Study of Fundamental Rights Limitations for Online Enforcement through Self-Regulation

The use of self-regulatory or privatized enforcement measures in the online environment can give rise to various legal issues that affect the fundamental rights of internet users. First, privatized enforcement by internet services, without state involvement, can interfere with the effective exercise of fundamental rights by internet users. Such interference may, on occasion, be disproportionate, but there are legal complexities involved in determining the precise circumstances in which this is the case. This is because, for instance, the private entities can themselves claim protection under the fundamental rights framework (e.g. the protection of property and the freedom to conduct business). Second, the role of public authorities in the development of self-regulation in view of certain public policy objectives can become problematic, but has to be carefully assessed. The fundamental rights framework puts limitations on government regulation that interferes with fundamental rights. Essentially, such limitations involve the (negative) obligation for States not to interfere with fundamental rights. Interferences have to be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society. At the same time, however, States are also under the (positive) obligation to take active measures in order to ensure the effective exercise of fundamental rights. In other words, States must do more than simply refrain from interference. These positive obligations are of specific interest in the context of private ordering impact on fundamental rights, but tend to be abstract and hard to operationalize in specific legal constellations. This study’s central research question is: What legal limitations follow from the fundamental rights framework for self-regulation and privatized enforcement online? It examines the circumstances in which State responsibility can be engaged as a result of selfregulation or privatized enforcement online. Part I of the study provides an overview and analysis of the relevant elements in the European and international fundamental rights framework that place limitations on privatized enforcement. Part II gives an assessment of specific instances of self-regulation or other instances of privatized enforcement in light of these elements

Unravelling the Myth around Open Source Licences - An Analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective

Open source software licences are based on two fundamental principles: the possibility for users to use the software for any purpose and the possibility to modify and redistribute it without prior authorisation from the initial developer. Some open source software licences, like the General Public Licence (GPL), also impose a corollary obligation on the licensee: to make the source code available to other developers. The idea behind this form of licensing is that when programmers can read, redistribute and modify the source code for a piece of software, the software evolves. A number of legal challenges need to be addressed in order to ensure the most efficient deployment of open content licences in Europe and in the Netherlands, not least because most open source licences originate from the United States. This study gives an overview of the current legal situation regarding the use of open source software licences and investigates how the most commonly used open source software licences measure up to Dutch and European law. How does the distinct production and distribution model of open source licences fit in the current legal framework? Does the current legal environment support the use of open source licences or does it rather impede their use? In this last case, would certain adaptations to the law or to the licence terms be appropriate? By its in-depth analysis and clear conclusions,Unravelling the Myth around Open Source Licences amply contributes to the understanding of this complex field that policy makers, regulators, and academics so crucially require. Taking the provisions of the GNU GPL, the BSD, and the Mozilla Public Licence as examples, it investigates the implications of open source licensing from a private law, copyright law and patent law perspective. It also takes a brief look at the issue of the enforcement of these licences. To facilitate the use and enforcement of open source software licences in Europe, and more particularly in the Netherlands, the authors conclude their study by making a number of recommendations for the adaptation of the licence terms with a view to enhancing their compliance with the legal requirements

Unravelling the Myth around Open Source Licences - An Analysis from a Dutch and European Law Perspective

Open source software licences are based on two fundamental principles: the possibility for users to use the software for any purpose and the possibility to modify and redistribute it without prior authorisation from the initial developer. Some open source software licences, like the General Public Licence (GPL), also impose a corollary obligation on the licensee: to make the source code available to other developers. The idea behind this form of licensing is that when programmers can read, redistribute and modify the source code for a piece of software, the software evolves. A number of legal challenges need to be addressed in order to ensure the most efficient deployment of open content licences in Europe and in the Netherlands, not least because most open source licences originate from the United States. This study gives an overview of the current legal situation regarding the use of open source software licences and investigates how the most commonly used open source software licences measure up to Dutch and European law. How does the distinct production and distribution model of open source licences fit in the current legal framework? Does the current legal environment support the use of open source licences or does it rather impede their use? In this last case, would certain adaptations to the law or to the licence terms be appropriate? By its in-depth analysis and clear conclusions,Unravelling the Myth around Open Source Licences amply contributes to the understanding of this complex field that policy makers, regulators, and academics so crucially require. Taking the provisions of the GNU GPL, the BSD, and the Mozilla Public Licence as examples, it investigates the implications of open source licensing from a private law, copyright law and patent law perspective. It also takes a brief look at the issue of the enforcement of these licences. To facilitate the use and enforcement of open source software licences in Europe, and more particularly in the Netherlands, the authors conclude their study by making a number of recommendations for the adaptation of the licence terms with a view to enhancing their compliance with the legal requirements

Narrowly versus broadly defined autism spectrum disorders: differences in pre- and perinatal risk factors

Contains fulltext : 115406.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)This study examined the differential contribution of pre- and perinatal risks in narrowly versus broadly defined autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and across core symptom domains, IQ and co-morbid problems. Children with a DSM-IV diagnosis of autistic disorder (AD) (n = 121) or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS) (n = 75) were compared to a typical control sample (n = 311). Diagnoses were based on extensive assessments between 12 and 49 months of age (M = 33.3, SD = 6.4) and re-evaluated at 43-98 months (M = 68.1, SD = 10.7) in 70 % of the cases. Compared with controls, cases with ASD were more likely to be firstborn and show a suboptimal condition after birth. Case mothers reported more infections and more stress during pregnancy. Although the ASD subgroups showed mostly overlapping risks, cases with PDD-NOS differed from those with AD by higher exposure to smoking during pregnancy (SDP) and by a negative association of smoking with IQ, regardless of confounders. SDP appears to contribute more to broadly defined (PDD-NOS) than to narrowly defined ASD (AD). Findings suggest differences in etiological contributors between ASD phenotypes