Abstract
In Finland, there is no special legislation concerning license contracts, but general principles of both contract law and copyright law are applied to them. In our opinion, when interpreting the extent of license grants under alternative licenses, the principle of narrow interpretation of the license grant should be followed. However, some clauses, such as limitations of liability, are better considered as contractual elements of the license contract and, consequently, should be interpreted in accordance with contract law principles instead. In effect, alternative licenses may usually be characterized as hybrid contracts including both copyright and contract-related elements subject to different principles of interpretation. So, for example, while limitations of liability obviously have a built-in relationship with the copyright license, it does not mean that terms concerning limitations of liability should be interpreted in favor of the author in the same way as the actual license grant.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
See, eg: K Harenko and V Niiranen and P Tarkela, Tekijänoikeus – kommentaari ja käsikirja (Helsinki, WSOYpro, 2006), p 285; P Haarmann, Tekijänoikeus ja lähioikeudet (Helsinki, Talentum, 2005) p 298–299; M Välimäki, Oikeudet tietokoneohjelmistoihin ja niiden lisensointi. Ohjelmistoliiketoiminnan juridinen perusta (Helsinki, Turre Publishing, 2006), p 144–146; P Takki, IT-sopimukset – käytännön käsikirja Helsinki, Talentum, 2002); M Vedenkangas, ‘Tietokoneohjelman luovutuksen luonne: tekijänoikeuden, käyttöoikeuden vaiko teoskappaleen luovutus’ (2002) 5 Defensor Legis, 862; R Oesch and J Vesala, ‘Ohjelmistolisenssit ja tekijänoikeuden raukeaminen’ (2004) 2 Defensor Legis, 256.
- 2.
See, eg: I Kallioniemi, ‘Kerrostetuista lisensseistä’, (2002) 2 Defensor Legis, 284. p 287. As Kallioniemi notes, if the rule under subsection 1 were mandatory, fixed-term licenses would lose much of their effect as the licensee would always be able to make any copies of the program “necessary for use for the intended purpose”.
- 3.
JHS 166 Julkisen hallinnon IT-hankintojen yleiset sopimusehdot (JIT 2007). Finnish Public Administration Recommendations: Terms and Conditions of Government IT Procurement.
- 4.
See also: A Saarnilehto, ‘Vastuun rajoitukset riskienhallinnassa ja vakioehdot’ Edilex 5.10.2005, p 11–13.
- 5.
In fact, if we emphasize the copyright part of the license contract, license contracts can be interpreted, instead of the contra proferentem principle, in the favor of the author in compliance with the narrow interpretation of copyright license grants (see Committee report 1953:5, p. 63).
- 6.
For preparatory legislative material for the Copyright Act, see Committee Report 1953:5, p. 63. For Supreme Court precedents, see e.g. KKO 1984 II 26 (Kivikasvot) and KKO 2005:92 (Eija Kantola).
- 7.
Committee Report 1953:5, p. 63. For literature on the narrow interpretation of copyright license rights, see eg: P Haarmann, p 303–306; K Harenko Kristiina and V Niiranen and P Tarkela, p 288–289.
- 8.
M Hemmo Mika, Sopimusoikeus III, (Jyväskylä, Talentum, 2005) p 252–254.
- 9.
A Saarnilehto, p 11–13.
- 10.
Committee Report 1953:5, p 64. See also: Haarmann 2005, p 306.
- 11.
Interview: Saija-Leena Asikainen, the Finnish Composers’ Copyright Society Teosto.
References
Committee report 1953:5.
P Haarmann, Tekijänoikeus ja lähioikeudet (Helsinki, Talentum, 2005).
K Harenko and V Niiranen and P Tarkela, Tekijänoikeus – kommentaari ja käsikirja (Helsinki, WSOYpro, 2006).
M Hemmo Mika, Sopimusoikeus III, (Jyväskylä, Talentum, 2005).
JHS 166 Julkisen hallinnon IT-hankintojen yleiset sopimusehdot (JIT 2007). Finnish Public Administration Recommendations: Terms and Conditions of Government IT Procurement.
I Kallioniemi, ‘Kerrostetuista lisensseistä’, (2002) 2 Defensor Legis, 284.
R Oesch and J Vesala, ‘Ohjelmistolisenssit ja tekijänoikeuden raukeaminen’ (2004) 2 Defensor Legis, 256.
P Takki, IT-sopimukset – käytännön käsikirja (Helsinki, Talentum, 2002).
A Saarnilehto, ‘Vastuun rajoitukset riskienhallinnassa ja vakioehdot’ Edilex 5.10.2005.
Supreme Court KKO 1984 II 26 (Kivikasvot).
Supreme Court and KKO 2005:92 (Eija Kantola).
M Vedenkangas, ‘Tietokoneohjelman luovutuksen luonne: tekijänoikeuden, käyttöoikeuden vaiko teoskappaleen luovutus’ (2002) 5 Defensor Legis, 862.
M Välimäki, Oikeudet tietokoneohjelmistoihin ja niiden lisensointi. Ohjelmistoliiketoiminnan juridinen perusta (Helsinki, Turre Publishing, 2006).
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
Huttunen, A., Tanskanen, H., von Willebrand, M. (2016). Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) Licenses and Other Alterative Licenses Under Finnish Law – Hybrid Contracts Including Both Copyright and Contract-Related Elements. 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_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21560-0_8
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)