A French citizen has suggested that there are legal reasons why he cannot contribute to a project using the Apache 2 license.
I responded saying:
French people have contributed to such things under that license in the past and not had a problem. It's probably better to not consider work as "new" but modifications of the existing work, and just inherit the Apache2 under that consideration. If there's question, you can have me create an initial version of a file with a license, and then modify it afterward.
They do this out of ignorance or because they do not care. Yet conventional open source licenses are not usable as such by a French because of the particularity of intellectual property law. I say French but that is also true of several other European citizens in copyright countries, against copyright countries.
This is why licenses compatible with both French law and OpenSource licenses have been created.
... European citizens in author rights countries, against copyright countries. For example, something as simple as the language in which the license is written forbids me to use it. I can not sign a contract that has legal value in the eyes of the French legislator if it does not write in French.
If I override, the license will be vein [sic] and the French intellectual property right will apply and the part of the software I contributed will no longer be free.
So he's trying to push for use of French-compatible licenses I've never heard of, e.g. CeCILL
In the "Similar Questions" box I get:
Nothing suggesting French people fundamentally can't use it. While I can find Google searches that say people are French and releasing things under Apache2, I find no support of "conventional open source licenses are not usable as such by a French".