The Reference to ‘A Work or Software’ as the Factor Determining the Scope of the European Union Public Licence (EUPL) v. 1.2

Krzysztof Żok

Abstract

Free and open source software (FOSS) has undoubtedly become an important element of intellectual property law. It is therefore not surprising that the European Commission developed its own non-proprietary licence, i.e. the European Union Public Licence (EUPL). The article examines the reference to ‘a work of software’ to determine the scope of the licence. For this purpose, the paper discusses the reasons for the creation of the EUPL, the relationship between a work and software as well as the structure of a computer program. The following considerations also include the compatible licences listed in the EUPL Appendix. The article concludes that the reference to a work or software is not accidental because it removes serious doubts arising from the concept of a computer program. Thus, this legal solution may facilitate the wider adoption of the licence.

Keywords

computer program, copyright law, European law, European Union Public Licence (EUPL), non-proprietary software licences

Full Text:

References

Show references Hide references

Bain, M. (2010) Software Interactions and the GNU General Public License. International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.5033/ifosslr.v2i2.44

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 9 September 1886 (as amended on 28 September 1979). Available from: https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/treaties/textdetails/12214 [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union (2012/C-326/391) 26 October. Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/treaty/char_2012/oj [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Christensen, T.M. (2006) The GNU General Public License: Constitutional Subversion? Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 33(4).

Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, Centre National de la Recherche Sceintifique, Institut National de la Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique. (2006) CeCILL Free Software License Agreement. [online]. Available from: https://cecill.info/licences/Licence_CeCILL_V2-en.html [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Commissariat à l’Energies Alternatives, Centre National de la Recherche Sceintifique, Institut National de la Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique. (2013) CeCILL Free Software License Agreement. [online]. Available from: https://cecill.info/licences/Licence_CeCILL_V2.1-en.html [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/863 of 18 May 2017 updating the open source software licence EUPL to further facilitate the sharing and reuse of software developed by public administrations. Official Journal of the European Union (2017/L-128/59) 19 May. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec_impl/2017/863/oj [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Communication of 21 October 2020 ‘Open Source Software Strategy 2020-2023. Think Open’. COM(2020) 7149 final. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/en_ec_open_source_strategy_2020-2023.pdf [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Creative Commons Corporation. Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike v. 3.0 Unported. [online]. Available from: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. Official Journal of the European Communities (2001/L-167/10) 22 June. Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2001/29/oj [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (Codified version). Official Journal of the European Union (2009/L-111/16) 5 May. Available from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/24/oj [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Dusollier, S. (2007) Sharing Access to Intellectual Property Through Private Ordering. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 82(3).

Eclipse Foundation. Eclipse Public License - v 1.0. [online]. Available from: https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Free Software Foundation. (1991) GNU General Public License, version 2. [online]. Availabe from: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Free Software Foundation. (1999) GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1. [online]. Available from: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Free Software Foundation. (2007) GNU Affero General Public License. [online]. Available from: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Free Software Foundation. (2007) GNU General Public Licence. [online]. Available from: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Free Software Foundation. (2007) GNU Lesser General Public License. [online]. Available from: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.en.html [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Free Software Foundation. (2008) GNU Free Documentation License. Available from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Free Software Foundation. (2020) Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses. [online]. Available from: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Free Software Foundation. (2021) Licenses. [online]. Available from: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html.en [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Gomulkiewicz, R.W. (2005) General Public License 3.0: Hacking the Free Software Movement’s Constitution. Houston Law Review, 42(4).

González de Alaiza Cardona, J.J. (2007) Open Source, Free Software, and Contractual Issues. Texas Intellectual Property Law Review, 15(2).

Gue, Th. (2012) Triggering the Infection: Distribution and Derivative Works under the GNU General Public License. University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy, 1.

IDABC. (2009) European Union Public Licence – EUPL v.1.1. [online]. Available from https://wayback.archive-it.org/12090/20200212153832/https://ec.europa.eu/idabc/eupl.html [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Joinup. Impact of the EUPL. [online]. Available from: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/impact-eupl [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Judgment of 5 October 2009, Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace, C-393/09, EU:C:2010:816.

Judgment of 2 May 2012, SAS Institute Inc., C-406/10, EU:C:2012:259.

Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization – Annex 1C. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 15 April 1994. Available from: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_01_e.htm [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Morgan, M.F. (2010) The Cathedral and the Bizarre: An Examination of the “Viral” Aspects of the GPL. John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law, 27(3).

Mozilla Foundation. Mozilla Public License Version 2.0. [online]. Available from: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/ [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Open Source Initiative. (2004) The Open Software License 2.1 (OSL-2.1). [online]. Available from: https://opensource.org/licenses/osl-2.1.php [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Open Source Initiative. (2005) The Open Software License 3.0 (OSL-3.0). [online]. Available from: https://opensource.org/licenses/OSL-3.0 [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Osborne, K. (2015) License Profile: The Eclipse Public License. International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.5033/ifosslr.v7i1.73

Québec – Forge gourvenementale. (2019) Québec Free and Open-Source Licence version 1.0 – Reciprocity. [online]. Available from: https://forge.gouv.qc.ca/licence/en/liliq-v1-0/ [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Québec – Forge gourvenementale. (2019) Québec Free and Open-Source Licence version 1.1 – Reciprocity. [online]. Available from: https://forge.gouv.qc.ca/licence/en/liliq-v1-1/ [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Québec – Forge gourvenementale. (2019) Québec Free and Open-Source Licence version 1.0 – Strong Reciprocity. [online]. Available from: https://forge.gouv.qc.ca/licence/en/liliq-v1-0 [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Québec – Forge gourvenementale. (2019) Québec Free and Open-Source Licence version 1.1 – Strong Reciprocity. [online]. Available from: https://forge.gouv.qc.ca/licence/en/liliq-v1-1/ [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Raymond, E.S. (2000) The Cathedral and the Bazaar. [online]. Available from: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Request of 9 May 2018, Dacom Limited v IPM Informed Portfolio Management AB, C-313/18, Official Journal of the European Union (2018/C-268/31) 30 July. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62018CN0313 [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Schmitz, P.-E. (2013) The European Union Public Licence (EUPL). International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.5033/ifosslr.v5i2.91

Schmitz, P.-E. (2014) EUPL v.1.1. European Union Public Licence. Guides for Users and Developers. Available from: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/guidelines-users-and-developers [Accessed 13 March 2021].

Schultz, C. (2005) Ziffer 0. In: Die GPL kommenirt und erklärt. Köln: O’Reilly.

Unni, V.K. (2016) Fifty Years of Open Source Movement: An Analysis through the Prism of Copyright Law. Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 40(2).

Villa, L. (2010) Lawyers in the Bazaar: Challenges and Opportunities for Open Source Legal Communities. International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.5033/ifosslr.v2i1.34

Wiebe, A. and Heidinger, R. (2009) European Union Public Licence – EUPL v. 1.1. [online]. Available from: https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/documentation-directory-articles-eupl [Accessed 13 March 2021].

https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2021-2-2



Copyright (c) 2021 Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology