Impact of French DADVSI law on Free Software and OCaml (was: Re: [Caml-list] Slashdot)

Impact of French DADVSI law on Free Software and OCaml (was: Re: [Caml-list] Slashdot)

[David MENTRE]

Hello,

2005/12/3, Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>:
> Classical slashdot(?): this is just a misquote, as the department of
> culture hasn't done more than to host a press conference by
> SACEM, SNEP and SCPP, which are the equivalents of RIAA and MPAA.

Well, as many people, I had a feeling of FUD about this DADVSI law
project until a read following paragraph:
"""
Article 21

Le deuxième alinéa de l'article 1er de la loi n° 92-546 du 20 juin
1992 relative au dépôt légal est remplacé par les deux alinéas
suivants :

« Les logiciels et les bases de données sont soumis à l'obligation de
dépôt légal dès lors qu'ils sont mis à disposition d'un public par la
diffusion d'un support matériel quelle que soit la nature de ce
support.

« Sont également soumis au dépôt légal les signes, signaux, écrits,
images, sons ou messages de toute nature faisant l'objet d'une
communication publique en ligne. »
"""
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/projets/pl1206.asp

In English, it means that *any* software, *any* database and *any*
sound, image, etc. should be legally registred to the French State
(/dépôt légal/) as soon as it is made available to the public. I'm not
a lawyer so I might have missed something but, if this is true, (1) it
is utterly stupid and (2) it could impact the development of Free
Software in France. Should Xavier Leroy et al. registred OCaml each
time a new release is made? Should we declare all the images on the
OCaml web site? Should the OCaml bug database be registred?

Personally,  I'm worried.

Yours,
david

Re: Impact of French DADVSI law on Free Software and OCaml (was: Re: [Caml-list] Slashdot)

[Nicolas Cannasse]

> In English, it means that *any* software, *any* database and *any*
> sound, image, etc. should be legally registred to the French State
> (/dépôt légal/) as soon as it is made available to the public. I'm not
> a lawyer so I might have missed something but, if this is true, (1) it
> is utterly stupid and (2) it could impact the development of Free
> Software in France. Should Xavier Leroy et al. registred OCaml each
> time a new release is made? Should we declare all the images on the
> OCaml web site? Should the OCaml bug database be registred?
> 
> Personally,  I'm worried.

I'm not sure if it's the good place to talk about this, but here's my 
thoughts. If the law proposal was possible to apply, I would be worried. 
The fact that it's simply impossible to apply it in practice make it 
void (which is not "unit" :). Also, it might even be anticonstitutional 
since OS programs are words , just like news articles for instance. I'm 
not a lawyer but I think we shouldn't be worried about this.

Nicolas

Re: Impact of French DADVSI law on Free Software and OCaml (was: Re: [Caml-list] Slashdot)

[Matt Gushee]

Nicolas Cannasse wrote:

> void (which is not "unit" :). Also, it might even be anticonstitutional
> since OS programs are words , just like news articles for instance. I'm
> not a lawyer but I think we shouldn't be worried about this.

Well, I am sadly ignorant of the French judicial system, but as we are
learning here in the United States, constitutions don't have magical
powers. If the government wishes to violate the constitution, and the
courts are subservient, then--rational argument be damned!--the
constitution will be violated.

-- 
Matt Gushee
The Reluctant Geek: http://matt.gushee.net/rg/

Re: Impact of French DADVSI law on Free Software and OCaml (was: Re: [Caml-list] Slashdot)

[Alessandro Baretta]

David MENTRE wrote:
> Article 21
> 
> Le deuxième alinéa de l'article 1er de la loi n° 92-546 du 20 juin
> 1992 relative au dépôt légal est remplacé par les deux alinéas
> suivants :
> 
> « Les logiciels et les bases de données sont soumis à l'obligation de
> dépôt légal dès lors qu'ils sont mis à disposition d'un public par la
> diffusion d'un support matériel quelle que soit la nature de ce
> support.
> 
> « Sont également soumis au dépôt légal les signes, signaux, écrits,
> images, sons ou messages de toute nature faisant l'objet d'une
> communication publique en ligne. »
> """
> http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/projets/pl1206.asp
> 
> In English, it means that *any* software, *any* database and *any*
> sound, image, etc. should be legally registred to the French State
> (/dépôt légal/) as soon as it is made available to the public. I'm not
> a lawyer so I might have missed something but, if this is true, (1) it
> is utterly stupid and (2) it could impact the development of Free
> Software in France. Should Xavier Leroy et al. registred OCaml each
> time a new release is made? Should we declare all the images on the
> OCaml web site? Should the OCaml bug database be registred?
> 

I am, too, by the stupidity of lawmakers. According to current valid Italian 
law, dating sometime in the '30s, all published material--websites and dynamic 
content of course--must be archived by two national libraries, for posterities 
sake. Google is nothing compared to what this law requires.

Alex

Re: Impact of French DADVSI law on Free Software and OCaml (was: Re: [Caml-list] Slashdot)

[skaller]

On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 08:54 +0100, David MENTRE wrote:

> http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/projets/pl1206.asp
> 
> In English, it means that *any* software, *any* database and *any*
> sound, image, etc. should be legally registred to the French State
> (/dépôt légal/) as soon as it is made available to the public.

Sorry I can't read French .. can you determine WHICH software it
is talking about? 

Does it mean (a) made available on a Web Server hosted in France?
In which case .. just use a server in some other place, as Debian
once did  -- nonUSA server for some stuff. Sourceforge comes to mind ..

If it means (b) produced by a French Citizen then it is rubbish,
since it doesn't take into account collaborative efforts.

-- 
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net

Re: Impact of French DADVSI law on Free Software and OCaml (was: Re: [Caml-list] Slashdot)

[Oliver Bandel]

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 08:54:45AM +0100, David MENTRE wrote:
[...] 
> In English, it means that *any* software, *any* database and *any*
> sound, image, etc. should be legally registred to the French State
> (/dépôt légal/) as soon as it is made available to the public. I'm not
> a lawyer so I might have missed something but, if this is true, (1) it
> is utterly stupid and (2) it could impact the development of Free
> Software in France. Should Xavier Leroy et al. registred OCaml each
> time a new release is made? Should we declare all the images on the
> OCaml web site? Should the OCaml bug database be registred?
[...] 

If it is, how you write,
then that's a good day for bureaucracy.

Better would be, to register each such registering-operation too. ;-)

That's recursive and self-referential and infinitve,
and so the load will be much higher than to be expected
by the lawyers.

So: it will not be possible to use laws in genreal, even if they are
meant general. But it can be used for certain things (here: THIS or THAT
software (or anything else), at will.

So... is it good to do that? well...

Looks like self-disabling of the lawyers by trying to achieve anything. ;-)

This will not work in general, but can be hinderance to certain projects,
if people insist on this bureaucracy. :(

Ciao,
   Oliver

Re: Impact of French DADVSI law on Free Software and OCaml (was: Re: [Caml-list] Slashdot)

[Xavier Leroy]

David MENTRE wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> 2005/12/3, Jacques Garrigue <garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp>:
> 
>>Classical slashdot(?): this is just a misquote, as the department of
>>culture hasn't done more than to host a press conference by
>>SACEM, SNEP and SCPP, which are the equivalents of RIAA and MPAA.
> 
> 
> Well, as many people, I had a feeling of FUD about this DADVSI law
> project until a read following paragraph:
> """
> Article 21
> 
> Le deuxième alinéa de l'article 1er de la loi n° 92-546 du 20 juin
> 1992 relative au dépôt légal est remplacé par les deux alinéas
> suivants :
> 
> « Les logiciels et les bases de données sont soumis à l'obligation de
> dépôt légal dès lors qu'ils sont mis à disposition d'un public par la
> diffusion d'un support matériel quelle que soit la nature de ce
> support.
> 
> « Sont également soumis au dépôt légal les signes, signaux, écrits,
> images, sons ou messages de toute nature faisant l'objet d'une
> communication publique en ligne. »
> """
> http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/projets/pl1206.asp
> 
> In English, it means that *any* software, *any* database and *any*
> sound, image, etc. should be legally registred to the French State
> (/dépôt légal/) as soon as it is made available to the public. I'm not
> a lawyer so I might have missed something but, if this is true, (1) it
> is utterly stupid and (2) it could impact the development of Free
> Software in France. Should Xavier Leroy et al. registred OCaml each
> time a new release is made? Should we declare all the images on the
> OCaml web site? Should the OCaml bug database be registred?
> 
> Personally,  I'm worried.
> 
> Yours,
> david
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs

Re: Impact of French DADVSI law on Free Software and OCaml (was: Re: [Caml-list] Slashdot)

[Francis Dupont]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1799 bytes --]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   > « Les logiciels et les bases de données sont soumis à l'obligation de
   > dépôt légal dès lors qu'ils sont mis à disposition d'un public par la
   > diffusion d'un support matériel quelle que soit la nature de ce
   > support.

=> the last part means the rule applies only when softwares and
data bases are distributed in *a physical medium*.
BTW this is the physical medium which should be legally registred.

   > « Sont également soumis au dépôt légal les signes, signaux, écrits,
   > images, sons ou messages de toute nature faisant l'objet d'une
   > communication publique en ligne. »

=> this is more about the usual confusion between the Internet and
an online service. I suggest to push the word "publique" (public
in English) to its limits (:-).

   > Should Xavier Leroy et al. registred OCaml each
   > time a new release is made? Should we declare all the images on the
   > OCaml web site? Should the OCaml bug database be registred?

=> if you distribute a CDROM with the whole OCaml on it, you have
to register it. This is an extension of the law for books (~500 year
old in France).

Regards

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

PS: DADVSI is about DRMs and tries to enforce DRM support in any software
which can transfer a file. As a side-effect open source should be forbiden
because it makes too easy to remove the DRM code.
This will be voted only if our PMs don't read the laws they adopt and
will be applied only if our judges do the same (I trust the seconds
far more than the firsts, unfortunately it is not the first case of
a law about computers which is fully silly, for instance to intend
to attack a computer system is enough to go in jail in France so
if you really attack a computer you'll be convicted for something else :-).

Re: Impact of French DADVSI law on Free Software and OCaml (was: Re: [Caml-list] Slashdot)

[David MENTRE]

Hello,

2005/12/7, Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>:
> => the last part means the rule applies only when softwares and
> data bases are distributed in *a physical medium*.
> BTW this is the physical medium which should be legally registred.

This is the same issue. If I give a burned CDROM with OCaml on it (or
more realistically my own Free Software made with OCaml), should I
register it?

Yours,
d.

Re: Impact of French DADVSI law on Free Software and OCaml (was: Re: [Caml-list] Slashdot)

[Francis Dupont]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   This is the same issue. If I give a burned CDROM with OCaml on it (or
   more realistically my own Free Software made with OCaml), should I
   register it?
   
=> the law applies when you give it to a public so IMHO it applies
if you sell it, even for free, or distribute it in a conference, etc,
but not when you give it to your friends.
As I've said it is an extension to the 500 year old law for books
to softwares on physical medium.

Regards

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

Re: Impact of French DADVSI law on Free Software and OCaml (was: Re: [Caml-list] Slashdot)

[Michael D. Adams]

On 12/7/05, Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr> wrote:
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
>
>    This is the same issue. If I give a burned CDROM with OCaml on it (or
>    more realistically my own Free Software made with OCaml), should I
>    register it?
>
> => the law applies when you give it to a public so IMHO it applies
> if you sell it, even for free, or distribute it in a conference, etc,
> but not when you give it to your friends.
> As I've said it is an extension to the 500 year old law for books
> to softwares on physical medium.

Does the law for books mean that pamphlets that just contain the
agenda for a conference must be registered?  I leave it as an exercise
to the reader to imagine other types of documents that are provided to
the public but for which it would be silly to register (e.g. bus
schedules, newsletters, take-home restaurant menus, etc.).  I would
hope that there must be some lower bound beyond which books don't need
to be registered.

Michael D. Adams
mdmkolbe@gmail.com

Re: Impact of French DADVSI law on Free Software and OCaml

[Xavier Leroy]

[Apologies for previous posting, I clicked on the wrong button :-( ]

> Well, as many people, I had a feeling of FUD about this DADVSI law
> project until a read following paragraph:

This list is probably not the best place to discuss how this law
proposal will be (ab-) used.  However, the broad terms of the law, the
intense lobbying surrounding it, and the use of an emergency
parliamentary procedure are sources of concern: we could end up with
something worse than the US DMCA...

French readers of this list might be interested in the petition below:
       http://eucd.info/petitions/index.php?petition=2

- Xavier Leroy

Re: [Caml-list] Re: Impact of French DADVSI law on Free Software and OCaml

[Oliver Bandel]

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 02:04:21PM +0100, Xavier Leroy wrote:
> [Apologies for previous posting, I clicked on the wrong button :-( ]
> 
> > Well, as many people, I had a feeling of FUD about this DADVSI law
> > project until a read following paragraph:
> 
> This list is probably not the best place to discuss how this law
> proposal will be (ab-) used.  However, the broad terms of the law, the
> intense lobbying surrounding it, and the use of an emergency
> parliamentary procedure are sources of concern: we could end up with
> something worse than the US DMCA...
[...]


oh, thats worse than I expected... :(


 ======>>>>>   http://www.ffii.fr/


Ciao,
   Oliver