hugoroy

> The EU isn't a super-state

True whatever that means :)

> and EU law isn't applied by some overarching entity.

It is. EU law as a whole is ultimately applied by an entity, the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is overarching, over national courts, over national governments, and over EU bodies.

Then within EU law, you have several branches and distribution of who has authority etc. Primary EU law is the foundational basis (some would say a "constitution" effectively even though the word has been a political minefield) and does provide some "overarching entity" in some areas.

Then within Secondaru EU law, you have regulations, orders, directives, etc. Many regulations and orders have an EU overarching entity, and in many cases the European Commission has a central role.

> On a technical level, each country ratifies and applies their own laws in their own ways.

That is a gross mischaracterisation and overgeneralization of EU Directives.

EU Directives as a general rule* don't have "direct effect" in a Member State. They set a goal agreed at the EU level, and the Member State are bound to implement the means in their national laws to reach the goal. That usually (but not always) means at a national level the adoption of a legal act by national Parliament.

*as a general rule because as always there are exceptions.

My guess is that Mozilla only looked at the US market, and the article does not mention that this is US-only.

Here's how it goes:

You develop X and distribute it to B.

B modifies X (becomes X.1) and because B has been well advised by lawyers, B knows that modification of software is an act restricted under copyright law, and so B went to go read the LICENSE file and found Section 13 of AGPL. As a result because he/she is diligent, B ensures that the source code of X.1 can be accessed by putting a link to a server in X.1's user interface.

See Section 13 of AGPL:

B's "modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge ..."

B distributes X.1 to C

C runs X.1 which is a version that already offers all users a way to get the source code.

The analysis is wrong even if we accept the flawed premise presented (whether in US or French law).

Section 13 of the AGPL which is the one the author says is ineffective starts:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must ..."

The obligation starts from "modification" of the software, and modification of software is an act protected under copyright law. Hence you need an authorisation for it (without prejudice to fair use and copyright exceptions of course).

Random post on the internet by what seems a a nonlawyer. Be careful.

"The AGPL, like the GPL, is a copyright licence, not a contract" actual authoriative legal source needed. For what it's worth, this is plain wrong under French law (and I'm a lawyer and there is actual case law in France to support the view that GPL is a contract).

There are no personalised ads or no ads at all in WhatsApp, are there?

What got rejected is using the data for "service improvement" and "security" - in particular how WhatsApp used personal data for these purposes, and how in the opinion of Europea data protection authorities this was not necessary for Meta to perform the contract.

I doubt you actually asked any lawyers who know this stuff.

While GDPR did raise the threshold of valid consent, the interpretation before the GDPR was nowhere near what you describe here.

There are authority guidelines and sanctions predating the GDPR on this.

You're quoting the 2002 adopted text's recital.

This is outdated.

The relevant bit about consent and cookies was added in 2009, with directive 2009/136 modifying article 5(3) of directive 2002/58.

So all you're saying about legitimate interests etc. is wrong since 2011 (2009+2 years allowing for Member States implementation in national law)

This is the press release, edited by the services of the court - this is not written by the judges.