Fitting the Bill: FOSS and Alternative Copyright Licensing in the Netherlands

Guibault, Lucie; Salamanca, Olivia

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21560-0_16

Fitting the Bill: FOSS and Alternative Copyright Licensing in the Netherlands

Lucie Guibault⁴ &
Olivia Salamanca⁴

Chapter

742 Accesses
1 Citations

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 12))

Abstract

The chapter reflects on the state of free and open source software (‘FOSS’) and other alternative licensing schemes in the Netherlands: though still the exception in copyright licensing, a series of initiatives are paving the way for mainstream recognition and usage. Some examples, explained in the first section dealing, inter alia, with the types of licensing schemes available in the Netherlands and the EU, are the efforts made by the local Creative Commons (‘CC’) team in porting and translating licenses or the recognition by the courts of Creative Commons licensing. Sections two and three of the chapter provide a more detailed legal description of these alternative licensing schemes from the perspective of Dutch contract law and Dutch copyright law, respectively. Those aspects that have still not been construed by either common practice or Dutch courts are dealt with from a legislative and doctrinal point of view. To conclude, the last section of our chapter addresses the potential implications, and challenges, of alternative licensing schemes in the areas of patent law and competition law. Some insight is also given into the opportunities offered to the public sector by the increasingly widespread use of alternative licensing.

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

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
For the unofficial translation of the Dutch Copyright Act (1912) into English, produced by the Dutch Ministry of Justice, please see www.ivir.nl/legislation/nl/copyrightact.html.
2.
Court of Appeal of Amsterdam 29 September 2005(Vrijbuiter v Van Driel) (2006) 10 Tijdschrift voor Auteurs-, Media- & Informatierecht (AMI) 128–133, with annotation by BJ Lenselink.
3.
L Guibault and O van Daalen, Unravelling the myth around open source licenses. An analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective, Information Technology & Law Series (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2006) 85.
4.
District Court of Amsterdam, 9 March 2006, (Curry v Audax).
English translation prepared by L Steijger and N Hendriks for the Institute of Information Law (IViR), Amsterdam. Please see http://wiki.creativecommons.org/File:Curry-Audax-English.pdf.
5.
See also the following document, which provides a good overview of the main tools that the EU Commission is implementing for the digitization of the EU at large, citizens and administrations alike, at www.ec.europa.eu/isa/documents/isa_the_difference_between_the_digital_agenda__isa__egov_action_plan_eis_eif_en.pdf.
6.
www.ec.europa.eu/dgs/informatics/index_en.htm.
7.
Respectively, Directive on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on Electronic Commerce or e-Commerce Directive) [2000] OJ L 178 and the Directive on the legal protection of computer programs (Computer Programs Directive) [2009] OJ L 111.
8.
Please see Appendix of the EUPL v1.1.
9.
The release was scheduled before year end 2013 but has been postponed into the year 2014.
10.
The Netherlands has, so far, ported and translated versions 2.5, 3.0 and 4.0.
11.
By database right we refer to those covered under Directive 1996 on the legal protection of databases (Database Directive) [1996] OJ L 77. See also L Guibault, ‘Creative Commons Licences: What to do with the Database Right?’(2001) 21 6 Computers and Law Magazine of SCL.
12.
The Open Data Commons, as explained by L Guibault (ibid), is a project conducted by the Open Knowledge Foundation that has developed three different licenses to suit the needs of the community: (i) the Public Domain Dedication and License (PDDL) – Public Domain for data/databases, (ii) the Attribution License (ODC-By) – Attribution for data/databases’ and (iii) the Open Database License (ODC-ODbL) – Attribution Share-Alike for data/databases.
13.
See Section 4, ‘Sui Generis Database Rights’, of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License.
14.
A Guadamuz, ‘Viral Contracts or Unenforceable Documents? Contractual Validity of Copyleft Licenses’ (2004) 26 8 European Intellectual Property Review 331.
15.
As is, for example, the case in France (‘contrat de license’) or Spain (‘contrato de licencia’).
16.
Upon examining the issue of the legal nature of conventional software license agreements, Dutch commentators have considered whether the license should be qualified as establishing a restricted right (‘beperk recht’), a waiver of right (‘afstand van recht’), a right of action (‘vorderingsrecht’) or a right of use (‘gebruiksrecht’) in favour of the licensee. A brief explanation of each of these legal argumentations appears in L Guibault and O van Daalen, Unravelling the myth around open source licenses. An analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective, Information Technology & Law Series (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2006) 8548–50. See also ENM Visser, ‘GNU General Public License – All Rights Reversed?’(2004) Computerrecht, 35 and MM Groenenboom, ‘Software Licenties: van Closed Source tot Open Source’ (2002) 1 Computerrecht 21–29.
17.
T Kreutzer, ‘User-Related Assets and Drawbacks of Open Content Licensing’, in L Guibault and C Angelopoulos (eds), Open Content Licensing. From Theory to Practice (Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, 2011) 232.
18.
L Guibault and O van Daalen, Unravelling the myth around open source licenses. An analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective, Information Technology & Law Series (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2006) ch 4.
19.
Rechtbank Amsterdam, 24 May 1995 (Coss Holland BV v TM Data Nederland BV) (2007) Computerrecht 63–65 Other relevant cases include Rechtbank Rotterdam, 5 December 2002 (Netwise v NTS Computers) (2003) 2 Computerrecht 149 with annotation by AR Lodder, and in (2003) 15 Mediaforum 109–112, with annotation by M Voulon. In Netwise v NTS Computers, a Dutch court upheld the validity of a click stream license agreement for an online telephone directory. Again, NTS was deemed a professional user and, as such, the license was considered enforceable.
20.
Court of Appeal The Hague, 22 March 2005 (2005) 43 Computerrecht, (2005) 4 Tijdschrift voor Consumentenrecht 150, with case notes by MY Schaub and MBM Loos. See case explained in MBM Loos et al, ‘Digital content for consumers. Comparative analysis of the applicable legal frameworks and suggestions for the contours of a model system of consumer protection in relation to digital content services’ (2011) Centre for the Study of European Contract Law (CSECL) and Institute for Information Law (IViR),University of Amsterdam 220.
21.
L Guibault and O van Daalen, Unravelling the myth around open source licenses. An analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective, Information Technology & Law Series (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2006).
22.
Please note the requirements of Articles 6:227b and 6:234(3) of the DCC do not apply to the distribution of software through an anonymous website or a peer-to-peer system since these forms of distribution would not fall under the definition of ‘information society service’.
23.
L Guibault and PB Hugenholtz, ‘Study on the Conditions applicable to Contracts relating to Intellectual Property in the European Union’ (2000) contract No. ETD/2000/B5-3001/E/69, and PB Hugenholtz and L Guibault, ‘Copyright Contract Law: Towards a Statutory Regulation?’ Study conducted on commission for the Department of Scientific Research and Documentation Centre (WODC) of the Dutch Ministry of Justice (2004).
24.
L Guibault and O van Daalen, Unravelling the myth around open source licenses. An analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective, Information Technology & Law Series (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2006). See 61–63 on Core Stipulation of the agreement.
25.
Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts (Directive on Unfair Terms) [1993] OJ L 95/29.
26.
L Guibault and O van Daalen, Unravelling the myth around open source licenses. An analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective, Information Technology & Law Series (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2006).
27.
See n 26 above at 63.
28.
See n 27 above at 64.
29.
The official name, in Dutch, of the legislative text is Wet op de Naburige Rechten or ‘WNR’.
30.
M Frequin and H Vanhees, Auteursrechtgids voor Nederland en België, (Den Haag, SDU Uitgevers, 1999) 105.
31.
L Guibault and O van Daalen, Unravelling the myth around open source licenses. An analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective, Information Technology & Law Series (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2006).
32.
Hoge Raad, 19 May 1967, NJ 1967, No. 261 (Saladin v HBU).
33.
Hoge Raad, 13 March 1981, NJ 1981 No. 635 (Ermes v Haviltex). See Van der Klaauw-Koops and De Graaf (2004)132.
34.
‘Guarantee’, understood as an undertaking, free of charge, from the seller to the consumer, is defined in the Directive on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees(Consumer Sales Directive) [1999] OJ L 171.
35.
N Helberger, L Guibault et al, Digital Consumers and the Law. Towards a Cohesive European Framework (The Netherlands, Wolters Kluwer, 2013).
36.
Consumer Sales Directive, see n 35 above.
37.
As per Article 5(2) and 8 of the Computer Programs Directive ( see above n 7).
38.
Proposal for a regulation on a common European sales law, COM/2011/0635 final – 2011/0284 (COD); see N Helberger, L Guibault et al, Digital Consumers and the Law. Towards a Cohesive European Framework (The Netherlands, Wolters Kluwer, 2013).
39.
L Guibault and O van Daalen, Unravelling the myth around open source licenses. An analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective, Information Technology & Law Series (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2006). 80–83.
40.
Hoge Raad, 19 May 1967, NJ 1967, No. 261 (Saladin v HBU). In this case, the Supreme Court decided that it was possible for a judge to examine an agreement that disclaimed liability according to the principle of reasonableness and fairness. This evaluation should not be limited to the agreement itself but should also include all relevant circumstances. This assessment remains however a factual matter. L Guibault and O van Daalen, Unravelling the myth around open source licenses. An analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective, Information Technology & Law Series (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2006) 80–82.
41.
EPM Thole and W Seinen, Open Source-Softwarelicenties: een Civielrechtelijke Analyse (2004) 34 Computerrecht 221–225.
42.
Article 6:265 of the DCC states ‘Rescission of a mutual agreement for a breach of contract – 1. Every failure of a party in the performance of one of his obligations, gives the opposite party the right to rescind the mutual agreement in full or in part, unless the failure, given its specific nature or minor importance, does not justify this rescission and its legal effects’.
43.
L Guibault and O van Daalen, Unravelling the myth around open source licenses. An analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective, Information Technology & Law Series (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2006) 86.
44.
Article 6:237 d) states that ‘a stipulation which releases the user of his obligations imposed on him by the contract or which gives him the right to release himself from these obligations in another way, unless the grounds therefore are mentioned in the contract itself and are of such a nature that the user can no longer be expected to be bound by the contract’ (translation into English).
45.
L Guibault and O van Daalen, Unravelling the myth around open source licenses. An analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective, Information Technology & Law Series (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2006) 61.
46.
See, specifically, in the context of share-alike and sub-licensing, where the existence of an automatic creation of contractual obligations on (re) distribution becomes relevant (see n 46 above at 53).
47.
L Guibault and O van Daalen, Unravelling the myth around open source licenses. An analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective, Information Technology & Law Series (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2006) 105.
48.
Article 45j of the DCA states that ‘unless otherwise agreed, the reproduction of a work as referred to in article 10, paragraph 1, sub 12°. by the lawful acquirer of a copy of said work, where this is necessary for the use of the work for its intended purpose, {apart from the limited acts of loading, displaying, or correcting errors as per 45 i} shall not be deemed an infringement of copyright (…)’.
49.
L Guibault and PB Hugenholtz, ‘Study on the Conditions applicable to Contracts relating to Intellectual Property in the European Union’ Study contract No. ETD/2000 /B5-3001/E/69. This study was commissioned by the European Commission’s Internal Market Directorate-General as part of its study program (2002) Institute for Information Law, Amsterdam 52 quoting Frequin and Vanhees 1999, see n 31 above, 108.
50.
District Court of Amsterdam, 24 September 1997 (De Volkskrant) (1997) Tijdschrift voor Auteurs-, Media- & Informatierecht (AMI) 194.
51.
Court of Appeal of Amsterdam, 2 May 2002, LJN: AE2188.
52.
Analysis of the case as explained by L Guibault and PB Hugenholtz , see n 50 at 51–52.
53.
The share-alike clause also presents itself with different degrees: in a stricter or less strict way (lesser GPL).
54.
See also Article 5 of the GPLv3.0 for the share-alike wording.
55.
Please note this principle no longer appears expressly in the code for it is believed to flow directly from other provisions. In common law known as the ‘privity of contracts’.
56.
Article 6:253 of the DCC: ‘A contract creates the right in favour of a third person to claim a payment from one of the parties or to invoke the contract in another manner against one of them, if the contract contains a stipulation to that effect and if the third person accepts it’ (translation into English).
57.
For the analysis please see L Guibault and O van Daalen, Unravelling the myth around open source licenses. An analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective, Information Technology & Law Series (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2006)72–77.
58.
L Guibault and PB Hugenholtz. See n 50 at 61.
59.
Directive on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (EU Rental Rights Directive) [2006] OJ L 376.
60.
The official document, in Dutch, is Voorstel van Wet, ‘Wijziging van de auteurswet en de wet op de naburige rechten in verband met de versterking van de positie van de auteur en de uitvoerende kunstenaar bij overeenkomsten betreffende het auteursrecht en het naburig recht (‘Wet Auteurscontractenrecht’).
61.
L Guibault and O van Daalen, Unravelling the myth around open source licenses. An analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective, Information Technology & Law Series (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2006) 118.
62.
This is, indeed, the business model of FOSS-based companies such as Red Hat. For more insight and scenarios please see Frequently Asked Questions about GNU Licences. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html.
63.
According to Article 7 of the Dutch Neighbouring Rights Act or DNRA:‘A phonogram or reproduction thereof published for commercial purposes may be broadcast or otherwise communicated to the public without the consent of the producer or the performer or their assignees, provide an equitable remuneration is paid (…)’.
64.
SENA, in Dutch, stands for ‘Stichting ter Exploitatie van Naburige Rechten’.
65.
C Angelopoulos, ‘Creative Commons and Related Rights in Sound Recordings: Are the Two Systems Compatible?’ in L Guibault and C Angelopoulos (eds), Open Content Licensing. From Theory to Practice (Amsterdam, University Press Amsterdam, 2011) 275.
66.
L Guibault and O van Daalen, Unravelling the myth around open source licenses. An analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective, Information Technology & Law Series (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2006) 122128.
67.
District Court of Munich I, 19 May 2004, (Netfilter v Sitecom) (2004) 10 Computerrecht 774–776, with annotation by T Hoeren and A Metzger.
68.
L Guibault and O van Daalen, Unravelling the myth around open source licenses. An analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective, Information Technology & Law Series (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2006).
69.
Article 26 of the DCA states that ‘where the copyright in a work belongs jointly to two or more persons, it may be enforced by any one of them, unless otherwise agreed’.
70.
Implementation of the Directive on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights [2004] OJ L 195.
71.
Convention on the grant of European patents of 5 October 1973 (European Patent Convention), as revised in 2000 (EPC 2000).
72.
As the European Patent Office (EPO) itself explains, a CII that ‘can provide this further technical effect can be patentable, subject to the other patentability requirements, such as novelty and inventive step. In this case, it would be recognised as providing a technical solution to a technical problem’. In fact, ‘patent applications for computer-based inventions have the highest growth rate among all patent categories presented to the EPO over the past few years’; please see http://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/computers/software.html.
73.
Consolidated version of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union [2008] OJ C 115/47.
74.
Act of 22 May 1997, providing new rules for economic competition (Dutch Competition Act), translations made by the Dutch Competition Authority and adjusted by DCL (…).
75.
Please see Commission Notice – Guidelines on the application of Article 81 of the EC Treaty to technology transfer agreements (2004) C 101/02), section 17: ‘… the vast majority of licence agreements are pro-competitive’.
76.
L Guibault and O van Daalen, Unravelling the myth around open source licenses. An analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective, Information Technology & Law Series (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2006)118–119.
77.
The current TTBE expires on 30 April 2014 in the European Commission has published a draft revised TTBE and related guidance notes. Please see http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2013_technology_transfer/index_en.html.
78.
M Valimaki ‘Copyleft Licensing and EC Competition Law’ (2006) 27 3 European Competition Law Review 130–136.
79.
NOV is the Dutch acronym for ‘Nederland Open in Verbinding’. Please see www.ictu.nl/archief/noiv.nl/index.html.
80.
See www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/digitale-overheid/open-standaarden-en-open-source.
81.
See https://data.overheid.nl/.
82.
Seehttps://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/osor/news/dutch-cyber-security-centre-linux-suitable-businesses.
83.
See https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/pleio/description.

Bibliography

C Angelopoulos, ‘Creative Commons and Related Rights in Sound Recordings: Are the Two Systems Compatible?’ in L Guibault and C Angelopoulos (eds), Open Content Licensing. From Theory to Practice (Amsterdam, University Press Amsterdam, 2011).
Google Scholar
M Frequin and H Vanhees, Auteursrechtgids voor Nederland en België, (Den Haag, SDU Uitgevers, 1999).
Google Scholar
A Guadamuz, ‘Viral Contracts or Unenforceable Documents? Contractual Validity of Copyleft Licenses’ (2004) 26 8 European Intellectual Property Review.
Google Scholar
MM Groenenboom, ‘Software Licenties: van Closed Source tot Open Source’ (2002) 1 Computerrecht 21–29.
Google Scholar
L Guibault and PB Hugenholtz, ‘Study on the Conditions applicable to Contracts relating to Intellectual Property in the European Union’ (2000) contract No. ETD/2000/B5-3001/E/69.
Google Scholar
L Guibault, ‘Creative Commons Licences: What to do with the Database Right?’(2001) 21 6 Computers and Law Magazine of SCL.
Google Scholar
L Guibault and O van Daalen, Unravelling the myth around open source licenses. An analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective, Information Technology & Law Series (The Hague, TMC Asser Press, 2006).
Google Scholar
N Helberger, L Guibault et al , Digital Consumers and the Law. Towards a Cohesive European Framework (The Netherlands, Wolters Kluwer, 2013).
Google Scholar
PB Hugenholtz and L Guibault, ‘Copyright Contract Law: Towards a Statutory Regulation?’ Study conducted on commission for the Department of Scientific Research and Documentation Centre (WODC) of the Dutch Ministry of Justice (2004).
Google Scholar
T Kreutzer, ‘User-Related Assets and Drawbacks of Open Content Licensing’, in L Guibault and C Angelopoulos (eds), Open Content Licensing. From Theory to Practice (Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, 2011).
Google Scholar
EPM Thole and W Seinen, Open Source-Softwarelicenties: een Civielrechtelijke Analyse (2004) 34 Computerrecht 221–225.
Google Scholar
M Valimaki ‘Copyleft Licensing and EC Competition Law’ (2006) 27 3 European Competition Law Review 130–136.
Google Scholar
ENM Visser, ‘GNU General Public License – All Rights Reversed?’(2004) Computerrecht, 35.
Google Scholar
MBM Loos et al, ‘Digital content for consumers. Comparative analysis of the applicable legal frameworks and suggestions for the contours of a model system of consumer protection in relation to digital content services’ (2011) Centre for the Study of European Contract Law (CSECL) and Institute for Information Law (IViR),University of Amsterdam.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Lucie Guibault & Olivia Salamanca

Authors

Lucie Guibault
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Olivia Salamanca
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucie Guibault .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Axel Metzger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Guibault, L., Salamanca, O. (2016). Fitting the Bill: FOSS and Alternative Copyright Licensing in the Netherlands. In: Metzger, A. (eds) Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and other Alternative License Models. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21560-0_16

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21560-0_16
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21559-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21560-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics