Draagt het Weens Koopverdrag bij aan het antwoord op de vraag of licentieverlening op een softwareprogramma het auteursrecht ‘uitput’?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The founder of a Dutch company in formation concluded a Licensing Agreement with a Canadian company whereby the latter licensed the downloading of software for use on a single website. Although the founder ‘may not transfer’ the software that was just ‘licensed, not sold’, he nevertheless transferred it to his company and to its customers anyway. The Dutch court seized by the licensor denied the licensor’s claim for damages on account of non-performance on the grounds that the EU Software Directive provides that ‘the first sale of a copy of a program by the rightholder shall exhaust the distribution right within the Community’ (Art. 4(2)) and that this transfer constituted a ‘sale’ in the wide sense of this legal term as was taken in the UsedSoft judgment of the ECJ. The Dutch court asserted that its decision also rested on the Convention on the International Sale of Goods which it deemed to be applicable. It turns out, however, that it did not apply this treaty at all. The Dutch court neither applied the legal consequences that this treaty attaches to an international sale of goods in the sense of its Article 1 nor the concept of a ‘sale’ which is used therein. Its reference to this treaty was therefore gratuitous.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.025 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".