Abstract
This chapter is aimed at giving an overview of copyright license contracts, free and open source software (FOSS) and creative commons in Belgium. In the area of copyright contracts, similar to other branches of the law, general principles of contract law, including the principle of freedom of contract, dominate. Belgian contract law does not contain special provisions either on license contracts in general or on FOSS and alternative licensing models, such as Creative Commons licenses. Nonetheless, several acts contain mandatory rules that provide specific protection to the author and to licensees who are consumers. These mandatory rules limit parties’ freedom of contract. The main legal framework relevant in this respect is comprised of a set of different statutes including the Belgian Copyright Act of 1994, the Belgian Software Act of 1991, the Law on Market Practices and the Protection of the Consumer of 2010 and the Belgian e-Commerce Act of 2003. As of January 1st 2015, all these statutes are included in the Belgian Code of Economic Law.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
G L Ballon, ‘Privaatrechtelijke aspecten van licentieovereenkomsten’ Themis 3 – Handels- en economisch recht (Cahier 51) (Brugge Die Keure 2008–2009) 1.
- 2.
Law on copyright and neighboring rights of June 30, 1994 Moniteur Belge 27 July 1994.
- 3.
Law transposing into Belgian law the European Directive of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs Moniteur Belge 27 July 1994. The BSA constitutes a rather faithful transposition of the 2008 EU Software Directive.
- 4.
See Law of 19 April 2014 inserting Book XI ‘Intellectual Property’ in the Code of Economic Law and inserting provisions related to Book XI into Books I, XV et XVII of this Code Moniteur Belge 12 June 2014 and Law of 10 April 2014 inserting provisions related to matters covered by Art. 77 of the Constitution into Book XI ‘Intellectual Property’ of the Code of Economic Law, inserting a provision especially related to Book XI into Book XVII of this Code and modifying the Judicial Code regarding the organization of the Courts and Tribunals in the field of proceedings related to intellectual property rights and to the transparency of copyright and neighboring rights Moniteur Belge 12 June 2014.
- 5.
See B Hugenholtz and L Guibault, Study on the conditions applicable to contracts relating to intellectual property in the European Union Study contract ETD/2000/B5-3001/E/69 2002, 34.
- 6.
For more information, see below section “Special rules of interpretation for license contracts”.
- 7.
For more details, see A Cruquenaire, L’interprétation des contrats en droit d’auteur (Collection Création Information Communication no 11 Brussels Larcier) 2007.
- 8.
The concept of “undertaking” means “any natural or legal person working in a durable way to an economic end, including associations” (Art. I.1.1° BCEL, former art. 2 §1 BCPA). The Belgian legislator has explicitly transposed the concept of “undertaking” under EU law in Belgian law. The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has defined “undertaking” as “any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of its legal status and the way in which it is financed” (see CJEU 19 February 2002, C-309/99, Wouters, point 46). “Economic activity” should be interpreted as “any activity consisting of offering goods and services on a given market” (see CJEU 19 February 2002, C-309/99, Wouters, point 47). On the basis of this case law and Art. I.1.1° BCEL non-profit organizations may also be qualified as “undertakings” if they offer products or services on a given market even if this offer is free and does not constitute an offer for sale. In practice, in many cases, FOSS shall be offered by legal persons performing an economic activity in a durable way which shall therefore be considered as “undertakings” pursuant to Art. I.1.1° BCEL.
- 9.
“Any natural person who is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business, craft or profession” (Art. I.1.2° BCEL).
- 10.
Law on the services of the information society of March 11, 2003.
- 11.
G L Ballon, ‘Privaatrechtelijke aspecten van licentieovereenkomsten’ Themis 3 – Handels- en economisch recht (Cahier 51) (Brugge Die Keure 2008–2009) 7.
- 12.
Art. XI.165 §1 BCEL defines the exclusive rights of reproduction, communication to the public and distribution.
- 13.
Art. XI.167 BCEL provides that “The economic rights shall be movable, assignable and transferable, in whole or in part, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code. In particular, they may be the subject of alienation or of an ordinary or exclusive license”.
- 14.
Book XI of the BCEL also includes specific requirements for particular transfers of rights, such as publishing agreements (for more information, see section “Revocation or rescission rights in copyright legislation”).
- 15.
T Laurens, Interpretatie en bewijs van overeenkomsten inzake auteursrecht (Brussels Larcier 2010) 28.
- 16.
For instance, in the CC licenses, the geographical scope and duration are indicated to be ‘worldwide’ and ‘perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright)’. This wording seems to be acceptable in the framework of Art. XI.167 §§1 and 2 BCEL even though the relevant clauses are drafted in a rather concise way. See Art. 3 Legal Code of unported 3.0 CC Licence.
- 17.
For instance, Art. 3 in fine Legal Code unported 3.0 CC License seems problematic as far as it states that “the above rights” may be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter devised. The older Belgian ported version has been adapted to the requirements of the BCEL.
- 18.
See Art. 3 Legal Code unported 3.0 CC License imposing a ‘royalty-free’ license.
- 19.
This issue was discussed during the preparatory works of the BCA and the legislator chose not to impose any rule regarding the author’s remuneration except for the obligation to mention this remuneration in the agreement. The reason for this choice was that Belgian civil law already includes general rules (“lésion qualifiée”) prohibiting strong imbalances between the author’s remuneration and the revenue generated by the exploitation of the work. See: Projet de loi relatif au droit d’auteur, aux droits voisins et à la copie privée d’œuvres sonores et audiovisuelles. Proposition de loi sur le droit de suite, Rapport fait au nom de la Commission de la Justice Doc. Parl.¸Ch. sess. ord. 1993–1994 no 473/33, 84.
- 20.
This rule imposes a duty to act carefully upon the assignee or the licensee in the sense that they must adopt a correct and loyal behavior. The content of this obligation shall be further detailed depending on the sector to which the assignee or the licensee belongs and on the objectives of the contract. See H Vanhees, ‘Artikel 3’ in F Brison and H Vanhees (eds) Hommage à Jan Corbet – Huldeboek (Brussels Larcier 2012) 33; A Berenboom, Le nouveau droit d’auteur 4th ed. (Brussels Larcier 2005) 226 no 134. The legislator mentioned “honest professional practices” in the BCA (instead of “professional practices”) to use the same notion as the “honest professional practices” mentioned in the BCPA. See Projet de loi relatif au droit d’auteur, aux droits voisins et à la copie privée d’oeuvres sonores et audiovisuelles. Proposition de loi sur le droit de suite, Rapport fait au nom de la Commission de la Justice Doc. Parl.¸Ch. sess. ord. 1993–1994 no 473/33, 84.
- 21.
It is important to emphasize that Belgian law has no general mechanism of automatic transfer nor a general presumption to this effect for employee creations. Such a presumption only exists for computer programs (see para. 13 below) and audio-visual works.
- 22.
See, eg Resolution of the Flemish Government of 13 January 2006 that provides for the transfer of copyright relating to works created by civil servants and contractual personnel employed by the Flemish government in the course of their duties.
- 23.
This rule is in line with Art. 2.3 of the EU Software Directive (2009/24/EC).
- 24.
Opponents: H Vanhees, ‘Article 3’ (2012) 37; A Berenboom, Le nouveau droit d’auteur (2005) 192 Proponents : M-Ch Janssens, ‘Les droits moraux en Belgique’ Les Cahiers de propriété intellectuelle (Canada) vol. 25 no 1 January 2013, 106; F Brison and B Michaux, ‘De Nieuwe Auteurswet’ Rechtskundig Weekblad 1995, 528; A Strowel, ‘Le régime des œuvres audiovisuelles dans la loi relative au droit d’auteur’ Ing.Cons. 1995, 328.
- 25.
For more information see M-Ch Janssens, ‘Les droits moraux en Belgique’ Les Cahiers de propriété intellectuelle (Canada) vol. 25 no 1 Janvier 2013, 91; H Vanhees, De wettelijke regeling inzake auteurscontracten (Kluwer Mechelen 2013) 88–89; Berenboom, Le nouveau droit d’auteur (2005) 278; F De Visscher and B Michaux, Précis du droit d’auteur et des droits voisins (Bruylant Brussels 2000) 158 n° 200.
- 26.
Art. 6bis of the Berne Convention provides that the author has “the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation”.
- 27.
S Dusollier, ‘Protection des programmes d’ordinateur’ in D Kaesmacher (ed), Les droits intellectuels 2ème éd. (Brussels Larcier 2013) 378–379 no 372; M-Ch Janssens, ‘Bescherming van computerprogramma’s : oude wijn in nieuwe vaten?’ DAOR – Droit des Affaires/Ondernemingsrecht 2011, 216; A Puttemans, ‘Au bout du bout du droit d’auteur: la nouvelle protection juridique des programmes d’ordinateurs’ Revue de Droit Commercial1995, 775.
- 28.
F Brison and J.-P Triaille, ‘La nouvelle loi sur la protection des programmes d’ordinateur dans le sillage du droit d’auteur’ Journal des Tribunaux 1995, 143; de Visscher and Michaux, Précis du droit d’auteur (2000) no 269.
- 29.
Court of Nivelles 26 October 2010 Lichodmapwa v Festival de Théatre de Spa Auteurs&Media 2011, 533; Revue du droit des technologies de l’information 2011/41, 67. An English summary is available at: wiki.creativecommons.org/09-1684-_(Lich%C3%B4dmapwa_v._L%27asbl_Festival_de_Theatre_de_Spa). See comments by M Lambrecht, ‘Première décision Creative Commons: contrats de licence et modèles économiques du libre accès’ Revue du droit des technologies de l’information 2011, 70–81 and G Vandendriessche and K Meul in Auteurs&Media 2011, 534–540.
- 30.
See, eg M Dulong De Rosnay, ‘Creative Commons Licenses Legal Pitfalls: Incompatibilities and Solutions’ Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law/Creative Commons Nederland 2010, 56; A Guadamuz, ‘The License/Contract Dichotomy in Open Licenses: A Comparative Analysis’ University of La Verne Law Review 2009 Vol. 30 (2), 101–116; E Hoorn, ‘Contributing to Conversational Copyright: Creative Commons Licences and Cultural Heritage Institutions’ in Open Content Licensing From Theory to Practice. Amsterdam University Press 2011, 232; M Valimaki and H Hietanen, ‘The Challenges of Creative Commons Licensing’ Computer Law Review 2004 Vol. 5 (6), 172–177.
- 31.
Laurens, Interpretatie en bewijs van overeenkomsten inzake auteursrecht (2010) 12–13.
- 32.
Y Cool, F de Patoul and D De Roy, Les logiciels libres face au droit (Brussels Bruylant 2005) 149; Y Van Den Brande and J Keustermans, ‘Open source software: een analyse naar Belgisch recht’ Intellectuele Rechten-Droits Intellectuels 2007, 381 and S Van Camp, ‘Open Source Software: de ondraaglijke lichtheid van een concept’ Tijdschrift voor Belgisch Handelsrecht 2006 afl 5, 499.
- 33.
Court Brussels 25 January 2002 Auteurs&Media 2004/4, 333.
- 34.
C Cauffman, ‘Aanbod en Aanvaarding volgens de Principles of European Contract Law getoetst aan het Belgische Recht’ in: J Smits and S Stijns (ed), Totstandkoming van de overeenkomst naar Belgisch en Nederlands recht (Mortsel, Intersentia 2002) 2; P Van Ommeslaghe, Droit des Obligations I (Brussels Presses Universitaires 1995).
- 35.
Van Ommeslaghe, Droit des Obligations (1995) 1987/161.
- 36.
I Verougstraete, ‘Wil en vertrouwen bij het totstandkomen van overeenkomsten’ Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 1990 (1163) No 27, 148.
- 37.
W Van Gerven and S Covemaeker, Verbintenissenrecht (Leuven Acco 2001) 66–67.
- 38.
M Fontaine, ‘Offre et acceptation, approche dépassée du processus de formation des contrats’ in: Mélanges offerts à Pierre Van Ommeslaghe (Brussels Bruylant 2000) 122–123; B Tilleman, Overeenkomsten II, in: Beginselen van Belgisch Privaatrecht (Antwerpen Story-Scientia 2001) 29 ff.
- 39.
B Tilleman, ibid no 20 ff and 2016 ff.
- 40.
I Collard and J.-F Henrotte, ‘Les conditions générales en ligne: cherchez l’intrus’ Revue du droit des technologies de l’information 2009/36, 19.
- 41.
Van den Brande and Keustermans (2007), at, 376. See, however, for instance the discussion in the Netherlands: MW Scheltema and T F E Tjong Tjin Tai, ‘Overeenkomsten sluiten door openen en klikken?’ Computerrecht 2003, 244; P H Blok and T J M De Weerd, ‘Shrink-wrap- en click-wraplicenties zijn aanvaardbaar’ Computerrecht 2004, 126; R J J Westerdijk, ‘Openen en klikken: overeenkomst gesloten’ Computerrecht 2004, 280 and C De Preter and H Dekeyser, ‘De totstandkoming en draagwijdte van open-source licenties’ Computerrecht 2004, 216.
- 42.
“Unfair business practices” are defined as any business practice which (a) is contrary to the requirements of professional diligence and (b) modify or is likely to modify in a substantial way the economic behavior of the average consumer whom it concern or to which it is addressed as regards the product concerned.
- 43.
See also: Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services, OJEC [2002] L271/16.
- 44.
We note that it is not necessary that the implicit acceptance in the B2B-contract was visible. Typically, the licensee will simply use the software. The acceptance by the business entity follows from the absence of rejection of the terms and conditions by the licensee.
- 45.
A Guadamuz, ‘The License/Contract Dichotomy in Open Licenses: A Comparative Analysis’ University of La Verne Law Review 2009 Vol 30 (2), 108–109; M Dulong De Rosnay, ‘Creative Commons Licenses Legal Pitfalls: Incompatibilities and Solutions’ Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law/Creative Commons Nederland 2010, 57.
- 46.
P Van Ommeslaghe, Droit des obligations. Introduction. Sources des obligations t. 1 (Brussels Bruylant 2010) n° 195, 306–307; Cass. 14 mars 2008 R.G n° C.05.0380.
- 47.
Laurens, Interpretatie en bewijs van overeenkomsten inzake auteursrecht (2010) 30.
- 48.
For more details, see Laurens, Interpretatie en bewijs van overeenkomsten inzake auteursrecht (2010) 30–47.
- 49.
ibid.
- 50.
Under Belgian law, standard terms and conditions are documents that have been established unilaterally and abstractly by one party without negotiation with the counterparty and that can only be accepted or refused by the other party with no possibility to modify the content. See A Cruquenaire, L’interprétation des contrats en droit d’auteur (Brussels Larcier 2007) 216 no 289.
- 51.
See Arts. 8 and 37 of the law of June 15, 1935 on the use of languages in legal proceedings M.B June 22, 1935. Upon the request of one of the litigants, the judge may require a translation of any document written in another language than the language of the proceedings. Moreover, the ruling must be written in the language of the proceedings.
- 52.
I Collard and J.-F Henrotte, ‘Les conditions générales en ligne: cherchez l’intrus’ Revue du droit des technologies de l’information 2009/36, 18.
- 53.
H Vanhees, ‘De nieuwe wettelijke regeling inzake auteurscontracten’ Tijdschrift voor Belgisch Handelsrecht 1995, 739.
- 54.
Antwerp 29 June 2009 AM 2010, 187; Brussels 5 May 2011 Google Inc v Copiepresse Intellectuele Rechten-Droits Intellectuels 2011, 265.
- 55.
A Cruquenaire, L’interprétation des contrats en droit d’auteur Collection Création Information Communication n° 11 (Brussels Larcier 2007) 44–46; A Strowel and E Derclaye, Droit d’auteur et numérique (Brussels Bruylant 2001) 100–101.
- 56.
J Blomme, ‘De wet van 30 juni 1994 en het auteursrecht op audiovisuele werken’ Auteurs&Media 1996, 11 and Laurens, Interpretatie en bewijs van overeenkomsten inzake auteursrecht (2010) 23.
- 57.
Laurens (2010), 23; De Visscher and Michaux, Précis du droit d’auteur (2000) 317.
- 58.
Laurens (2010), 26.
- 59.
Unless parties have expressly agreed on such disclaimer and provided the applicability of the disclaimer to gross negligence is written in the agreement. See Van Ommeslaghe, Droit des Obligations (2010) 1660 no 1161.
- 60.
Ibid, 1657–1660 no 1159–1160.
- 61.
The inapplicability of disclaimers of warranty to gross-negligence and willful acts is grounded on the rule of good faith in the performance of contractual obligations (art. 1134 BCC), which is not affected by the gratuitous character of the license.
- 62.
Van Ommeslaghe, Droit des Obligations (2010) 991–992 no 662.
- 63.
Art. 1134 BCC.
- 64.
See, eg Section 7 Legal Code CC license2.0 ported (Belgium).
- 65.
The act of loading does not always involve an act of reproduction, eg, where programs are contained in media which can be inserted physically into the computer, such as chips, or are an integral part of the hardware.
- 66.
The concept of “lawful acquirer” is to be understood to cover a purchaser, renter, licensee from the right holder as well as – this can be seen as an accessory to the rule of exhaustion – persons who purchase copies which have been legitimately brought into circulation; Report of the Commission of 10 April 2000 on the implementation and effects of Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection computer programs, 12; Case C-128/11 UsedSoft paras 80–81 & 85.
- 67.
Commission Proposal for a Council Directive on the legal protection of computer programs with Explanatory Memorandum COM (88) 816 final – SYN 183 OJ C91/4 12 April 1989, 25–26.
- 68.
Opinion AG Bot in Case C-406/10 SAS Institute para 96.
- 69.
This exception was subject of discussion in Case C-406/10 SAS Institute.
- 70.
Art. XI.167 §1 BCEL provides that each mode of exploitation subject to the license must be set out explicitly. See also Brussels 23 February 2006 Auteurs&Media 2006, 271.
- 71.
We note that Belgian courts may be invited to apply foreign law as a result of a choice-of-law clause or other rule of international private law when they have to interpret the scope of the license. For an in-depth analysis of this issue, see L Guibault and O Van Daalen, Unravelling the Myth around Open Source Licences – An Analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective Series: Information Technology and Law Series vol 8 (Asser Press 2006).
- 72.
Van Ommeslaghe, Droit des Obligations (2010) 983 no 657. Cass. 9 March 1973 Pas. I 640; Cass. 22 November 1973 Pas. I 312.
- 73.
Example: the right-owner has given the impression to the licensee that the license would continue for a very long period of time. The right-owner knew then that the licensee would have to make substantial investments to be able to use the license. A revocation of the license shortly after the licensee has made those investments could be considered a wrongful act.
- 74.
This attribute of the moral rights is not included in the specific copyright provisions of Book XI BCEL applicable to software.
- 75.
See above, para 14.
- 76.
Waivers are also subject to the principle of restrictive interpretation; see Court of Appeal Brussels 2 June 2000 Auteurs&Media 2001, 235.
- 77.
This provision can be directly relied upon before the Belgian courts as this is provided for in the Approbation Law of 25 March 1999 (Moniteur Belge 10 November 1999).
- 78.
In relation to software, where the GPL also grants licensees the right to modify the program, possible conflicts will most likely remain theoretical as it is hard to imagine how modifying functional-technical code could be “prejudicial to the honor or reputation” of the programmer.
- 79.
The English ‘ported’ Belgian version of the 2.0 CC license (2004) can be accessed at: mirrors.creativecommons.org/international/be/be-en.pdf.
- 80.
See Cass. October 7 2010, Belgium Television v SABAM R.G.D.C., 140, note T Leonard and O Mignolet.
- 81.
J Triaille, ‘Licences ‘open source’ et contrats avec les auteurs et les distributeurs’ Revue du droit des technologies de l’information 2005, 58–59.
- 82.
Y Van Den Brande and J Keustermans, ‘Open source software: een analyse naar Belgisch recht’ Intellectuele Rechten-Droits Intellectuels 2007, 380.
- 83.
The court held there to be a violation of, respectively, the ‘No Derivatives provision, where the theater had modified the original work to make it fit for the purposes of the commercial, the ‘Non-Commercial provision’, because of the use of the work in an advertisement, and the ‘Attribution provision’, because the theater omitted to mention the name of the artists in the commercial.
- 84.
See Civ. Nivelles October 26 2010 Revue du droit des technologies de l’information 2011, 67, note M Lambrecht; J.L.M.B. 2011, 154, note A Cruquenaire and J-F Henrotte.
- 85.
See for instance M Välimäki, ‘Copyleft Licensing and EC Competition Law’, available at ssrn.com/abstract = 1261628. Differently, in view of the perceived negative social welfare effects of the viral nature of FOSS, see M S Gal (2012), ‘Viral Open Source: Competition vs. Synergy’ 8 Journal of Comp. L. & Econ. 469–506.
- 86.
See the law of August 10, 2005 creating the Phenix infomatics system, Moniteur Belge September 1, 2005.
Abbreviations
- BC:
-
Berne Convention
- BCA:
-
Belgian Copyright Act
- BCC:
-
Belgian Civil Code
- BCCo:
-
Belgian Code of Commerce
- BCEL:
-
Belgian Code of Economic Law
- BCPA:
-
Belgian Consumer Protection Act
- BeCA:
-
Belgian e-Commerce Act
- BSA:
-
Belgian Software Act
- CC:
-
licenses Creative Commons licenses
List of References
G L Ballon, ‘Privaatrechtelijke aspecten van licentieovereenkomsten’, Themis 3 – Handels- en economisch recht (Cahier 51) (Brugge, Die Keure, 2008–2009).
P H Blok and T J M De Weerd, ‘Shrink-wrap- en click-wraplicenties zijn aanvaardbaar’ Computerrecht. 2004, 126.
F Brison and B Michaux, ‘De Nieuwe Auteurswet’, Rechtskundig Weekblad 1995, 528.
F Brison and J-P Triaille, ‘La nouvelle loi sur la protection des programmes d’ordinateur dans le sillage du droit d’auteur’, Journal des Tribunaux, 1995, 143.
A Berenboom, Le nouveau droit d’auteur, 4th ed (Brussels, Larcier, 2005).
J Blomme, ‘De wet van 30 juni 1994 en het auteursrecht op audiovisuele werken’, Auteurs&Media 1996, 11.
C Cauffman, ‘Aanbod en Aanvaarding volgens de Principles of European Contract Law, getoetst aan het Belgische Recht’, in: J Smits and S Stijns (ed), Totstandkoming van de overeenkomst naar Belgisch en Nederlands recht (Mortsel Intersentia 2002) 2.
I Collard and J-F Henrotte, ‘Les conditions générales en ligne: cherchez l’intrus’, Revue du droit des technologies de l’information, 2009/36, 19.
Y Cool, F de Patoul and D De Roy, Les logiciels libres face au droit (Brussels, Bruylant, 2005).
A Cruquenaire, L’interprétation des contrats en droit d’auteur Collection Création Information Communication, n° 11 (Brussels, Larcier, 2007).
C De Preter and H Dekeyser, ‘De totstandkoming en draagwijdte van open-source licenties’, Computerrecht, 2004, 216.
F De Visscher and B Michaux, Précis du droit d’auteur et des droits voisins (Brussels Bruylant, 2000).
M Dulong De Rosnay, ‘Creative Commons Licenses Legal Pitfalls: Incompatibilities and Solutions’ (Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law/Creative Commons Nederland, 2010).
S Dusollier, ‘Protection des programmes d’ordinateur’, in D Kaesmacher (ed), Les droits intellectuels, 2ème éd (Brussels, Larcier, 2013) 378.
M Fontaine, ‘Offre et acceptation, approche dépassée du processus de formation des contrats’, in: Mélanges offerts à Pierre Van Ommeslaghe (Brussels, Bruylant, 2000) 122–123.
M S Gal, ‘Viral Open Source: Competition vs. Synergy’, 8 Journal of Comp. L. & Econ., 2012, 469.
A Guadamuz, ‘The License/Contract Dichotomy in Open Licenses: A Comparative Analysis’, University of La Verne Law Review 2009, Vol 30 (2), 101.
E Hoorn, ‘Contributing to Conversational Copyright: Creative Commons Licences and Cultural Heritage Institutions’ in Open Content Licensing From Theory to Practice., (Amsterdam University Press, 2011).
B Hugenholtz and L Guibault, Study on the conditions applicable to contracts relating to intellectual property in the European Union, Study contract ETD/2000/B5-3001/E/69, 2002.
M-Ch Janssens, ‘Les droits moraux en Belgique’, Les Cahiers de propriété intellectuelle (Canada), vol 25 n° 1, January 2013.
M-Ch Janssens, ‘Bescherming van computerprogramma’s : oude wijn in nieuwe vaten?’, DAOR – Droit des Affaires/Ondernemingsrecht, 2011, 216.
T Laurens, Interpretatie en bewijs van overeenkomsten inzake auteursrecht (Brussels Larcier 2010).
M Lambrecht, ‘Première décision Creative Commons: contrats de licence et modèles économiques du libre accès’, Revue du droit des technologies de l’information 2011, 70.
A Puttemans, ‘Au bout du bout du droit d’auteur: la nouvelle protection juridique des programmes d’ordinateurs’, Revue de Droit Commercial 1995, 775.
M W Scheltema and T F E Tjong Tjin Tai, ‘Overeenkomsten sluiten door openen en klikken?’, Computerrecht 2003, 244.
A Strowel, ‘Le régime des œuvres audiovisuelles dans la loi relative au droit d’auteur’, Ing.Cons. 1995, 328.
A Strowel and E Derclaye, Droit d’auteur et numérique (Brussels, Bruylant, 2001).
B Tilleman, Overeenkomsten, II, in: Beginselen van Belgisch Privaatrecht (Antwerpen, Story-Scientia, 2001).
J-P Triaille, ‘Licences ‘open source’ et contrats avec les auteurs et les distributeurs’, Revue du droit des technologies de l’information 2005, 58.
M Välimäki and H Hietanen, ‘The Challenges of Creative Commons Licensing’ Computer Law Review 2004, Vol 5 (6), 172.
M Välimäki, ‘Copyleft Licensing and EC Competition Law’, available at ssrn.com/abstract=1261628.
S Van Camp, ‘Open Source Software: de ondraaglijke lichtheid van een concept’, Tijdschrift voor Belgisch Handelsrecht 2006, afl 5, 499.
O Van Daalen, Unravelling the Myth around Open Source Licences – An Analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective, Series: Information Technology and Law Series, vol 8, (Asser Press, 2006).
Y Van Den Brande and J Keustermans, ‘Open source software: een analyse naar Belgisch recht’, Intellectuele Rechten-Droits Intellectuels 2007, 381.
G Vandendriessche and K Meul in Auteurs&Media 2011, 534.
W Van Gerven and S Covemaeker, Verbintenissenrecht (Leuven, Acco, 2001).
H Vanhees, ‘Artikel 3’ in F Brison and H Vanhees (eds), Hommage à Jan Corbet – Huldeboeck (Brussels, Larcier, 2012) 30.
H Vanhees, De wettelijke regeling inzake auteurscontracten (Mechelen, Kluwer, 2013).
P Van Ommeslaghe, Droit des Obligations I (Brussels, Presses Universitaires, 1995).
P Van Ommeslaghe, Droit des obligations. Introduction. Sources des obligations, t 1, (Brussels, Bruylant, 2010).
I Verougstraete, ‘Wil en vertrouwen bij het totstandkomen van overeenkomsten’, Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht 1990, No 27, 148.
R J J Westerdijk, ‘Openen en klikken: overeenkomst gesloten’, Computerrecht 2004, 280.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cassiers, V., Janssens, MC., van Zimmeren, E. (2016). License Contracts, Free Software and Creative Commons – An Overview of the State of Play in Belgium. 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_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21560-0_2
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)