Open-source licensing under Georgian law
Distributing open source is often perceived as an unconditional permission: the code is available, everyone uses it, and attribution is merely an ethical norm. The Law of Georgia on Copyright and Neighboring Rights explains the picture differently: open code too is a work, and its use is the subject of a licence. The open-source licences widespread in the international community — with conditions that govern further distribution as well — fit within the licence-contract frame of Georgian law, and breach of those conditions is a breach of contract with contractual consequences. On this page we explain how the model works.
An open licence as a licence contract
A licence contract must include the elements defined by law: the exact description of the work — title, volume, genre; the specific type of use; the term and territory of effect; the amount of the royalty or the method of its determination, the procedure and term of payment; and other material terms. In an open licence these elements are filled by the text of the conditions: the type of use is defined by the permitted actions, and the royalty — often as a zero amount or under another model. The default rules of the law operate all the same: every type of use not directly provided for in the contract belongs to the author or other rights holder; where the territory is not specified the contract operates only in Georgia; and rights may not be passed on to other persons without direct provision. The operation of the last rule in open source is particularly interesting: further distribution is precisely a transfer of rights, and if the licence conditions do not directly provide for it, its foundation crumbles.
The boundary of free use
A licence is needed where use exceeds the free cases allowed by law. The law permits use without consent and royalty only in a closed list — with mandatory indication of the author and the source of the borrowing: quotation for scientific, research, polemical, critical and informational purposes to a justified extent; the use of short excerpts by way of illustration; reviews of current events; the reproduction of publicly delivered reports for informational purposes; and the reproduction of works created for the blind without profit. Editing the code, embedding it in your own product and distributing it cannot fit into that frame — the conditions of an open licence therefore operate precisely beyond this scope.
Expired rights and the boundary with the public domain
A separate question is code on which the term of copyright has expired: any person may use such a work without paying a royalty. At the same time, the rights to respect of authorship, of the name, of the integrity of the work and of reputation must be observed — meaning that the culture of attribution in open code is not only ethical but a legal requirement. The law also allows for special levies for the use of such works, transferred to an organisation managing property rights on a collective basis, not exceeding 3 percent of the income received. Expiry thus cuts off the royalty but still presupposes personality rights and, in some cases, levies.
Breach of conditions and damages
Breaching the conditions of an open licence — including conditions obliging further distribution under the same conditions — is an improper performance of an obligation under the contract. In such a case the law obliges the party to compensate the other party for the damage caused, including lost profits. In practice this means that improper use of code embedded from the open market does not end in a nominal loss: in a dispute, both the damage and the income the holder would have received become the object of calculation.
The term question in open licences
Where the licence contract does not specify a term of effect, the author or other rights holder may terminate the contract after 3 years from its conclusion, notifying the licensee in writing 6 months before termination. For open-source projects, where dependency deepens over years, defining the term in the text of the conditions is an essential element — otherwise the default three-year rule applies.
How we can help
We help you choose an open licence and align its conditions with Georgian law: we determine which types of use are permitted, how further distribution, the term and the territory are to be defined, and how to protect yourself on breach of the conditions. Contact us — we will assess your project.
A practical note for projects that use open code in their own products: the licence conditions should be studied before embedding, not after release. Three questions deserve attention: whether commercial use is permitted; whether the licence requires further distribution under the same conditions; and which actions require attribution of the source. The answers to these three questions determine whether the code can be used under your model, whether it conflicts with your own licence, and what documentation to retain as proof.
In the commercial use of open code it is often forgotten that licence conditions operate with the status of a full contract: their breach is not an abstract impropriety but an obligation to compensate damages, and in a dispute the income that would have accrued to the holder is also calculated. Organisations building a commercial product on open components should therefore apply the same scrutiny as to any licence contract — an approach that not only reduces risk but increases the overall legal cleanliness of the product.