The first test of an open source license in court was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobsen_v._Katzer. It was initially lost on a somewhat similar argument. Namely that it was a contract, not a copyright license, and then was an unenforceable contract and therefore invalid. This decision was reversed on appeal.
I have no particular reason to believe that the first French judge to rule on an open source license did a better job than the first US judge to do the same. Both ruled against the license.
In this meaning, copyright is not the same as authorship rights, which is a basis of intellectual property protection in Europe.
Similarly for software patents, they do not work in EU.
copyright having exceptions does not mean that copyright does not exist
unless you claim that copyright does not exist in USA because they have fair use?
That's why we have the relevant legal act discuss separate aspects of "moral" and "financial" "Author's rights" to a creation, instead of just singular "copyright", and why American-style "public domain" does not exist in Polish legal system, or that of many other EU countries (US' style public-domain involves effectively losing all rights to the creation, including moral ones, whereas those are non-dismissible, non-transferable and permament in Polish law).
The exact way things differ would probably require a philosopher and a lawyer to discuss differences of.
(a) copyright (b) moral rights
which are separate. Maybe it was badly described or I misremember what I learned decade ago.