Couldn't it be argued that it is unfair for that to be required to be qualified as a breach of contract rather than "copyright" (droit d'auteur) violation if anybody can "contract" with you without even you being notified about it?
Or would that qualification actually be not that much interesting and it is "just" a matter of knowing that in France you must sue for contract violation in case of GPL violation?
> Couldn't it be argued that it is unfair for that to be required to be qualified as a breach of contract rather than "copyright" (droit d'auteur) violation if anybody can "contract" with you without even you being notified about it?
I don't know.
> Or would that qualification actually be not that much interesting and it is "just" a matter of knowing that in France you must sue for contract violation in case of GPL violation?
I prefer this question. As stated by the blog author, counterfeiting gives more protection and ensure greater reparation than the contractual way. That's were the "cour d'appel" did not respect the opinion of the CJUE in our opinion. The contractual way does not give the same protections as the counterfeiting way, contrary to what the UE directive asks of the transposition into national laws.
Or would that qualification actually be not that much interesting and it is "just" a matter of knowing that in France you must sue for contract violation in case of GPL violation?