
NaIional implemenIaIions ol Ihe privacy DirecIives, such as:
Spanish Organic Law 1S}1, on Ihe FroIecIion ol Fersonal DaIa (Ihe
LOFD) and General Law on TelecommunicaIions.
UK DaIa FroIecIion AcI 18 and Ihe Frivacy and ElecIronic Commu-
nicaIions (EC DirecIive) RegulaIions 2003.
Erench "lo lnjormatque et lhertes",178.
The DaIa FroIecIion DirecIive came inIo lorce on 13 December 1S and Ihe
deadline lor implemenIaIion inIo each European Economic Area (EEA) Mem-
ber SIaIe's naIional law was 24 OcIober 18. Member SIaIes inIerpreI Ihe Di-
recIive in slighIly dillerenI ways, so when considering daIa proIecIion issues,
aIIenIion should be given Io Ihe naIional daIa proIecIion legislaIion passed
in Ihe counIry concerned (as well as Ihe DaIa FroIecIion DirecIives).
lorElegislaLiveandcaselaw
references,seeLheEuropean
CommissionsiLe.
GNUEDL 7 Privacy
2. Baxc concegtx
Frivacy proIecIion regulaIions are designed Io guaranIee and proIecI personal
daIa, public lreedoms and Ihe lundamenIal righIs ol privaIe individuals, es-
pecially Iheir righI Io personal and lamily honour and privacy.
There are requiremenIs relaIing Io Ihe qualiIy ol Ihe daIa and Ihe legiIimacy ol
Ihe daIa processing. The DaIa FroIecIion DirecIive also provides lor exIensive
individual righIs, noI leasI Ihe righIs ol access and recIilicaIion, and resIricIs
Irans-border daIa llows ouIside Ihe EEA Io Ihose sIaIes wiIhouI adequaIe pro-
IecIion. II also signilicanIly sIrengIhens securiIy requiremenIs lor processing.
There are a number ol specilic exempIions and resIricIions seI ouI in Ihe Da-
Ia FroIecIion DirecIive. These are noI dealI wiIh in any deIail in Ihis reporI.
Sullice iI Io say IhaI Ihe scope ol Ihe principles relaIing Io Ihe qualiIy ol Ihe
daIa, inlormaIion Io be provided Io Ihe daIa subjecI, righI ol access and Ihe
publicising ol processing may be resIricIed in cerIain circumsIances. Such cir-
cumsIances include Ihe inIeresIs ol naIional securiIy, public securiIy, Ihe pros-
ecuIion ol criminal ollences, imporIanI economic or linancial inIeresIs ol a
Member SIaIe or Ihe EU or Ihe proIecIion ol Ihe daIa subjecI.
2.1. Ke deIntonx
In order Io undersIand Ihe legal lramework ol privacy, iI is imporIanI Io con-
sider Ihe lollowing basic concepIs:
Personal data: any inlormaIion relaIing Io an idenIilied or idenIiliable
naIural person ("daIa subjecI"). There is a sub-caIegory ol daIa IhaI is espe-
cially proIecIed (ideology, religion and beliels, racial origin, healIh, eIc.).
FIles/IIlIng system: Any organised seI ol personal daIa, irrespecIive ol iIs
lorm or modaliIy ol creaIion, sIorage, organisaIion and access. This can
exIend Io non-auIomaIed liles (on paper) and Io any Iype ol personal daIa
prone Io handling.
ProcessIng: any operaIion or seI ol operaIions which is perlormed up-
on personal daIa, wheIher or noI by auIomaIic means, such as collec-
Iion, recording, organisaIion, sIorage, adapIaIion or alIeraIion, reIrieval,
consulIaIion, use, disclosure by Iransmission, disseminaIion or oIherwise
making available, alignmenI or combinaIion, blocking, erasure or desIruc-
Iion.
Data Subect: The privaIe individual owner ol Ihe daIa IhaI is subjecI Io
processing.
Data Controller: Ihe naIural or legal person, public auIhoriIy, agency or
any oIher body which alone or joinIly wiIh oIhers deIermines Ihe purpos-
es and means ol Ihe processing ol personal daIa (whaI, who, how, when
GNUEDL 8 Privacy
and where). The daIa conIroller is liable adminisIraIively, civil and poIen-
Iially criminally, lor poIenIial inlringemenIs ol privacy laws.
Data Processor: The person who, eiIher alone or in conjuncIion wiIh oIh-
ers, processes daIa on behall ol Ihe daIa conIroller. A common example is
where an organisaIion appoinIs a Ihird parIy IT company Io provide daIa
processing services Io IhaI organisaIion on an ouIsourcing basis.
Data ProtectIon Agency: a naIional auIhoriIy wiIh power Io sancIion is
seI up in order Io guaranIee Ihe proIecIion ol personal daIa and Io keep
noIilied lile regisIers (e.g. Ihe Spanish Aenca Lspaola Je lroteccon Je
Oatos or Ihe lnjormaton Commssoner in Ihe UK, CNll in Erance).
As examples ol liles conIaining personal daIa, one could ciIe any seI ol daIa
such as Ihe medical hisIories ol a docIor's paIienIs (on condiIion IhaI Ihey are
arranged lollowing logical criIeria) or Ihe prolile ol users ol a websiIe (clienIs,
regisIered individuals, eIc.). II doesn'I maIIer wheIher Ihe daIa "lormaI" is
physical or elecIronic, nor is iI relevanI (in principle) wheIher iI is subjecI or
noI Io auIomaIed processing.
2.2. RoIex
As we can see lrom Ihe deliniIions, one ol Ihe key decisions in analysing daIa
proIecIion responsibiliIies is deIermining Ihe sIaIus ol Ihe parIies involved. In
parIicular, Ihis involves deciding which parIies are daIa conIrollers and which
parIies are mere daIa processors. The Jata suhject is Ihe person whose daIa is
being processed.
Oata Controllers have Ihe responsibiliIy lor ensuring compliance wiIh daIa pro-
IecIion legislaIion, boIh aI a naIional level and wiIh Ihe DaIa FroIecIion Di-
recIive. DeIermining Ihe sIaIus ol Ihe parIies is noI always so clear cuI. In some
circumsIances, lor example in joinI venIures where Ihere may be a number ol
organisaIions purporIing Io operaIe as a single enIiIy, iI may be more suiIable
lor Ihose organisaIions Io acI as joinI conIrollers ol Ihe personal daIa.
Oata lrocessors process daIa on behall ol Ihe DaIa ConIrollers, and are subjecI
Io cerIain obligaIions, parIicularly as Io securiIy.
The E-communicaIions DirecIive inIroduces Iwo addiIional roles: Ihe puhlc
electronc communcatons networl provJer and Ihe puhlc electronc communca-
tons servce provJer. These acIors are responsible lor Ihe processing ol Irallic
and locaIion daIa, which will be explained in lurIher deIail below.
The puhlc electronc communcatons networl provJer operaIes Ihe pub-
lic elecIronic communicaIions neIwork (delined in TelecommunicaIions
Eramework DirecIive) Io include Ihe operaIors ol Ihe relevanI neIwork in-
lrasIrucIure regardless ol Ihe Iechnology used, made available wholly or
mainly lor provision ol elecIronic communicaIions services Io Ihe public
(e.g. noI enIerprise neIworks and oIher inIernal sysIems).
GNUEDL Privacy
The puhlc electronc communcatons servce provJer ollers elecIronic com-
municaIions services Io Ihe public, being generally speaking Ihe "con-
veyance ol signals on elecIronic communicaIions neIworks, including
IelecommunicaIions services and Iransmission services in neIworks used
lor broadcasIing". This excludes services providing, or exercising ediIorial
conIrol over, conIenI IransmiIIed using elecIronic communicaIions neI-
works and services and inlormaIion socieIy services IhaI we have com-
menIed on belore.
These roles include IradiIional IelecommunicaIions operaIors who provide
boIh Ihe neIworks and Ihe services on Ihe neIwork (lixed line and wire-
less voice and daIa carriers, e.g. Ielephone companies and inIerneI access
providers).
In relaIion Io Ihese services, Ihe E-communicaIions DirecIive inIroduces Ihe
concepIs ol "subscriber" relerring Io Ihe person or enIiIy which subscribes Io
elecIronic communicaIions services, and "users", being Ihe end-users ol such
services. The users may be daIa subjecIs under Ihe DaIa FroIecIion DirecIive.
2.3. Oata grocexxng
Frivacy laws generally apply Io Ihe processing ol personal daIa by auIomaIic
means (e.g. a compuIer daIabase ol cusIomers) and daIa conIained in or in-
Iended Io be parI ol non auIomaIed liling sysIems (i.e. IradiIional paper liles)
and Io any lorm ol subsequenI use ol such daIa by Ihe public and privaIe
secIors.
In some jurisdicIions, cerIain caIegories ol personal daIa are excluded lrom
proIecIion:
Eiles held by privaIe individuals in Ihe course ol Iheir exclusively privaIe
or domesIic acIiviIies (lor example a personal agenda).
Frolessional conIacI deIails, on condiIion IhaI Ihey reler Io Ihe compa-
ny where Ihe inIeresIed parIy works (name and surname, Ielephone, lax
number, business address and elecIronic mail).
Eiles relaIed Io naIional delence and Ihe proIecIion ol Ihe SIaIe, Ierrorism
and serious lorms ol organised crime.
2.4. TerrtoraI aggIcaton
The general rule is IhaI a daIa conIroller who is esIablished in an EEA sIaIe
musI abide by Ihe naIional law applicable Io Ihe place in which iI is esIab-
lished. Il Ihe daIa conIroller has esIablishmenIs in more Ihan one EEA sIaIe
he musI lollow Ihe relevanI naIional law lor each esIablishmenI. Those laws
will also apply Io daIa conIrollers ouIside Ihe EEA when processing is carried
GNUEDL 10 Privacy
ouI using equipmenI wiIhin Ihe IerriIory. This gives rise Io cerIain quesIions
wiIh respecI Io online processing ol personal daIa by a conIroller esIablished
ouIside Ihe EEA.
Thus Ihe Spanish "LOFD" will apply Io processing carried ouI on Spanish IerriIory in Ihe
conIexI ol Ihe acIiviIies ol an esIablishmenI belonging Io Ihe daIa processor in Spain or
in Ihe European Union, or when Ihe daIa processor is noI esIablished on Spanish IerriIory
buI Spanish legislaIion applies in accordance wiIh Fublic InIernaIional Law. RegulaIory
securiIy obligaIions apply Io Ihird parIy daIa processors on Spanish IerriIory.
GNUEDL 11 Privacy
3. GeneraI grncgIex
The Frivacy laws esIablish cerIain general principles IhaI musI be observed
wiIh regard Io Ihe processing ol personal daIa.
Generally speaking, as explained above, in order Io process personal daIa law-
lully, Ihe daIa conIroller musI idenIily a ground which jusIilies Ihe processing.
The criIeria lor lawlul processing depend on Ihe kind ol daIa IhaI is processed,
i.e. general personal daIa, sensiIive daIa, communicaIions Irallic or locaIion
daIa. These criIeria aim aI a somewhaI broader principle ol minimalism, i.e.
IhaI Ihe amounI ol personal daIa collecIed should be limiIed Io whaI is nec-
essary Io achieve Ihe purpose(s) lor which Ihe daIa are collecIed and lurIher
processed. This principle is also rellecIed in Ihe sIricI rules on processing lo-
caIion and Irallic daIa.
Data qualIty. ArIicle o ol Ihe DaIa FroIecIion DirecIive seIs ouI Ihe Ihree
daIa qualiIy requiremenIs which shall be deIermined according Io Ihe spe-
cilic case in quesIion. These sIaIe IhaI personal daIa musI be:
(a) AdequaIe, relevanI and noI excessive in relaIion Io Ihe purposes lor
which Ihey are collecIed or lurIher processed (ArIicle o(c)),
(b) AccuraIe and, where necessary, kepI up Io daIe (ArIicle o(d)), and
(c) KepI in a lorm which permiIs idenIilicaIion ol daIa subjecIs lor no
longer Ihan necessary lor Ihe purposes lor which Ihe daIa were collecIed
or lor which Ihey are lurIher processed (ArIicle o(e)).
Purpose. In addiIion, Ihere is a purpose requiremenI. ArIicle o(b) sIaIes
IhaI "personal daIa musI be collecIed lor specilied, expliciI and legiIimaIe
purposes and noI lurIher processed in a way incompaIible wiIh Ihose pur-
poses". Fersonal daIa may noI be used lor purposes IhaI are incompaIible
wiIh Ihe reason lor which iI has been gaIhered and when Ihe designaIed
purpose has been lullilled, iI musI be cancelled or desIroyed.
"Yahoo! uses inlormaIion lor Ihe lollowing general purposes: Io personalise Ihe adver-
Iising and conIenI you see, based on Ihe deIails given by you aI regisIraIion and your
acIiviIy aI Yahoo!, lullil your requesIs lor producIs and services, improve our services,
conIacI you, conducI research, and provide anonymous reporIing lor inIernal and exIer-
nal clienIs. You agree IhaI Yahoo! may Iransler your personal inlormaIion lor Ihe general
purposes seI ouI above Io any Yahoo! group company worldwide." Yahoo.co.uk Frivacy
policy, March 2010.
InIormatIon (ArI 10). DaIa subjecIs musI be inlormed belorehand ex-
pressly, clearly and unequivocally ol (a) Ihe idenIiIy ol Ihe conIroller and
ol his represenIaIive, il any, (b) Ihe purposes ol processing lor which Ihe
daIa are inIended, and (c) any oIher inlormaIion necessary Io guaranIee
lair processing, having regard Io Ihe circumsIances. In pracIice, inlorma-
Iion should be provided as Io wheIher or noI iI is compulsory Io provide
Ihe daIa, and how Io exercise righIs ol access, recIilicaIion, cancellaIion
GNUEDL 12 Privacy
and opposiIion. Il Ihis inlormaIion is noI provided when Ihe daIa is col-
lecIed, Ihen iI musI be provided laIer when processing is carried ouI (e.g.
where Ihe daIa have noI been collecIed direcIly lrom Ihe daIa subjecI).
In pracIice, Ihe inlormaIion is generally provided in Ihe lorm ol a daIa proIecIion noIice,
which can be given Io Ihe daIa subjecI via applicaIion lorms, Ierms and condiIions, by
Ielephone or on a websiIe. By using an appropriaIely worded daIa proIecIion noIice, an
online business can ensure IhaI Ihere is consenI lrom visiIors Io iIs websiIe Io allow Ihe
business Io build a valuable conIacIs daIabase and markeI Ihe visiIors.
Data subect consent (ArI 7): The processing ol personal daIa will require
Ihe inlormed, unequivocal, express or IaciI, consenI ol Ihe daIa subjecI,
given lreely (i.e. wiIhin Ihe possibiliIy Io reluse), unless Ihe law sIaIes oIh-
erwise (in oIher words, a legal auIhorisaIion, e.g. by courI order). The pro-
cessing ol daIa IhaI is especially proIecIed requires express consenI in wriI-
ing. CerIain caIegories ol daIa or processing do noI require consenI, lor
example, daIa gaIhered lrom sources accessible Io Ihe public, daIa in com-
mercial or employmenI conIracIs, or when processing is "necessary" Io
comply wiIh a legal requiremenI, Io proIecI Ihe viIal inIeresIs ol Ihe da-
Ia subjecI (e.g. medical daIa) or lor Ihe letmate nterests pursued by Ihe
conIroller.
This lasI ground is parIicularly uselul Io avoid Ihe requiremenI lor express consenI, how-
ever some European jurisdicIions (e.g. Spain) have noI implemenIed Ihis parI ol Ihe Da-
Ia FroIecIion DirecIive, lor consIiIuIional reasons, which greaIly limiIs Ihe processing
purposes IhaI can be legiIimised Ihere. Relying on Ihis ground is subjecI Io challenge by
a daIa subjecI who can show IhaI processing is neverIheless prejudicial Io his righIs or
lreedoms or legiIimaIe inIeresIs.
ConIIdentIalIty: BoIh Ihe daIa conIroller, and Ihe daIa processor, as well
as any oIher parIy inIervening in any phase ol Ihe daIa processing, are
obliged Io prolessional secrecy in relaIion Io Ihe daIa and Io mainIain
secrecy.
Data communIcatIons: SubjecI Io several excepIions, any communica-
Iion or Iransler ol daIa Io a Ihird parIy requires Ihe prior auIhorisaIion ol
Ihe inIeresIed parIy.
In addiIion, Ihe laws esIablish IhaI iI is generally lorbidden Io process "sensi-
Iive" personal daIa, i.e. IhaI reveals racial or eIhnic origin, poliIical opinions,
religious or philosophical beliels, Irade union membership and inlormaIion
concerning healIh or sex lile, unless consenI has been granIed or in oIher
specilied circumsIances.
GNUEDL 13 Privacy
4. Rghtx and obIgatonx
As a resulI ol Ihese principles and oIher disposiIions ol Ihe laws, Ihe daIa
subjecI beneliIs lrom various righIs and Ihe daIa processor is subjecI Io a series
ol obligaIions.
4.1. Oata xub]ect rghtx
DaIa subjecIs have Ihe lollowing righIs:
To receive Ihe abovemenIioned inlormaIion aI Ihe Iime IhaI Ihe daIa is
gaIhered (see above).
To access, recIily and cancel such daIa, wiIh a view Io mainIaining Ihe
accuracy ol Ihe daIa, recIilying or cancelling iI when iI is incompleIe or
inexacI, inadequaIe or excessive lor Ihe purpose.
The righI Io access is one ol Ihe mosI imporIanI righIs available Io daIa subjecIs under
Ihe DaIa FroIecIion DirecIive. An individual may requesI access Io all personal daIa ol
which he or she is Ihe subjecI and which is being processed by Ihe conIroller. In some
jurisdicIions, Ihe conIroller may require Ihe daIa subjecI Io pay a maximum lee, (in Ihe
UK iI is 10, however in Norway Ihere is no lee imposed), Io make Ihe requesI in wriIing
and Io provide enough inlormaIion Io idenIily and verily Ihe idenIiIy ol Ihe daIa subjecI
making Ihe requesI.
To objecI and oppose processing ol his}her daIa, when Ihere are legiIimaIe
jusIilied grounds relaIing Io a specilic personal siIuaIion and in parIicular
Io processing ol personal daIa which Ihe conIroller anIicipaIes being pro-
cessed lor Ihe purposes ol direcI markeIing (and musI be inlormed and
given Ihe righI Io objecI il daIa is disclosed Io Ihird parIies lor Ihese same
purposes).
To conIesI any adminisIraIive or privaIe acIion IhaI involves an assess-
menI ol one's behaviour on Ihe basis ol Ihe auIomaIed processing ol one's
personal daIa.
In addiIion, where Ihere is a general regisIer ol daIa liles (DaIa FroIecIion
Agencies), Ihe daIa subjecI is usually granIed Ihe righI Io consulI Ihe reg-
isIer lree ol charge.
Every person has Ihe righI Io a judicial remedy lor any breach ol Ihe righIs
guaranIeed Io him by Ihe naIional law applicable Io Ihe processing in ques-
Iion. In addiIion, any person who has sullered damage as a resulI ol Ihe un-
lawlul processing ol Iheir personal daIa is enIiIled Io receive compensaIion
lor Ihe damage sullered.
xample
AnexampleofanauLomaLed
decisioniswhereafinancial
servicescompanyusesanau-
LomaLedsysLemLoLargeL,se-
lecLand,moreimporLanLly,re-
jecLcusLomersforparLicularly
goodcrediLoffers.
GNUEDL 14 Privacy
4.2. Oata controIIer and grocexxor obIgatonx
The daIa conIroller is subjecI Io various obligaIions, Ihe main ones being:
To observe Ihe general principles ol daIa proIecIion.
To noIily and regisIer Ihe daIa liles wiIh Ihe DaIa FroIecIion Agencies be-
lore carrying ouI any processing (Member SIaIes may dispense wiIh Ihis in
cerIain circumsIances). The DaIa FroIecIion DirecIive (DFD) seIs ouI cer-
Iain inlormaIion IhaI musI be noIilied, including Ihe name and address ol
Ihe conIroller, Ihe purpose ol processing, caIegories ol daIa subjecI, caIe-
gories ol daIa, recipienIs ol Ihe daIa, deIails ol Iranslers abroad and deIails
ol any securiIy measures Io be Iaken.
To provide Ihe inIeresIed parIy wiIh Ihe inlormaIion menIioned above
and Io obIain Iheir consenI when necessary.
To guaranIee Ihe procedures IhaI allow daIa subjecIs Io exercise Iheir righIs
ol access, recIilicaIion and cancellaIion.
To documenI relaIionships wiIh Ihird parIies inIervening in Ihe processing
and, in parIicular, Io ensure daIa processors only access daIa pursuanI Io
a conIracI (see below).
To implemenI Ihe securiIy measures ol a Iechnical and organisaIional na-
Iure necessary Io guaranIee Ihe saleIy ol Ihe daIa under processing (see
below).
A daIa processor musI also lullil Ihe obligaIions included in Ihe daIa process-
ing conIracI: Io carry ouI Ihe acIiviIy on behall ol Ihe daIa conIroller and Io
process Ihe daIa in accordance wiIh Ihe insIrucIions received. In Ihe evenI ol
breach Ihe obligaIions applicable under Ihe privacy laws, Ihe daIa processor
will respond personally lor any breaches commiIIed.
GNUEDL 15 Privacy
5. Accexx to data and data tranxIerx
5.1. Accexx b data grocexxorx
"Access Io daIa" is undersIood Io mean when a Ihird parIy accesses Ihe daIa in
order Io provide a service Io Ihe daIa conIroller. This Ihird parIy is relerred Io as
Ihe "daIa processor". Any person acIing under Ihe auIhoriIy ol Ihe conIroller or
ol Ihe processor, including Ihe processor himsell, who has access Io personal
daIa musI noI process Ihem excepI on insIrucIions lrom Ihe conIroller.
Oata grocexxorx
There are many examples ol "daIa processors". Basically, iI relers Io Ihe majoriIy ol inlor-
maIion Iechnology service providers IhaI access or can access Iheir clienIs' daIa:
DaIa processing cenIres (ouIsourced).
IT service providers (IT supporI, helpdesks, eIc.).
CusIomer care cenIres (which access user daIa).
Companies providing web services, hosIing and even daIa or email processing ser-
vices (Amazon Web Services, Google Apps).
Faper disposal companies.
The relaIionship musI be governed by conIracI (olIen called an "ArI 17 con-
IracI", under ArIicle 17 ol Ihe DFD), which musI be in wriIing and seI ouI
whaI Ihe processor may or may noI do wiIh Ihe personal daIa, including whaI
securiIy measures should be Iaken Io saleguard Ihe daIa. In parIicular, Ihe daIa
processor musI implemenI Ihe securiIy measures indicaIed by Ihe daIa con-
Iroller.
5.2. Oata TranxIerx
DaIa Iranslers are noI delined in Ihe DirecIive, however Member SIaIes have
generally provided IhaI a Iransler ol daIa is any communicaIion ol personal
daIa Io a person oIher Ihan Ihe inIeresIed parIy, as disIincI lrom an "access"
Io daIa as we have discussed above.
Oata tranxIerx
Typically, Ihere is a Iransler when daIa is Iranslerred beIween a subsidiary and a parenI
company, lrom an HR consulIing lirm Io iIs clienIs, lrom a docIor Io a hospiIal or medical
insurance company, or when markeIing daIabases are sold (lisI ol email addresses, eIc.).
Fersonal daIa may only be Iranslerred lor Ihe lullilmenI ol purposes direcI-
ly relaIed Io Ihe legiIimaIe luncIions ol Ihe assignor and assignee and, wiIh
several excepIions (legal auIhorisaIion, eIc.), musI always have Ihe prior in-
lormed consenI ol Ihe inIeresIed parIy.
ConLrollersshouldreservefor
LhemselvesLherighLLoaudiL
processorsLoensurecompli-
ancewiLhLheconLracL.
GNUEDL 1 Privacy
5.3. 1nternatonaI data tranxIerx {outxde the EEA}
The concepI ol inIernaIional daIa Iransler covers boIh access Io daIa by a daIa
processor as well as iIs communicaIion Io Ihird parIies ouIside Ihe EEA (EU
Member SIaIes IogeIher wiIh Iceland, LiechIensIein and Norway). NoIe IhaI
Ihe mere IransiI ol daIa via inIerneI servers ouIside Ihe EEA (email, web pages)
does noI counI as a daIa Iransler.
Eollowing Ihe ECJ decision in Ihe Swedish case againsI LindqvisI (C-101}01) in November
2003, daIa is noI "Iranslerred" Io a Ihird counIry where an individual in a Member SIaIe
merely loads personal inlormaIion onIo a websiIe IhaI is hosIed in IhaI SIaIe or anoIher
Member SIaIe, so IhaI Ihe inlormaIion can be accessed by anyone who connecIs Io Ihe
inIerneI.
As a general rule, Ihe inIernaIional Iransler ol daIa is only allowed when Ihe
desIinaIion is a counIry IhaI ensures an "adequaIe level ol privacy proIecIion",
i.e. ollering Ihe same level ol proIecIion as IhaI provided by Ihe DFD (arIicle
2S DFD). This includes by delaulI Ihe EEA members, and also any oIher coun-
Iry approved by Ihe European Commission (or an applicable DaIa FroIecIion
Agency) due Io providing an adequaIe level ol proIecIion by reason ol iIs do-
mesIic law or ol Ihe inIernaIional commiImenIs iI has enIered inIo.
The counIries approved Io daIe are: ArgenIina, Canada, Hungary, SwiIzerland and Ihe
UK Island ol Guernsey (and Ihe US under Ihe principles ol "Sale-Harbour" and Ihe Irans-
ler ol Air Fassenger Name Records Io Ihe UniIed SIaIes' Bureau ol CusIoms and Border
FroIecIion).
InIernaIional Iransler is also allowed in some oIher specilic cases, lor example,
when (a) Ihe recipienI has signed a conIracI guaranIeeing similar levels ol
daIa proIecIion or (b) Iranslers beIween members ol a business group IhaI
esIablishes a suiIable inIernal policy lor Ihe proIecIion ol privacy (Binding
CorporaIe Rules).
The availabiliIy ol conIracIual saleguards is imporIanI, enabling daIa proces-
sors or conIrollers in Ihird parIy counIries Io sign conIracIs wiIh daIa con-
Irollers in Ihe EEA (on Ihe basis ol Ihe approved model clauses provided by
Ihe Commission) lor Ihe processing ol daIa ouIside Ihe EEA.
Decisions 2001}47}EC and 2002}1o}EC (now Commission Decision ol SEebruary 2010,
C(2010) S3) seI ouI sIandard conIracIual clauses lor Ihe Iransler ol personal daIa Io Ihird
counIries (daIa conIroller Io daIa conIroller and daIa processor, respecIively). A lurIher
Decision was passed in 2004 which inIroduced an alIernaIive seI ol sIandard conIracIual
clauses lor Ihe Iransler ol personal daIa Io Ihird counIries.
ArIicle 2o ol Ihe DaIa FroIecIion DirecIive seIs ouI a number ol derogaIions
(i.e. excepIions) Io Ihe aloremenIioned prohibiIion, so IhaI Iranslers Io Ihird
counIries may be permiIIed where:
(a) The daIa subjecI has given his consenI unambiguously Io Ihe Iransler,
(b) The Iransler is necessary lor Ihe perlormance ol a conIracI beIween Ihe
daIa subjecI and Ihe conIroller,
GNUEDL 17 Privacy
(c) The Iransler is necessary lor Ihe conclusion or perlormance ol a conIracI
concluded in Ihe inIeresI ol Ihe daIa subjecI beIween Ihe conIroller and a
Ihird parIy,
(d) The Iransler is necessary or legally required on imporIanI public inIeresI
grounds or lor Ihe delence ol legal claims,
(e) The Iransler is necessary Io proIecI Ihe viIal inIeresIs ol Ihe daIa subjecI, or
(I) The Iransler is made lrom a public regisIer.
The mosI commonly used ol Ihese derogaIions is (a) consenI. ConsenI musI be specilic
and inlormed. This means Ihe individual musI know and undersIand whaI such consenI
will amounI Io. DaIa subjecIs should be inlormed ol Ihe reasons lor Ihe Iransler and Ihe
counIries involved. In Ihe daIa proIecIion noIice, conIrollers will olIen dralI Ihe noIice
widely and in parIicular will sIaIe IhaI Iranslers Io Ihird counIries may Iake place as a
way ol exIracIing consenI lrom Ihe daIa subjecI Io such processing.
GNUEDL 18 Privacy
. Securt obIgatonx
The daIa conIroller and, where applicable, Ihe daIa processor, are obliged Io
implemenI appropriaIe (securiIy) measures Io proIecI personal daIa againsI
accidenIal or unlawlul desIrucIion or accidenIal loss, alIeraIion, unauIhorised
disclosure or access.
GoogIe Prvac PoIc, March 21
"InlormaIion securiIy. We Iake appropriaIe securiIy measures Io proIecI againsI unau-
Ihorised access Io or unauIhorised alIeraIion, disclosure or desIrucIion ol daIa. These in-
clude inIernal reviews ol our daIa collecIion, sIorage and processing pracIices and secu-
riIy measures, as well as physical securiIy measures Io guard againsI unauIhorised access
Io sysIems where we sIore personal daIa."
The DaIa FroIecIion DirecIive does noI predicaIe any parIicular measure and
Ihe member sIaIes ol Ihe European Union have Iaken dillerenI approaches Io
Ihe issue, lrom sell-regulaIion (UK) Io deIailed compulsory measures (Spain).
Under Ihe Spanish DaIa FroIecIion Laws, Ihree levels ol proIecIion are esIablished ac-
cording Io Ihe Iype ol inlormaIion handled. The basic level applies by delaulI Io any
personal daIa lile, whereas Ihe medium level applies Io liles conIaining daIa relaIed Io
adminisIraIive or criminal violaIions, Ihe Tax AuIhoriIy, linancial services, and crediI
raIings, and Ihe high level applies Io liles conIaining daIa regarding Ihe ideology, reli-
gion, beliels, racial origin, healIh or sex lile and daIa gaIhered lor police purposes wiIh-
ouI Ihe allecIed parIy's consenI.
The dillerenI levels ol saleIy involve obligaIions IhaI are increasingly burdensome lor
implemenIaIion by Ihe daIa conIroller and any processor (SecuriIy Manager). The basic
obligaIions include preparing a securiIy documenI and a regisIer ol incidenIs as well as
delining Ihe luncIions ol Ihe people wiIh access Io Ihe daIa. Flus, lor medium and high
levels, a periodic (Iechnical-legal) audiI ol Ihe securiIy measures implemenIed lor Ihe
high level musI Iake place, carrying ouI backup copies and encoding daIa Iransmissions.
lorexample,websiLessLoring
userdaLashouldimplemenL
measuresLoprevenLunlawful
access(hacking).
GNUEDL 1 Privacy
7. ReguIator xugervxon
The DFD provides IhaI Ihe naIional DaIa FroIecIion Agencies (supervisory
auIhoriIies) musI have cerIain powers Io regulaIe Ihe processing ol personal
daIa. This includes:
InvesIigaIive powers, such as access Io daIa processing operaIions and Ihe
collecIion ol all Ihe inlormaIion necessary lor Ihe perlormance ol iIs su-
pervisory duIies.
Fowers ol inIervenIion (delivering opinions belore processing operaIions
are carried ouI, ordering Ihe blocking, erasure or desIrucIion ol daIa, im-
posing a Iemporary or deliniIive ban on processing, ol warning or admon-
ishing Ihe conIroller).
The power Io engage in legal proceedings where Ihe daIa proIecIion pro-
visions have been violaIed.
NaIional laws have provided Ihese powers, and included powers Io line daIa
conIrollers and processors lor breach ol Ihe privacy obligaIions.
Sgan
In Spain, Ihe LOFD sysIemaIises Ihe poIenIial violaIions ol Ihe Law, classilying viola-
Iions relaIed Io Ihe proIecIion ol personal daIa. While Ihere is no exhausIive lisI, Ihe
Agency can sancIion any breach ol Ihe daIa subjecIs' righIs (inlormed consenI, righIs ol
access, recIilicaIion and cancellaIion), lack ol collaboraIion on Ihe parI ol Ihe Agency,
lack ol compulsory noIilicaIions or Ihe creaIion, processing, communicaIion, Iransler
and mainIenance ol liles wiIhouI observing Ihe Ierms ol Ihe law. Breaches can enIail
lines beIween o00 and o00,000 Euros (per breach).
Various sancIions have been published, despiIe Iheir alleged secrecy:
In 2000,) a TV company Zeppeln was lined 1.1 million Euros lor disclosing daIa on
candidaIes lor Ihe Big BroIher programme (Ihis has been appealed).
In 2001, Telelnica de Espana and Telelnica DaIa were lined 841,420 Euros lor ex-
changing Iheir clienI daIa.
In 2002, Ihe company Inlander had Io pay 300,000 Euros lor having iIs server in-
sIalled in Ihe UniIed SIaIes.
In 2008, Ihe collecIing socieIy "SGAE" was lined o0,101 Euros lor recording a wedding
(Io collecI evidence ol non-paymenI ol levies).
In 2010, CiIybank Espana was lined o0,101 Euros lor sending communicaIions wiIh-
ouI consenI (Io one person!).
GNUEDL 20 Privacy
8. The IegaI IrameworR Ior data grvac n other
]urxdctonx
OuIside ol Europe, we observe IhaI due Io Ihe ellecI ol Ihese obligaIions and,
especially, Ihose relaIing Io Ihe inIernaIional Iransler ol daIa, mosI commer-
cial parIners ol European counIries are almosI "obliged" Io esIablish similar
legal lrameworks lor Ihe proIecIion ol privacy. We would menIion Canada,
SwiIzerland and ArgenIina, which have been approved by Ihe European Com-
mission, buI also Japan or AusIralia.
The UniIed SIaIes is a special case, which has much less privacy proIecIion
Ihan Europe, and which is organised by secIors: especially, lor banks and li-
nancial services and Ihe healIh secIor. In order Io allow Ihe Iransler ol daIa
lrom Ihe EU, Ihe US has esIablished a quasi-privaIe regime, by means ol Ihe
Sale Harbor agreemenI ol July 2000.
SaIe Harbor
The decision by US-based organisaIions Io comply wiIh Ihe Sale Harbor Frivacy Frinciples
is enIirely volunIary. OrganisaIions need Io sell-cerIily annually Io Ihe US DeparImenI
ol Commerce and sIaIe in Iheir published privacy sIaIemenI IhaI Ihey adhere Io Ihe
principles. The Sale Harbor Frinciples impose obligaIions wiIh respecI Io securiIy and Ihe
appoinImenI ol daIa processors IhaI are generally equivalenI Io Ihose seI ouI in Ihe DaIa
FroIecIion DirecIive. US organisaIions can also meeI Ihe adequacy requiremenIs ol Ihe
DaIa FroIecIion DirecIive il Ihey include Ihe Sale Harbor requiremenIs as Ihe subsIanIive
privacy provisions in wriIIen agreemenIs wiIh parIies Iranslerring daIa lrom Ihe EU.
To daIe, approximaIely 2,000 US companies have signed Ihe agreemenI. OIh-
ers have signed sIandard conIracIs underIaking Io proIecI Ihe daIa appropri-
aIely.
GNUEDL 21 Privacy
9. Prvac n the xector oI eIectronc communcatonx
New Iechnologies, in parIicular inIerneI and email, musI lullil cerIain require-
menIs in order Io guaranIee Ihe righI Io privacy. The amounI and inIensiIy
ol communicaIions as well as Ihe naIure ol daIa IransmiIIed can be a risk
lor people's privacy. Therelore, Io improve people's conlidence in Ihe use ol
IelecommunicaIions, a series ol rules have been esIablished imposed on elec-
Ironic neIwork and service providers. These were esIablished by Ihe E-com-
municaIions DirecIive and Ihe DaIa ReIenIion DirecIive.
9.1. TeIecommuncatonx xecrec
Member SIaIes wiIhin Ihe EU generally impose obligaIions ol conlidenIialiIy
and secrecy in respecI ol IelecommunicaIions.
The Ihree basic principles are:
The secrecy oI communIcatIons: Ihe conlidenIialiIy ol communicaIions
carried ouI Ihrough public elecIronic communicaIion neIworks musI be
guaranIeed. In parIicular, iI is prohibiIed lor people oIher Ihan users Io
lisIen Io, inIercepI or sIore communicaIions wiIhouI Ihe prior consenI ol
users or a courI order.
InterceptIon. The laws develop Ihe principles lor Ihe inIercepIion ol elec-
Ironic communicaIions by agenIs ol Ihe public adminisIraIions. DaIa pro-
IecIion conlidenIialiIy obligaIions are only resIricIed in order Io carry ouI
invesIigaIions inIo criminal acIiviIies or Io guaranIee naIional securiIy,
public delence and saleIy, in condiIions where Ihe lilIing ol conlidenIial-
iIy consIiIuIes a "necessary, proporIionaIe, and appropriaIe measure in a
democraIic socieIy".
LncryptIon. The encrypIion ol daIa circulaIing on elecIronic communi-
caIion neIwork is normally allowed (e.g. Skype encrypIs messaging), how-
ever cerIain naIional laws also allow Ihe auIhoriIies Io demand handover
ol Ihe encrypIion keys.
The E-communicaIions DirecIive reiIeraIes Ihese basic principles, providing
IhaI Member SIaIes musI ensure Ihe conlidenIialiIy ol communicaIions made
over a public elecIronic communicaIions neIwork. They musI, in parIicular,
prohibiI lisIening, Iapping and sIorage ol communicaIions by persons oIher
Ihan users wiIhouI Ihe consenI ol Ihe users concerned.
GNUEDL 22 Privacy
9.2. EIectronc communcatonx
9.2.1. TraIIc data and Locaton data
The E-communicaIions DirecIive delines:
TraIIIc data as "any daIa processed lor Ihe purpose ol Ihe conveyance ol
a communicaIion on an elecIronic communicaIions neIwork or lor Ihe
billing Ihereol". The deliniIion covers daIa such as call daIa, addressing or
numbering daIa (e.g. IF-addresses or phone numbers), daIa relaIing Io Ihe
rouIing, duraIion, Iime, proIocol used, or daIa generaIed lor Ihe purpose
ol billing.
LocatIon data as "any daIa processed in an elecIronic communicaIions
neIwork, indicaIing Ihe geographic posiIion ol Ihe Ierminal equipmenI ol
a user ol a publicly available elecIronic communicaIions service".
Trallic daIa musI be erased or made anonymous when iI is no longer need-
ed lor Ihe purpose ol Ihe Iransmission ol a communicaIion. Frocessing ol
Irallic daIa may only Iake place Io Ihe exIenI and duraIion necessary Io lul-
lil cerIain specilied purposes: subscriber billing and inIerconnecIion pay-
menIs, markeIing elecIronic communicaIions services or providing value
added services provided Ihe user or subscriber has given prior consenI, or
lraud deIecIion, Irallic managemenI and handling cusIomer enquiries.
Service providers musI inlorm Ihe subscriber or user ol Ihe Iypes ol Irallic daIa which
are processed and ol Ihe duraIion ol such processing. This inlormaIion musI be provided
belore obIaining consenI Io markeIing elecIronic communicaIions services or providing
value added services. Users or subscribers shall also be given Ihe possibiliIy Io wiIhdraw
Iheir consenI lor Ihe processing ol Irallic daIa lor Ihese purposes aI any Iime.
The DirecIive also seIs resIricIions on Ihe enIiIies IhaI are allowed Io pro-
cess Irallic daIa. Trallic daIa may only be processed by persons acIing
"under Ihe auIhoriIy" ol elecIronic communicaIions neIwork or service
providers (i.e. inIerneI access providers, mobile operaIors, eIc.).
This requiremenI suggesIs IhaI Ihe persons involved in Ihe processing ol Irallic daIa
eiIher have Io be employed by Ihe neIwork or services provider, or IhaI Ihird parIies musI
be appoinIed as a processor in accordance wiIh Ihe DaIa FroIecIion DirecIive.
LocaIion daIa (oIher Ihan Irallic daIa) can only be processed il iI is made
anonymous or wiIh Ihe consenI ol Ihe users or subscribers, Io Ihe exIenI
and lor Ihe duraIion necessary lor Ihe provision ol any services. The ser-
vice provider musI inlorm Ihe users or subscribers, prior Io obIaining Iheir
consenI ol: Ihe Iype ol locaIion daIa which will be processed, Ihe purposes
and duraIion ol Ihe processing, and wheIher Ihe daIa will be IransmiIIed
Io a Ihird parIy lor Ihe purpose ol providing Ihe value added service.
Users or subscribers musI be given Ihe possibiliIy Io wiIhdraw Iheir consenI lor Ihe pro-
cessing ol locaIion daIa aI any Iime and also, using a simple means and lree ol charge,
GNUEDL 23 Privacy
Io reluse Iemporarily Ihe processing ol such daIa lor each connecIion Io Ihe neIwork or
lor each Iransmission ol a communicaIion.
ResIricIions similar Io Ihose applicable Io Irallic daIa are imposed on Ihe
enIiIies and persons IhaI can process locaIion daIa (e.g. persons involved
in Ihe processing ol locaIion daIa eiIher have Io be employed by Ihe neI-
work or services provider, or IhaI Ihird parIies musI be appoinIed as a
processor in accordance wiIh Ihe DaIa FroIecIion DirecIive).
9.2.2. Securt regurementx
The E-communicaIions DirecIive seIs ouI addiIional securiIy measures in rela-
Iion Io Ihe processing ol personal daIa in Ihe elecIronic communicaIions sec-
Ior. The provisions ol Ihe DaIa FroIecIion DirecIive are reinlorced, as providers
ol publicly available elecIronic communicaIions neIworks musI Iake appro-
priaIe Iechnical and organisaIional measures Io saleguard Ihe securiIy ol iIs
services.
The E-communicaIions DirecIive also regulaIes Ihe use ol cookies (hidden in-
lormaIion exchanged beIween an inIerneI user and a web server IhaI is sIored
in a lile on Ihe user's hard disk, which is uselul lor moniIoring a neI surler's
acIiviIy). Users should have Ihe opporIuniIy Io reluse Io have a cookie or sim-
ilar device sIored on Iheir Ierminal equipmenI. To IhaI end, noIice ol uses ol
cookies musI be given and users musI be able Io decide noI Io accepI cookies,
excepI where Ihe cookie is essenIial Io deliver conIracIed services.
LK 1nIormaton Commxxoner webxte
"We use Google AnalyIics Io help analyse use ol our websiIe. This analyIical Iool uses
'cookies', which are IexI liles placed on your compuIer, Io collecI sIandard inIerneI log
inlormaIion and visiIor behaviour inlormaIion in an anonymous lorm. The inlormaIion
generaIed by Ihe cookie abouI your use ol Ihe websiIe (including your IF address) is Irans-
miIIed Io Google. This inlormaIion is Ihen used Io evaluaIe visiIors' use ol Ihe websiIe
and Io compile sIaIisIical reporIs on websiIe acIiviIy lor Ihe ICO. To lind ouI more abouI
cookies, including how Io conIrol and deleIe Ihem, visiI www.abouIcookies.org}".
9.3. Oata Retenton
In March 200o, DirecIive 200o}24}CE was adopIed regarding Ihe preservaIion
ol daIa generaIed or processed in relaIion Io Ihe provision ol services ol elec-
Ironic communicaIion ol public access or ol public communicaIion neIworks.
The purpose ol Ihe DirecIive was Io harmonise Ihe rulings ol Member SIaIes
regarding Ihe obligaIions ol elecIronic communicaIion service providers re-
laIed Io daIa preservaIion.
This DirecIive esIablishes Ihe obligaIion Io preserve cerIain caIegories ol daIa
by elecIronic communicaIions service providers. The aim is Io guaranIee IhaI
such daIa is available lor purposes ol invesIigaIing, deIecIing and judging vi-
olaIions.
GNUEDL 24 Privacy
The DirecIive delines:
The caIegories ol daIa IhaI need Io be preserved: e.g.
DaIa regarding Iravel and locaIion ol privaIe individuals and legal en-
IiIies.
The daIa lisIed as necessary lor idenIilying a subscriber or regisIered
user.
The periods lor Ihe preservaIion ol daIa (basically, 12 monIhs).
The sIorage requiremenIs lor preserved daIa (guaranIeeing conlidenIiali-
Iy).
The regime lor Iranslerring Ihe daIa Io public auIhoriIies, lollowing a courI
order.
The principles IhaI musI be respecIed in Ierms ol daIa securiIy, in accor-
dance wiIh Ihe DFD.
1hescopeofapplicaLionofLhe
DirecLiveexcludesLheconLenL
ofelecLroniccommunicaLions,
includinginformaLionconsulL-
edusinganelecLroniccommu-
nicaLionneLwork.
GNUEDL 25 Privacy
1. ConcIuxonx: the mgact oI grvac on
technoIogcaI gro]ectx
One cannoI underesIimaIe Ihe impacI ol daIa proIecIion regulaIions on Iech-
nological projecIs. The obligaIions Io inlorm and obIain Ihe consenI ol Ihe
user and regarding daIa securiIy are very cumbersome when Ihere are millions
ol users involved. The prohibiIion ol inIernaIional daIa Iranslers deIermines
where daIa processing, ouIsourcing or cusIomer care services can be locaIed,
(lor example, in ArgenIina or Canada, counIries approved by Ihe European
Commission).
The viabiliIy ol cerIain projecIs has been quesIioned due Io Ihe cosI ol lullill-
ing privacy obligaIions and resIricIions regarding Ihe use ol personal daIa.
II is lundamenIal Io carry ouI an impacI sIudy ol Ihe privacy obligaIions on Ihe
projecI's sysIems, processes and cosIs during Ihe projecI's analysis, as well as Io
deIermine who is responsible lor implemenIing Ihe corresponding obligaIions
(daIa gaIhering wiIh prior inlormaIion Io Ihe user, eIc.) and noIilying liles Io
Ihe DaIa FroIecIion Agencies.
Very brielly, Ihis analysis implies:
DeIermining Ihe caIegory ol personal daIa processed by Ihe projecI's sys-
Iems.
IdenIilying who is responsible lor Ihese daIa (Ihe person who deIermines
Ihe purposes ol processing, Ihe "owner" ol Ihe daIa).
EsIablishing Ihe obligaIions Io inlorm, obIain consenI and prove iI (ac-
cepIance regisIers, eIc.) and how Ihey are implemenIed (web privacy poli-
cies, clienI documenIaIion, eIc.).
EsIablishing Ihe levels ol securiIy Io be implemenIed, Iheir implemenIa-
Iion and corresponding cosI.
Delining Ihe processes Io respond Io access and cancelaIion requesIs by
inIeresIed parIies.
IdenIilying Ihird parIies wiIh access Io Ihe daIa (daIa processors da-
Ia hosIing companies, ouIsourcing companies, solIware and Iechnology
mainIenance services, eIc.) and, where applicable, Ihe Iranslers ol daIa Io
Ihird parIies, which musI be jusIilied.
Open sIandards

GNUEDL Open sLandards
lcense"
1ndex
1. Concegtx................................................................................................ S
1.1. Open sIandards ........................................................................... S
1.2. DeliniIions7 ................................................................................. o
1.2.1. ITU-T deliniIion ............................................................. 7
1.2.2. European Union deliniIion ........................................... 8
1.2.3. Spanish law deliniIion ................................................... 8
1.2.4. Open Source IniIiaIive's RequiremenI ........................... 8

2. Standardxaton grocexxex ~ Iorumx.............................................. 10

3. BeneItx oI ogen xtandardx............................................................. 11

4. Controverxex regardng ogen xtandardx..................................... 14
4.1. Non-sIandard producIs ............................................................... 14
4.2. CopyrighI and paIenI righIs ....................................................... 14
4.3. SIriking a balance7 ...................................................................... 1o
4.4. FoIenIial breach ol (EU) CompeIiIion Law ................................ 17

5. The Future Wa Forward?............................................................... 1
GNUEDL 5 Open sLandards
1. Concegtx
1.1. Ogen xtandardx
A sIandard is generally a norm or specilicaIion regarding engineering or Iech-
nical criIeria, meIhods, processes and pracIices, generally achieved Ihrough a
consensus ol inIeresIed parIies. SIandards are usually creaIed wiIhin Ihe aus-
pices ol lormal organisaIions like ITU, ISO, IETE, W3C, OASIS, eIc.
ExamgIex oI xtandardx n the technoIog arena
HTML (HyperTexI Markup Language): specilicaIion ol markup language lor web
pages.
XML (ExIensible Markup Language): a seI ol rules lor encoding documenIs elecIron-
ically.
SOAP (Simple ObjecI Access FroIocol): a proIocol specilicaIion lor exchanging inlor-
maIion in Ihe implemenIaIion ol web services.
UnIcode: a sIandard lor Ihe consisIenI represenIaIion and manipulaIion ol IexI ex-
pressed in mosI IexI ediIing sysIems.
ODF (Open DocumenI EormaI): an XML-based lile lormaI lor represenIing elecIron-
ic documenIs such as spreadsheeIs, charIs, presenIaIions and word processing doc-
umenIs.
While Ihere is no deliniIion ol an open sIandard Ihis is one ol Ihe key el-
emenIs ol Ihe debaIe abouI open sIandards iI is generally considered Io be
a sIandard creaIed Ihrough a process where any inIeresIed parIy may lreely
parIicipaIe and collaboraIe (wiIh lormalised open sIandards organisaIions or
commiIIees or noI) and made available Io Ihe general public on a royalIy lree
and non-discriminaIory basis.
II has been argued IhaI an open sIandard is more Ihan a mere specilicaIion. An
open sIandard is "open" because ol Ihe principles behind iI and because ol Ihe
way in which iI has been publicly developed, approved and made accessible.
II is governed by a collaboraIive and consensus driven process.
An open sIandard is generally builI on Ihe principle IhaI iI is available lor every
end-user Io obIain, read and implemenI, wiIh no royalIy or lee. CerIain parIies
have argued IhaI a lee may be imposed (e.g. lor cerIilicaIion ol compliance
by a sIandards organisaIion), which musI Ihen be a low or reasonable cosI
(RAND). However, lor many IhaI is noI accepIable (see below).
An open sIandard is also based on Ihe principle ol non-discriminaIion, so IhaI
no solIware producer is lavoured over anoIher oIher wiIh respecI Io an imple-
menIaIion ol Ihe sIandard, oIher Ihan Ihrough Ihe producer's own Iechnical
Author cltatlon
"An open sLandard is more
Lhan jusL a specificaLion. 1he
principles behind Lhe sLandard,
and Lhe pracLice of offering
and operaLing Lhe sLandard,
are whaL make Lhe sLandard
Open."
Source: 8ruce Perens
skills and ellicacy. ConsequenIly, copyrighI or paIenIs which cover sIandards
one way ol achieving discriminaIion musI be licensed royalIy-lree and
wiIhouI discriminaIory Ierms, il Ihe sIandard is Io be "open".
The principles ol open sIandards lurIher include Ihe possibiliIy lor obIaining
an exIension or subseI lorm ol Ihe implemenIaIions.
All Ihis is developed lurIher below.
1.2. OeIntonx?
One ol Ihe currenI dilliculIies in relaIion Io "open sIandards" is IhaI Ihere is
no universal deliniIion. In lacI, Ihere are dillerenI deliniIions lor boIh Ierms
"Open" and "SIandard" and Ihere are dillerenI levels ol applicaIion ol sIan-
dards aI naIional, regional, inIernaIional levels wiIh "inIernaIionally recog-
nised sIandards" bodies playing a big role in Ihis area.
Some inIernaIionally recognised sIandards organisaIions reler specilically Io
"open sIandards" whilsI oIhers reler simply Io producing "sIandards". Eor in-
sIance,
IEET (InIerneI Engineering Task Eorce) and ITU-T (Ihe sIandards develop-
ing organisaIion in Ihe TelecommunicaIion SIandardisaIion SecIor which
coordinaIes sIandards lor IelecommunicaIions on behall ol Ihe InIerna-
Iional TelecommunicaIion Union) reler Io open stanJarJs.
IEC (InIernaIional ElecIroIechnical Commission IhaI prepares inIerna-
Iional sIandards lor all elecIrical, elecIronic and relaIed Iechnologies) and
Ihe ISO (Ihe InIernaIional SIandard SeIIling Body) only reler Io producing
"sIandards".
Hence Ihe Ierm "open sIandard" on iIs own is noI a Ierm which has a univer-
sal undersIanding. IIs deliniIion olIen depends on geographic region, on Ihe
parIicular sIandards body or organisaIion and on Ihe conIexI and lield ol use.
WhaI generally appears Io remain universal in all Ihe various deliniIions are
Ihe common principles ol:
Fublic parIicipaIion in creaIion.
Fublic availabiliIy.
No royalIy.
Non-discriminaIion.
The possibiliIy ol obIaining an exIension or subseI lorm Io Ihe implemen-
IaIion.
ln facL Lhe lE1l does noL have
iLs own specific definiLion of
"open sLandard". However,
Lhe lE1l sLandards fulfil (and
may Lherefore be considered
Lo share) Lhe l1-1's definiLion
of "open sLandards".
In oIher words, an open sIandard musI be accessible Io anyone and Ihere
should be no resIricIions Io implemenIaIion and or discriminaIion beIween
users. II is usually lree ol charge and noI subjecI Io any paymenI ol any in-
IellecIual properIy righIs or legal righIs necessary Io use, deploy or disIribuIe
Iheir implemenIaIion.
The Ierm "open sIandard" is also someIimes coupled wiIh "open source" wiIh Ihe idea
IhaI a sIandard is noI Iruly open il iI does noI have a compleIe lree}open source relerence
implemenIaIion available (c}l Tim Simcoe: ChapIer 8, open sIandards and InIellecIual
FroperIy RighIs', Io appear in Open InnovaIion: Researching a New Faradigm). See below.
Thus Ihere are a number ol approaches, some ol which are commenIed below.
1.2.1. 1TL-T deInton
WiIhin Ihe ITU, "open sIandards" are sIandards made available Io Ihe gen-
eral public and are developed (or approved) and mainIained via a collabora-
Iive and consensus driven process. "Open sIandards" laciliIaIe inIeroperabiliIy
and daIa exchange among dillerenI producIs or services and are inIended lor
widespread adopIion.
OIher elemenIs ol "open sIandards" include, buI are noI limiIed Io:
CollaboraIive process volunIary and markeI driven developmenI (or ap-
proval) lollowing a IransparenI consensus driven process IhaI is reason-
ably open Io all inIeresIed parIies.
Reasonably balanced ensures IhaI Ihe process is noI dominaIed by any
one inIeresI group.
Due process includes consideraIion ol and response Io commenIs by
inIeresIed parIies.
InIellecIual properIy righIs (IFRs) IFRs essenIial Io implemenI Ihe sIan-
dard Io be licensed Io all applicanIs on a worldwide, non-discriminaIory
basis, eiIher (1) lor lree and under oIher reasonable Ierms and condiIions
or (2) on reasonable Ierms and condiIions (which may include moneIary
compensaIion). NegoIiaIions are lelI Io Ihe parIies concerned and are per-
lormed ouIside Ihe SIandards DevelopmenI OrganisaIion (SDO).
QualiIy and level ol deIail sullicienI Io permiI Ihe developmenI ol a va-
rieIy ol compeIing implemenIaIions ol inIeroperable producIs or services.
SIandardised inIerlaces are noI hidden, or conIrolled oIher Ihan by Ihe
SDO promulgaIing Ihe sIandard.
Fublicly available easily available lor implemenIaIion and use, aI a rea-
sonable price. FublicaIion ol Ihe IexI ol a sIandard by oIhers is permiIIed
only wiIh Ihe prior approval ol Ihe SDO.
On-going supporI mainIained and supporIed over a long period ol Iime.
1.2.2. Eurogean Lnon deInton
The European Union on Ihe oIher hand adopIed Ihe lollowing deliniIion in iIs
European InIeroperabiliIy Eramework: (c}l European InIeroperabiliIy Erame-
work lor pan-European eGovernmenI Services, Version 1.0 (2004) ISBN 2-
84-838-X page ).
The minimal characIerisIics ol an open sIandard are:
The sIandard is adopIed and will be mainIained by a noI-lor-proliI organ-
isaIion, and iIs ongoing developmenI occurs on Ihe basis ol an open de-
cision-making procedure available Io all inIeresIed parIies (consensus or
majoriIy decision, eIc.).
The sIandard has been published and Ihe sIandard specilicaIion documenI
is available eiIher lreely or aI a nominal charge. II musI be permissible Io
all Io copy, disIribuIe and use iI lor no lee or aI a nominal lee.
The inIellecIual properIy i.e. paIenIs possibly presenI ol (parIs ol) Ihe
sIandard is made irrevocably available on a royalIy-lree basis.
There are no consIrainIs on Ihe re-use ol Ihe sIandard.
1.2.3. Sganxh Iaw deInton
In Spain, a law passed by Ihe Spanish FarliamenI (c}l Ley 11}2007
1
ol ElecIron-
ic Access ol CiIizens Io Fublic Services, June 22, 2007), requires IhaI all elec-
Ironic services provided by Ihe Spanish public adminisIraIion musI be based
on (1) open sIandards or (2) "evenIually, on an ancillary basis, sIandards IhaI
are generally used by ciIizens" (which is noI very saIislacIory lrom a "open
sIandards" perspecIive, and raised considerable debaIe).
II delines an open sIandard as royalIy lree, according Io Ihe lollowing delini-
Iion:
An open sIandard lullils Ihe lollowing condiIions:
II is public, and iIs use is available on a lree |graIis] basis, or aI a cosI IhaI
does noI imply a dilliculIy lor Ihe user.
IIs use is noI subjecI Io Ihe paymenI ol any inIellecIual |copyrighI] or
indusIrial |paIenIs and Irademarks] properIy righI.
1.2.4. Ogen Source 1ntatve'x Regurement
The Open Source IniIiaIive (OSI) is an organisaIion IhaI promoIes open source
solIware (OSS) (see Module 4). As Io Ihe Open SIandards RequiremenI (OSR)
lor open source solIware (OSS), Ihe Open Source IniIiaIive delines iIs require-
menIs and criIeria as lollows:
(1)
See Annex Lo Lhe Law 11}2007
online aL noLicias juridicas siLe.
All necessary deIail and any process lor lixing llaws discovered under im-
plemenIaIion and inIeroperabiliIy IesIing musI be disclosed lor inIerop-
erable implemenIaIion under Ierms which comply wiIh OSR. In oIher
words, no relevanI deIail musI be wiIhheld.
The open sIandard musI be lreely available and accessible under royalIy
lee Ierms aI reasonable and non-discriminaIory cosI.
All paIenIs essenIial Io implemenIaIion ol Ihe sIandard musI be licensed
under royalIy lee Ierms lor unresIricIed use or be obliged Io a pledge ol
"non-asserIion" in relaIion Io open source solIware.
There musI be no agreemenIs Io execuIe a licence agreemenI, Non Disclo-
sure AgreemenI, granI, click-Ihrough, or any oIher lorm ol paperwork Io
deploy conlorming implemenIaIions ol Ihe sIandard.
ImplemenIaIion ol Ihe sIandard musI also noI require any oIher Iechnol-
ogy IhaI lails Io meeI Ihe criIeria ol Ihis requiremenI.
The above criIeria musI be meI oIherwise iI will discriminaIe againsI open
source developers.
2. Standardxaton grocexxex ~ Iorumx
There are generally Ihree levels ol sIandards according Io where Ihey are cre-
aIed:
NaIional sIandard via naIional sIandards organisaIions.
Regional sIandard via regional sIandards organisaIions.
InIernaIional sIandard lor example inIernaIional sIandards organisaIions
such as IETE, IEC, ITU-T and ISO (ISO in iIsell is composed ol various na-
Iional sIandards organisaIions.).
SIandards bodies are however only a meIhod ol achieving sIandardisaIion.
There are also oIher Iypes ol sIandards lor example indusIry de lacIo and gov-
ernmenI sIandards.
Industry de Iacto standards are popular because Ihe beneliIs ol sIandard-
isaIion are olIen very high, increasing Ihe user's abiliIy Io inIeroperaIe
wiIh oIhers. The downside is IhaI proprieIary Iechnology is olIen required
which necessiIaIes Ihe paymenI ol licensing lees Io Ihe relevanI providers
ol IhaI Iechnology.
Government standards on Ihe oIher hand, can be provided via enlorce-
able laws or regulaIory body mandaIes adopIing such governmenI sIan-
dards.
The main disIincIion beIween indusIry de lacIo } governmenI sIandards and
open sIandards is Ihe elemenI ol openness in Ihe collaboraIive ellorIs Io cre-
aIe Ihe sIandards, specilicaIions and Iechnology. Such openness and collabo-
raIive ellorIs are meanI lor easy accessibiliIy and widespread use in order Io
implemenI Ihose specilicaIions.
3. BeneItx oI ogen xtandardx
Why is Ihere a need lor open sIandards7
Author ctaton
As Ihe Eree SolIware EoundaIion Europe (ESEE) sIaIes: "open sIandards allow people Io
share all kinds ol daIa lreely and wiIh perlecI lideliIy. They prevenI lock-in and oIher
arIilicial barriers Io inIeroperabiliIy, and promoIe choice beIween vendors and Iechnol-
ogy soluIions."
By adopIing an open sIandard, Ihe end-user}cusIomer is noI locked inIo a par-
Iicular vendor. This decreases reliance ol any one vendor specilicaIion, Ihere-
by maximising end-user choice resulIing in a more compeIiIive markeI lor im-
plemenIaIion ol Ihe sIandard. This ever more imporIanI in a neIworked world
where more and more daIa and applicaIions move Io Ihe neI (in "compuIing
clouds") and users lose direcI conIrol ol Iheir daIa and need inIeroperabiliIy
Io mainIain a degree ol conIrol and be able Io "exiI" Ihe cloud il necessary.
Generally speaking, open sIandards can achieve Ihe lollowing:
They promoIe inIeroperabiliIy and inIegraIion beIween various applica-
Iions or neIworks.
They can consolidaIe compeIing sIandards and overcome dillerences in
Iechnical regulaIions and Io decrease barriers in commerce (lrom local Io
inIernaIional).
They can laciliIaIe noI jusI applicaIion inIegraIion buI also daIa exchange
or inIegraIion among dillerenI producIs, componenIs or services, and de-
crease duplicaIion which enable applicaIions Io work IogeIher Io perlorm
or compleIe a process.
They enable an increased represenIaIion ol diverse inIeresIs and sIake-
holders in building Ihe ICT inlrasIrucIure ol our neIworked socieIy. This
leads Io conIinual improvemenIs, wider supporI, increased vendor com-
peIiIiveness and llexibiliIy.
They reduce risk lor end users who use soluIions IhaI comply wiIh open
sIandard specilicaIions, being able Io swap applicaIions in Ihe evenI ol any
disasIer or unloreseen circumsIance, and enable Ihem Io inIegraIe Iheir
sysIems wiIh Ihird parIies such as governmenI, suppliers, cusIomers and
parIners.
1hink of Lhe H1ML sLandard.
Due Lo Lhis sLandard, NeLscape
NavigaLor and subsequenL-
ly lirefox web browsers man-
aged noL only Lo exisL and sur-
vive, buL also ensure compli-
ance wiLh Lhe sLandard by web
page developers and oLher
browsers.
Let ux IooR at two examgIex
InteroperabIlIty. The use ol Ihe inIerneI's TCF}IF communicaIions proIocol creaIed
a worldwide inlrasIrucIure lor collaboraIing and coordinaIing resources since virIu-
ally any componenI on a neIwork can communicaIe wiIh any oIher componenI. The
use ol Ihe TCF}IF open sIandard by any sIakeholder allows Ihem Io use Ihe specili-
caIions Io build Iheir own soluIions. As inIeroperabiliIy increases and barriers Io in-
IegraIion ol disparaIe sysIem decreases, one's abiliIy Io auIomaIe processes beIween
Iechnologies, plaIlorms, languages and cusIomisaIions increases correspondingly.
IntegratIon. As Ihe sIandards ol web services (SOAF, eIc.) whose proIocols are based
on open sIandards achieve and gain growing accepIance, iI is clear IhaI originally
economically inleasible web plaIlorms can now be creaIed Ihrough inIegraIion ol
dillerenI componenIs. The "plug and play" concepI Io inIegraIe devices and compuIer
componenI is an example ol such inIegraIion. II is simply based on a sIandardisaIion
ol inIegraIion specilicaIions wiIh an auIomaIion ol common requiremenIs.
An open sIandard, by helping Io deline componenI inIerlaces, increases inIer-
operabiliIy. This leads Io simpler, repeaIable and quicker inIegraIion ellorIs.
Besides, Ihe use ol an open sIandard ellecIively replaces many unique ven-
dor soluIions and increases Ihe availabiliIy ol resources sharing Ihe same pro-
cesses. Therelore where Ihere would lor insIance previously be Ihree vendor
specialisIs using Iheir own dillerenI proprieIary Iechnologies lor achieving
meIhodologies lor Iheir respecIive soluIions, now Ihe use ol an open sIandard
specilicaIion increases Ihe pool ol available vendor specialisIs lor a given so-
luIion lrom one resource pool supplying knowledge or Iechnology using IhaI
specilicaIion Io Ihree.
To ensure inIeroperabiliIy issues wiIh suppliers, cusIomers, parIners and oIher
relaIed enIiIies demand Ihe need lor opIimisaIion ol opIions which are ol
qualiIy, durable and llexible in a corresponding environmenI where risk is
reduced. AdopIing an open sIandard increases opIions IhaI lower risk in many
ways.
The greaIer Ihe opIimisaIion and accessibiliIy ol Ihe inlrasIrucIure builI
Ihrough an open sIandard, Ihe greaIer Ihe demand lor innovaIion leveraging
iI. ConIinuous improvemenIs can be driven unIil Ihere is a need lor a replace-
menI ol anoIher new open sIandard, whereupon anoIher door can be opened
Io collaboraIion on migraIion and inIeroperabiliIy.
By iIs naIure ol seIIing Ihe open sIandard process Ihrough common open di-
alogue, communicaIion is sIreamlined, allowing all end-users (educaIional or
corporaIe insIiIuIions) Io apply Ihe concepI. II also achieves a higher pro-
ducIiviIy lrom such users when compared Io operaIing wiIh closed concepIs.
Since an open sIandard is developed in a collaboraIive environmenI wiIh open
parIicipaIion in Ihe sIandard seIIing process, widespread and early open pub-
lic and peer review becomes naIural. This in Iurn increases early idenIilicaIion
and resoluIion ol poIenIial problems which usually leads Io higher qualiIy
resulIs and beIIer public reassurance in comparison Io proprieIary opIions.
As an open sIandard is supporIed by many suppliers, Ihey are more durable by
naIure as compared Io any more limiIed vendor soluIions. Over Ihe long haul,
Ihere is also more probabiliIy ol Ihe availabiliIy ol supporI and conIinuous
improvemenI. By naIure, an open sIandard is noI subjecI Io a single vendor's
inIeresI buI are more rellecIive on Ihe demands ol users, making Ihem more
durable.
ExamgIe
An example provided by Ihe OpenSIandards.neI organisaIion in Ihis regard is Ihe use ol
Ihe SIrucIured Query Language (SQL) which is used IhroughouI Ihe relaIional daIabase
indusIry by Oracle, MicrosolI and IBM as no single vendor has sullicienI conIrol Io re-
place iI.
AddiIionally, as Iechnological progresses over Iime, proprieIary soluIions Iend
Io be isolaIed as is shown by Ihe early CompuServe and prodigy neIworks
which have disappeared while Ihe inIerneI is growing aI a phenomenal raIe.
EurIhermore, Ihe lacI IhaI an open sIandard is supporIed by various vendors
provides Ihe end-user more independence lrom any one single vendor who
mighI, absenI open sIandard specilicaIions, require Ihe end users Io rely on
iIs own proprieIary sIandard. This would in Iurn reduce end-user choice and
compeIiIion. This is disIinguished lrom de lacIo indusIry sIandards which en-
courage such end-user dependence. Increasing vendor opIions also resulI in
reducing vendor cosIs and in reducing end-user risk, since such risk is Irans-
lerred lrom a single vendor Io mulIiple vendors implemenIing Ihe same open
sIandards.
ConsequenIly, businesses developed around open sIandards beneliI lrom a
cosI reducIion, speedier markeI enIry and an increase in markeI adopIion and
accepIance. This should resulI in an overall higher reIurn on invesImenI (ROI)
as well as higher vendor independence. The compeIiIion beIween manulac-
Iurers and vendors creaIes pressure Io produce and share improvemenIs, wiIh
overall improvemenIs lor end-users.
4. Controverxex regardng ogen xtandardx
While Ihere is a general undersIanding ol Ihe beneliIs ol open sIandards, and
even cerIain legal disposiIions which mandaIe Iheir use or implemenIaIion,
in pracIice Ihe siIuaIion is more complicaIed, because Ihere are several lorces
pushing againsI Ihe use ol open sIandards, in parIicular proprieIary (non-lree)
solIware and Iechnology manulacIurers who eiIher have an inIeresI in own-
ing or conIrolling Ihe specilicaIion ol sIandards, or are inIeresIed in NOT im-
plemenIing sIandards Io mainIain user lock-in.
4.1. Non-xtandard groductx
The mosI obvious area ol conllicI in relaIion Io sIandards is IhaI ol vendor
lock-in when using non-sIandard lormaIs or proIocols made possible due Io
a dominanI posiIion or oIher lacIors (such as a copyrighI or paIenI righI) ol
a vendor, whereby Ihe vendor uses Ihe economic or legal lacIors Io leverage
and "impose" de lacIo Ihe use ol a proprieIary } closed sIandard.
The Iypical example ol Ihis has been documenI lormaIs in MicrosolI
producIs, such
as .DOC and .XLS. MicrosolI's dominanI posiIion in Ihe ollice suiIe markeI has creaIed
a "de lacIo" sIandard lor documenI lormaIs Io Ihe poinI, lor example, where bidders
had Io use Ihese lormaIs Io submiI bids lor public conIracIs. The argumenI being IhaI
everyone needs Io purchase MicrosolI producIs Io be able Io creaIe, read and exchange
documenIs wiIh Ihird parIies. This is obviously no longer Ihe case, as solIware lrom oIher
sources, such as OpenOllice.org, can read MicrosolI lormaIs (alIer signilicanI invesImenI
in legiIimaIe reverse engineering ol Ihose lormaIs).
This is also visible in Ihe sIraIegy ol "adopI and exIend", whereby a vendor
adopIs a sIandard buI Ihen exIends iI wiIh proprieIary exIensions, requiring
Ihus Ihe purchase and use ol Ihe vendor's producIs il one wanIed Io inIerop-
eraIe wiIh Ihis vendor's implemenIaIion or use Ihe resulIing liles (e.g. regard-
ing lormaIs).
This may conllicI wiIh law regarding anIicompeIiIive behaviour, which we
commenI on alIer reviewing Ihe InIellecIual FroperIy RighI issues perIaining
Io sIandards.
4.2. Cogrght and gatent rghtx
There has been a loI ol conIroversy and debaIe over Ihe conllicIive relaIion-
ship beIween sIandards and "inIellecIual properIy righIs", which in Ihis case
we include copyrighI and paIenI righIs.
These righIs are involved in Iwo manners.
CopyrIghts: A sIandard specilicaIion is a work proIecIed by copyrighI
(generally ol Ihe sIandards organisaIion IhaI promulgaIes Ihe sIandard,
xample
Examples of Lhis are CllS
(Common lnLerneL lile Sys-
Lem), which gave rise Lo a Eu-
ropean Commission invesLiga-
Lion, and Kerberos exLensions.
See Wikipedia "Embrace, ex-
Lend and exLinguish" for a
conLroversial discussion and
more examples.
buI also poIenIially members ol Ihe work groups IhaI parIicipaIe in Ihe
process or submiIIing a specilicaIion as a sIandard). There is debaIe Ihere-
lore wheIher:
The organisaIion should be enIiIled Io charge lees lor accessing, repro-
ducing and disIribuIing Ihe work IhaI embodies an open sIandard.
An implemenIaIion ol Ihe sIandard is a derivaIive work ol IhaI sIan-
dard, and Ihus subjecI Io auIhorisaIion by Ihe righIs holder ol Ihe
sIandard.
Patents: A sIandard specilicaIion delines a meIhod or procedure on how
Io do someIhing, and Ihus can lall squarely wiIhin Ihe area ol paIenIable
subjecI maIIer. Thus any person having paIenI righIs over Ihe meIhod
specilied by Ihe sIandard can prevenI anyone lrom implemenIing Ihe pro-
cess wiIhouI licence.
SIandards and paIenIs, in parIicular, are inIrinsically linked, as Ihey boIh aim
Io encourage invenIion and creaIion Ihrough disclosure. To encourage publi-
caIion or disclosure ol breakIhroughs which would in Iurn beneliI Ihe public,
Ihe governmenI granIs a paIenI owner wiIh exclusive righIs (monopoly) Io his
invenIion over a limiIed Iime. On Ihe oIher hand, sIandards are also relaIed Io
disclosure Ihey esIablish a common ground, promoIe inIeroperabiliIy and
compeIiIion lor Ihe public beneliI, laciliIaIing cusIomer choice beIween var-
ious producIs and services, and enable Ihe exchange ol inlormaIion beIween
one anoIher wiIhouI problems.
AlIhough boIh beneliI Ihe public, upholding one deprives Ihe oIher luncIion.
Regarding paIenIs and de lacIo sIandard, see Ihe debaIe on GIE lormaIs and UnisysI,
commenIed.
The European Commission recognised IhaI IFR owners and Ihe beneliciaries
ol sIandards should be proIecIed alike. However Ihe common argumenI is IhaI
by allowing paIenIs on sIandards, a monopoly is granIed over parI or all ol Ihe
specilicaIion Io cerIain privaIe parIies, a monopoly IhaI includes Ihe righI Io
block implemenIaIion by oIher parIies. Therelore Ihe iniIial good inIenIion
in granIing paIenIs Io encourage innovaIion lor Ihe public beneliI mighI in
Ihe end lead Io Ihe prevenIion ol lurIher innovaIion down Ihe line, when iI
prevenIs oIhers lrom markeIing Iheir innovaIion jusI because iI implemenIs
or inIeracIs wiIh Ihe original invenIion.
The only way Io avoid Ihe paIenI is Io creaIe producIs or processes IhaI cir-
cumvenI Ihem Ihus lalling inIo non-compliance wiIh regard Io Ihe sIandard.
OIher Iypes ol specilicaIions are also someIimes relerred Io as sIandards and
"belong" exclusively Io organisaIions IhaI own Ihe copyrighI Io Ihe specilica-
Iion. As such, any righI Io Ihe use ol Ihe specilicaIion can only be owned un-
der resIricIive conIracIual Ierms and are Iherelore noI considered lully "open".
Eor example, Ihe rules lor sIandards published by Ihe major inIernaIionally
lor furLher reading, see: Analy-
sis on balance: SLandardisaLion
and PaLenLs aL Lhe lSlE siLe.
recognised sIandards bodies such as Ihe IETE, ISO, IEC, and ITU-T permiI Iheir
sIandards Io conIain specilicaIions whose implemenIaIion will require pay-
menI ol licensing lees.
4.3. StrRng a baIance?
In an aIIempI Io miIigaIe Ihe conllicI and Io balance Ihe muIual beneliIs ol
sIandardisaIion and paIenIs}copyrighI, and in parIicular Io conIrol Ihe use ol
paIenI granIed monopolies, Ihe sIandardisaIion communiIy have suggesIed
adopIing Ihe "Ex-AnIe Disclosure" mechanism and (E)RAND regime discussed
lurIher below.
DeclaraIions and Ex-AnIe Disclosure
Il a specilicaIion or meIhod proposed lor a sIandard is covered by a paIenI
or copyrighI righI, Ihe parIies involved in Ihe sIandardisaIion process are sup-
posed Io use Ihe ex-anIe disclosure mechanism which obliges Ihem Io disclose
Ihe exisIence ol an IF righI over a specilicaIion and Ihe licence Ierms relaIing
Io iI, oIherwise Ihe specilicaIion would noI be included in Ihe sIandard.
See lor example, ETSI
2
and ITU
3
siIes.
(2)
See inlormaIion on how Io declare IFR and on ex anIe disclosures aI Ihe ETSI siIe.
(3)
ITU also includes disclosure in iIs paIenI policy.
This IheoreIically allows members ol Ihe process Io review Ihe Ierms (or sum-
mary) and deIermine il Ihey are accepIable or benelicial lor Ihe sIandard or
noI.
One criIicism ol Ihis approach regards whaI are in lacI accepIable licensing
Ierms in Ihese circumsIances7 They Iend Io vary and olIen prove Io beneliI
corporaIions wiIh a large paIenI porIlolio as compared Io Ihe economic ma-
joriIy represenIed by SMEs which has no say regarding Ihe accepIabiliIy ol Ihe
Ierms imposed (see below on ERAND).
This has raised serious argumenIs over Ihe membership ol sIandardisaIion
commiIIees and organisaIions, as large commercial enIiIies leverage Iheir pow-
er Io parIicipaIe and propose Iechnologies or specilicaIions over which Ihey
have righIs as an evenIual sIandard.
(E)RAND
In realiIy, mosI sIandardisaIion bodies appear Io opI lor mere volunIary disclo-
sure wiIh assurance lrom oIher parIies Io approve RAND or ERAND ("Eair, Rea-
sonable and Non-DiscriminaIory") Ierms lor licensing paIenI righIs on sIan-
dards and noI Io exercise Iheir exclusive monopoly righIs as paIenI holders. In
oIher words, (E)RAND generally amounIs Io a loose assurance Io compulsory
licensing ol Iheir paIenI righIs upon requesI. This was seen Io ensure Ihe righI
owner Ihe opporIuniIy Io receive a reasonable reIurn lrom his paIenI righIs,
and rewarding his innovaIion, and Ihe Iime and creaIive ellorI.
A (E)RAND licence is someIimes imposed when joining Ihe sIandardisaIion
body, Ihrough membership rules. FarIicipaIing companies having IF righIs on
Iechnologies which become essenIial Io Ihe sIandard agree Io equally allow
oIher groups Io implemenI Ihe sIandard and license Ihem Ihose paIenIs on
reasonable charges, hence allowing compeIiIion beIween mulIiple companies
which implemenI Ihe same sIandard.
However a number ol problems arise: WhaI is reasonable licensing Ierms and
lor whom, since such Ierms vary depending on many lacIors e.g. commercial-
isaIion policies, wheIher or noI a company has sIake in Ihe relevanI markeI.
AnoIher criIicism is Ihe usual non-perpeIual naIure ol Ihe licence, Ihus hold-
ers ol paIenIs on addiIional claims are lree Io enlorce Iheir paIenI Ierms in
whichever way Ihey like, including againsI exisIing (legiIimaIe) implemenIa-
Iions on Ihe sIandard (Ihe laIIer ol which is in lacI legiIimaIe under Ihe paIenI
sysIem). As a consequence, Ihere is subsIanIial uncerIainIy under Ihe (E)RAND
regime which invariably lavours large companies which are beIIer able Io deal
wiIh such uncerIainIies, as compared Io SMEs.
A lurIher criIic is IhaI even (E)RAND Ierms linked Io zero royalIies (or are royalIy lree)
discriminaIe againsI Eree SolIware since Ihey do noI allow sublicensing permiIIed by
usage ol Eree SolIware (bearing in mind IhaI Ihe basis ol Eree SolIware or Open Source
is IhaI every living person or legal enIiIy can be a user, developer, disIribuIor or any ol
Ihe combinaIion.
ERAND Ierms also creaIe an uneven playing lield, lor example in siIuaIion ol
public Ienders requiring compliance wiIh paIenIed sIandards, whereby one
bidder, noI holding Ihe IFR on Ihe sIandard, has addiIional cosIs over Ihe IFR
holder bidder. This reduces or excludes compeIiIion.
4.4. PotentaI breach oI {EL} Comgetton Law
CompeIiIion issues come inIo play because il a de lacIo or paIenIed sIandard
becomes a required specilicaIion, any operaIor wiIhouI Ihe IFR Io be enIiIled
Io implemenI Ihe sIandard would have iIs hands Iied in Ihe sense IhaI iI will
have no choice buI Io license Ihe IFR, aI addiIional cosI.
Eree parIicipaIion in Ihe markeI is Iherelore noI possible, or only on Ierms
IhaI are noI commercially viable Io Ihe markeI enIranI, and Ihis could lead
Io markeI loreclosure or unlair Ierms ol parIicipaIion, resulIing in possible
breaches ol Ihe EU compeIiIion law: eiIher ArIicle 101(1) (lormerly ArIicle
81(1) EC) or Ihe EU TreaIy or ArIicle 102 (Eormerly ArIicle 82).
ArIicle 101(1) prohibiIs agreemenIs which prevenI, resIricI or disIorI com-
peIiIion wiIhin Ihe Common MarkeI and which allecI Irade beIween
Member SIaIes, unless Ihey are capable ol exempIion under ArIicle 101(3).
AgreemenIs regarding licensing Ierms beIween parIicipanIs or sIakehold-
ers wiIhin Ihe conIexI ol a sIandardisaIion process could lall loul ol Ihis
provision.
ArIicle 102 prohibiIs Ihe abuse by one or more underIakings ol a domi-
nanI posiIion wiIhin Ihe markeI or in a subsIanIial parI ol iI which allecIs
Irade beIween Member SIaIes. Abuses can include imposing unlair or dis-
criminaIory Ierms, Iying, bundling or exclusionary behaviour.
Any individual or collecIive dominance ol Ihe exisIing sIandards "owners" or
parIicipanIs which resulI in dicIaIing discriminaIory behaviour or consIruc-
Iive relusal Io supply where Ihe Ierms ol parIicipaIion would noI be commer-
cially viable, eIc. would breach ArIicle 102 ol Ihe EU TreaIy.
ExempIion is however granIed under ArIicle 101(3) where Ihe agreemenI (e.g.
relaIing Io Ihe sIandard) conIribuIes Io improving Ihe producIion or disIribu-
Iion ol goods or Io promoIing Iechnical or economic progress, whilsI allow-
ing consumers a lair share ol Ihe resulIing beneliI. The said resIricIion musI
noI be indispensable Io Ihe aIIainmenI ol Ihe objecIives in quesIion and noI
subsIanIially eliminaIe compeIiIion lor Ihe producIs in quesIion.
Eor a US view, see William M. Hannay: "UniIed SIaIes AnIiIrusI Law Regarding SIan-
dard SeIIing Bodies", presenIaIion aI Ihe JoinI session CompeIiIion Law } IF Com-
mission on The InIeracIion beIween InIellecIual FroperIy and AnIiIrusI Law, UNION
INTERNATIONALE DES AVOCATS.
Eor Ihe EU, see papers lrom Ihe EC sponsored "IFR in ICT sIandardisaIion one-day
workshop".
5. The Future Wa Forward?
II mighI be a long while belore a remedy is really workable in Ihe paIenI and
sIandardisaIion siIuaIion and where a consensus is reached beIween govern-
menI, SME, lree Iechnologies and large corporaIions. In Ihe inIerim, several
issues have been highlighIed as parIial measures Io ensure Ihe lull beneliIs ol
sIandardisaIion:
InIeroperabiliIy. As we have seen, inIeroperabiliIy (eiIher aI applicaIions
level or on lile lormaIs) is one ol Ihe main objecIives ol sIandards. A pro-
posed soluIion, similar Io Ihe inIeroperabiliIy carved-ouI in copyrighI law,
is Io provide IhaI paIenI righIs cannoI limiI Ihe creaIion ol inIeroperable
producIs.
CompeIiIion: iI would be lavourable Io deIermine Ihe condiIions in which
Ihe auIhoriIies would consider proprieIary manulacIurer}vendor IFR li-
censing Ierms and an approach Io sIandards as illegal anIicompeIiIive be-
haviour.
IFR policies. The policies ol sIandards seIIing organisaIions should require
non-discriminaIory royalIy-lree licensing ol any IFR over a sIandard, en-
abling any business model (including lree solIware licensing based mod-
els) Io implemenI Ihe sIandards and parIicipaIe in Ihe markeI.
GovernmenI procuremenI: as a way ol puIIing pressure on Ihe markeI Io
move Iowards Irue inIeroperabiliIy and compeIiIion, rules regarding pub-
lic Ienders should ensure Iechnological neuIraliIy and require compliance
wiIh sIandards IhaI are lully open (e.g. noI subjecI Io IF resIricIions), and
noI rely on "sIandards generally accepIed in Ihe indusIry" or "used by ciI-
izens", which can be encumbered. This would enable a parIicipaIion ol all
poIenIial players in Ihe markeI on a level playing lield.
A key issue is IhaI open sIandards are Ihe basis lor creaIing Iechnological,
economic and social ecosysIems. SIandards developmenI and Ihe ecosysIem
around open sIandards amounI Io a single communiIy ol inIeresIs, wiIh in-
Ieroperable or inIerchangeable producIs IhaI allow vendors Io compeIe on Ihe
innovaIion, noI Ihe sIandard. BuI ecosysIems cannoI rely on vague IF policies
even so-called RAND whose general purpose is Io limiI, exclude or jusI Io
enable Ihe righIs holder Io make economic proliI lrom conIrolling enIry on
Ihe markeI. The lree solIware movemenI has proved IhaI collaboraIive meIh-
ods are based on lree and open source licensing (and noI much more). Con-
versely, resIricIive licence agreemenIs are anaIhema Io collaboraIive meIhods:
collaboraIion requires compleIe lreedom ol disIribuIion and no barriers aI all.
Further readng
WebsiIes:
hIIp:}}www.opensIandards.neI
hIIp:}}perens.com}OpenSIandards}DeliniIion.hIml
hIIp:}}proglree.org}index.hIml
FaIenIs and sIandards. ESEE. hIIp:}}lsle.org}projecIs}os}ps.en.hIml
Workship papers lrom Ihe EC sponsored workshop: "IFR in ICT sIandardisaIion", aI
hIIp:}}ec.europa.eu}enIerprise}newsroom}cl}iIemshorIdeIail.clm7iIem_id=3371
FaI Treacy and Sophie Lawrance, "lRANOly jre. are nJustry stanJarJs Jon more harm
than ooJ" Journal ol InIellecIual FroperIy Law & FracIice, 2007
1|B BCCM CCG1B|GB UGCBTeG1BL
|GC|TB1|CG C| 1CBe mC mBG1 1C
UGCe|B1BGC |ee BC1mB|e BGC Cm
1C CCG1||BU1e BGC BeGe|1 |CT |1 |G
B BBe BGC LeBBL mBu. CCGCe1B L|Me
e-|B1|GB LeBBL BuB1eTB C BC1mB|e
|C1eC1|CG - CCu||B1, B1eG1B,
1|BCeTB|M BGC Meu CCGCe1B L|Me
CCuLe1 BGC |ee L|CeGBeB - m|LL
|CU|Ce B BeGe|BL BBCMB|CUGC UCG
m|C |BC1|CBL BM|LLB C| C|e|eG1
CCG1e-1B CBG Be BU|L1.
1|B TB1e||BL B|TB 1C |CU|Ce 1e
MGCmLeCBe BGC 1CCLB 1B1 B|e
GeeCeC 1C BBBeBB 1e CBB|BLe
LeBBL |BBUeB 1B1 CBG B||Be |G B
|ee 1eCGCLCBu eGU||CGTeG1. |1 m|LL
|CU|Ce 1e |eBCe| m|1 1e
|GC|TB1|CG GeeCeC 1C BGBme| 1C
CCTTCG 0UeB1|CGB BGC CCUB1B, BGC 1C
1BMe 1e ||B1 CeC|B|CGB |CT B
LeBBL e|BeC1|Ue.
:
m|1 BUC|1 |CT 1e

Fta PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fta PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

B

solIware supporI service,

consulIing and inIegraIion services, eIc.

Irademark in disIribuIions ol inIermediaries such as Red

Einally, we musI sIress Ihe promoIion (noI yeI ellecIive) in Europe

Eixed-Ierm licences. In lixed Ierm licences

iniIiaIive operaIes under a slogan IhaI is

and by several prolessional lree solIware

(Business InIelligence), Allresco

(documenI managemenI) and Zimbra

(mail and groupware), SocialIexI

1. Prvac ~ the grotecton oI gerxonaI data.................................. S

You might also like