Re: [Trad April] Traduction "le logiciel libre: les menaces" Appel à relecteurs.

["Marc Chauvet" <marc.chauvet AT gmail.com>]

Bonsoir Jaaf,

Tu trouveras ci-jointe ma proposition de modification. Hormis quelques doubles espaces inopinées, il s'agit principalement de questions de style, donc n'hésite pas à ignorer.

Notamment, lorsqu'il y avait des expressions françaises, j'ai préféré mettre d'abord une traduction anglaise du terme puis le terme en françaisentre crochets ...

Envoie sur la liste la version que tu retiens et je mettrai le tout en forme dans un document comme il faut et je ferai suivre pour publication.

Bonne soirée
Marc

2008/9/7 Marc Chauvet <marc.chauvet AT gmail.com>

Bonsoir Jaaf,

Je vais relire ta traduction. Je pense que j'aurai le temps de renvoyer mes suggestions d'ici Mardi soir.

Bonne soirée :)
Marc

2008/9/7 jaaf <jaa.f AT cegetel.net>

Bonjour à tous,
Voici ma traduction. Merci d'avance à ceux qui vont relire.

José Fournier


--
José FOURNIER
4, rue Marcel Pagnol
78530 BUC
Menbre de l 'APRIL
Promouvoir et défendre le
LOGICIEL LIBRE
http://www.april.org/ http://www.gnu.org/

Free Software: the threats

1- Software patents

In France, as in Europe, software is not patentable because it is regarded as belonging to methods and algorithms – in the same way mathematics are.

And yet, for several years, big companies, have been pushing the idea of patent, pretending it would foster innovation. In fact, the effect is inverse: the innovation cycle in software being very short, forbidding access to a method, a software patent impedes  innovation instead of stimulating it.

Contrarily to the "droit d'auteur" (copyright) (which today protects software creation, software patents act as a discrimination against (free or proprietary) software publishing SME which cannot afford to finance anteriority researches and disputes in order  to protect their software, but also to commercialize it without risk. The principle of patent is basically incompatible with Free Software. It implies significant implementation costs and utilization restrictions. If it were introduced in Europe, it would  sharply slow the Free Software development and utilization.

We must oppose what is merely a Trojan Horse for a bunch of big publishers, mainly outside of Europe, which will be the only ones to benefit from the legal insecurity it creates.

2-Linked sales

At the moment, free access to the market doesn't actually apply to Free Software. With regards to the consumer market, Free Software faces coalitions between software publishers and hardware makers, despite the fact that their behavior is punished by the "Code de la consommation" (in English: Consumption Legislation) and despite the  negotiations led by the DGCCRF (note 1) to end this situation.

There is also a discrimination as for the access to public orders and to public services and more generally to public data. This discrimination is the consequence of the data formats in use: public authorities and public services do not  always choose  open formats which can be implemented by any programs. Now, as a consequence of closed format choices, access to documents is restricted to users of proprietary software capable to read them. For example, calls for tenders by administrations, made using closed formats, can prevent Free Software users from accessing public orders. In a similar way, the format choose by some public services to diffuse their content makes access by Free Software users impossible (e.g. Radio France, France Television). The problem is the same with public information (geographic maps, official documents...).

As an answer to many Internet users' demand, this year, the French National Assembly decided to broadcast "La séance en direct" (The live session), in an open format, in order to guaranty to everybody an equal access to the National Assembly 's debate. Such initiatives must be encouraged. That is merely the meanings of the "Référentiel  Général d'Interopérabilité" (in English: "General Reference Book on Interoperability"), announced long before, and that will be implemented during the next legislature 's five year term.

3- DADVSI

The French "Loi sur les Droits d'auteur et Droits Voisins dans la Société de l'Information"  (in English: "law on authors' rights and related rights in the Information Society" voted last year, gave birth, on behalf of fight against counterfeit, to excessive extensions of copyright. This law, has introduced in our legislation, clauses which undermine the neutrality of technology, that is the principle according to which technology in itself, is neither good nor bad: only the utilization one makes of it can be acceptable or reprehensible.

Pretending that the users of a free program could modify it in order to make illegal copies, this law denies access to Free Software authors to the market of the multimedia readers intended to read only protected works. As a consequence, the discrimination, the Free Software developers and users have to face, increases.

Concretely, the DRM ("Digital Restrictions Management") makes the elaboration of  independent and open source software, capable of reading a protected movie or a musical work, legally very hazardous. Free Software users are de facto prevented from accessing the on-line music selling platforms whenever musical works are protected by DRM.

Moreover, the clauses referred to as "Vivendi clauses", which accuse the peer-to-peer platform not containing DRM, arguing that they are, among others, used to exchange works without permission, represents also a serious issue to Free  Software. It is an attempt to censor Free Software authors - to deny them the right to use the P2P technology- while, only the users action may infringe the intellectual property of some authors and their legal beneficiaries, and while Free Software authors,by definition, are not able to prevent them from doing so.

In fine, this law is discriminatory. It unfairly burdens Free Software authors with an heavy legal insecurity. Some of them chose to go into exile, following the example of the Azureus peer-to-peer project manager, who migrated to the United States, a country which, like many other countries,facing the numerous perversions this law causes, increasingly discards the mirage of DRM.
A revision of the DADVSI law is unavoidable.

4- So called "Trusted Computing"

in addition to the claims made on behalf of proprietary rights, which do not exist in European Law, or on the deceptive pretext of fighting counterfeit, exaggerated claims, made on behalf of software security, grow in number in order to try to justify the implementation of new obstacles to fair competition.

Some dominant actors like Microsoft try to restrict interoperability with their software only to "certified software" complying with their own criteria. They oblige to take very expensive certification tests  which, de facto, excludes the voluntary authors and the SME. The outcome of such an approach is the so called "Trusted Computing" which, in fact, uses technical means to prevent  non certified software to  implement interoperability, that is to say communication between two independent programs. Such practices and mechanisms have to be rejected.

And as explained in a report on the security of information systems by the French member of parliament Pierre Lasbordes in 2005, "l'émergence de cette informatique de confiance conduirait un nombre très limité de sociétés à imposer leur modèle de sécurité à la planète, en autorisant ou non, par la délivrance de certificats numériques, des applications à s'exécuter sur des PC donnés." (in English: "the emergence of this trusted computing would lead to a very limited number of companies imposing their security model to the whole world, by allowing or not, by means of the delivery of digital certificates, applications to run on given PCs only."); that brings, in addition to the risks for privacy and national security, fair competition obvious issues.

Note 1: DGCCRF: Direction générale de la consommation, de la concurrence et de la répression des fraudes (in English: General Direction of Consumption, Competition and Treachery Suppression)








--
http://www.april.org/wws/info/traductions

Free Software: the threats

1- Software patents

In France, as in Europe, software is not patentable because it is regarded as 
belonging to methods and algorithms – in the same way mathematics are.

And yet, for several years, big companies, have been pushing the idea of 
patent, pretending it would foster innovation. In fact, the effect is 
inverse: the innovation cycle in software being very short, forbidding access 
to a method, a software patent impedes  innovation instead of stimulating it.

Contrarily to the "droit d'auteur" (copyright) (which today protects software 
creation, software patents act as a discrimination against (free or 
proprietary) software publishing SME which cannot afford to finance 
anteriority researches and disputes in order  to protect their software, but 
also to commercialize it without risk. The principle of patent is basically 
incompatible with Free Software. It implies significant implementation costs 
and utilization restrictions. If it were introduced in Europe, it would  
sharply slow the Free Software development and utilization.

We must oppose what is merely a Trojan Horse for a bunch of big publishers, 
mainly outside of Europe, which will be the only ones to benefit from the 
legal insecurity it creates.

2-Linked sales

At the moment, free access to the market doesn't actually apply to Free 
Software. With regards to the consumer market, Free Software faces coalitions 
between software publishers and hardware makers, despite the fact that their 
behavior is punished by the "Code de la consommation" (in English: 
Consumption Legislation) and despite the  negotiations led by the DGCCRF 
(note 1) to end this situation.

There is also a discrimination as for the access to public orders and to 
public services and more generally to public data. This discrimination is the 
consequence of the data formats in use: public authorities and public 
services do not  always choose  open formats which can be implemented by any 
programs. Now, as a consequence of closed format choices, access to documents 
is restricted to users of proprietary software capable to read them. For 
example, calls for tenders by administrations, made using closed formats, can 
prevent Free Software users from accessing public orders. In a similar way, 
the format choose by some public services to diffuse their content makes 
access by Free Software users impossible (e.g. Radio France, France 
Television). The problem is the same with public information (geographic 
maps, official documents...).

As an answer to many Internet users' demand, this year, the French National 
Assembly decided to broadcast "La séance en direct" (The live session), in 
an open format, in order to guaranty to everybody an equal access to the 
National Assembly 's debate. Such initiatives must be encouraged. That is 
merely the meanings of the "Référentiel  Général d'Interopérabilité" 
(in English: "General Reference Book on Interoperability"), announced long 
before, and that will be implemented during the next legislature 's five year 
term.

3- DADVSI

The French "Loi sur les Droits d'auteur et Droits Voisins dans la Société 
de l'Information"  (in English: "law on authors' rights and related rights in 
the Information Society" voted last year, gave birth, on behalf of fight 
against counterfeit, to excessive extensions of copyright. This law, has 
introduced in our legislation, clauses which undermine the neutrality of 
technology, that is the principle according to which technology in itself, is 
neither good nor bad: only the utilization one makes of it can be acceptable 
or reprehensible.

Pretending that the users of a free program could modify it in order to make 
illegal copies, this law denies access to Free Software authors to the market 
of the multimedia readers intended to read only protected works. As a 
consequence, the discrimination, the Free Software developers and users have 
to face, increases.

Concretely, the DRM ("Digital Restrictions Management") makes the elaboration 
of  independent and open source software, capable of reading a protected 
movie or a musical work, legally very hazardous. Free Software users are de 
facto prevented from accessing the on-line music selling platforms whenever 
musical works are protected by DRM.

Moreover, the clauses referred to as "Vivendi clauses", which accuse the 
peer-to-peer platform not containing DRM, arguing that they are, among 
others, used to exchange works without permission, represents also a serious 
issue to Free  Software. It is an attempt to censor Free Software authors - 
to deny them the right to use the P2P technology- while, only the users 
action may infringe the intellectual property of some authors and their legal 
beneficiaries, and while Free Software authors,by definition, are not able to 
prevent them from doing so.

In fine, this law is discriminatory. It unfairly burdens Free Software 
authors with an heavy legal insecurity. Some of them chose to go into exile, 
following the example of the Azureus peer-to-peer project manager, who 
migrated to the United States, a country which, like many other 
countries,facing the numerous perversions this law causes, increasingly 
discards the mirage of DRM.
A revision of the DADVSI law is unavoidable.

4- So called "Trusted Computing"

in addition to the claims made on behalf of proprietary rights, which do not 
exist in European Law, or on the deceptive pretext of fighting counterfeit, 
exaggerated claims, made on behalf of software security, grow in number in 
order to try to justify the implementation of new obstacles to fair 
competition.

Some dominant actors like Microsoft try to restrict interoperability with 
their software only to "certified software" complying with their own 
criteria. They oblige to take very expensive certification tests  which, de 
facto, excludes the voluntary authors and the SME. The outcome of such an 
approach is the so called "Trusted Computing" which, in fact, uses technical 
means to prevent  non certified software to  implement interoperability, that 
is to say communication between two independent programs. Such practices and 
mechanisms have to be rejected.

And as explained in a report on the security of information systems by the 
French member of parliament Pierre Lasbordes in 2005, "l'émergence de cette 
informatique de confiance conduirait un nombre très limité de sociétés à 
imposer leur modèle de sécurité à la planète, en autorisant ou non, par 
la délivrance de certificats numériques, des applications à s'exécuter 
sur des PC donnés." (in English: "the emergence of this trusted computing 
would lead to a very limited number of companies imposing their security 
model to the whole world, by allowing or not, by means of the delivery of 
digital certificates, applications to run on given PCs only."); that brings, 
in addition to the risks for privacy and national security, fair competition 
obvious issues.

Note 1: DGCCRF: Direction générale de la consommation, de la concurrence et 
de la répression des fraudes (in English: General Direction of Consumption, 
Competition and Treachery Suppression)

Free Software: the threats

1- Software patents

In France, as in Europe, software is not patentable because it is regarded as 
belonging to methods and algorithms – in the same way mathematics are.

And yet, for several years, big companies have been pushing the idea of 
patent, pretending it would foster innovation. In fact, the effect is the 
opposite: the innovation cycle in software being very short, forbidding 
access to a method, a software patent impedes innovation instead of 
stimulating it.

Contrarily to the French copyright ["droit d'auteur"] (which today protects 
software creation), software patents are discriminatory against (free or 
proprietary) software publishing SME which cannot afford to finance 
anteriority researches and disputes in order to protect their software, but 
also to commercialize it without risk. The principle of patent is 
intrinsically incompatible with Free Software. It implies significant 
implementation costs and utilization restrictions. If it were introduced in 
Europe, it would sharply slow down the Free Software development and 
utilization.

We must oppose what is merely a Trojan Horse for a bunch of big publishers, 
mainly outside of Europe, which will be the only ones, along with specialized 
lawyers, to benefit from the legal insecurity it creates.

2- Bundled sales

At the moment, free access to the market doesn't actually apply to Free 
Software. With regards to the consumer market, Free Software faces coalitions 
between software publishers and hardware vendors, despite the fact that their 
behavior is punished by the French Consumption Legislation ["Code de la 
consommation"] and despite the  negotiations led by the DGCCRF (note 1) to 
end this situation.

There is also discrimination regarding the access to public orders and to 
public services and more generally to public data. This discrimination is the 
consequence of the data formats in use: public authorities and public 
services do not  always choose  open formats which can be implemented by any 
programs. Now, as a consequence of closed format choices, access to documents 
is restricted to users of proprietary software capable of reading them. For 
example, calls for tenders by administrations, made using closed formats, can 
prevent Free Software users from accessing public orders. In a similar way, 
the format chosen by some public services to diffuse their content makes 
access by Free Software users impossible (e.g. Radio France, France 
Television). The problem is the same with public information (geographic 
maps, official documents...).

As an answer to many Internet users' request, this year, the French 
Parliament decided to broadcast its live session ["La séance en direct"], in 
an open format, in order to guaranty to all an equal access to the French 
Parliament's debate. Such initiatives must be encouraged. That is in fact the 
purpose of the "General Reference Book on Interoperability" ["Référentiel 
Général d'Interopérabilité"], announced long before, and that will be 
implemented during the next legislature's five year term.

3- DADVSI

The French "law on authors' rights and related rights in the Information 
Society" ["Loi sur les Droits d'auteur et Droits Voisins dans la Société de 
l'Information"] voted last year, gave birth, on behalf of fight against 
counterfeit, to excessive extensions of copyright. This law has introduced in 
our legislation clauses which undermine the neutrality of technology, that is 
the principle according to which technology in itself is neither good nor 
bad: only the utilization one makes of it can be acceptable or reprehensible.

Through the fallacious argument that the users of a free program could modify 
it in order to make illegal copies, this law denies access to Free Software 
authors to the market of the multimedia readers intended to read protected 
works. As a consequence, the discrimination the Free Software developers and 
users have to face, increases.

Concretely, the DRM ("Digital Restrictions Management") make legally very 
hazardous the elaboration of independent and open source software, capable of 
reading a protected movie or a musical work. Free Software users are de facto 
prevented from accessing the on-line music selling platforms whenever musical 
works are protected by DRM.

Moreover, the clauses referred to as "Vivendi clauses", which accuse the 
peer-to-peer platforms not containing DRM, arguing that they are, among other 
uses, used to exchange works without permission, represents also a serious 
issue to Free  Software. It is an attempt to censor Free Software authors - 
to deny them the right to use the P2P technology- while only the users' 
action may infringe the intellectual property of some authors and their legal 
beneficiaries, and while Free Software authors,by definition, are not able to 
prevent them from doing so.

In fine, this law is discriminatory. It unfairly burdens Free Software 
authors with an heavy legal insecurity. Some of them chose to go into exile, 
following the example of the Azureus peer-to-peer project manager, who 
migrated to the United States, a country which, like many other countries 
facing the numerous perversions this law causes, increasingly discards the 
mirage of DRM.
A revision of the DADVSI law is unavoidable.

4- So called "Trusted Computing"

In addition to the claims made on behalf of proprietary rights, which do not 
exist in European Law, or on the deceptive pretext of fighting counterfeit, 
exaggerated claims, made on behalf of software security, grow in number in 
order to try to justify the implementation of new obstacles to fair 
competition.

Some dominant players like Microsoft try to restrict interoperability with 
their software only to "certified software" complying with their own 
criteria. They force to take very expensive certification tests  which, de 
facto, excludes the voluntary authors and the SME. The outcome of such an 
approach is the so called "Trusted Computing" which, in fact, uses technical 
means to prevent non certified software to implement interoperability, that 
is to say communication between two independent programs. Such practices and 
mechanisms have to be rejected.

And as explained in 2005 in a report on the security of information systems 
by the French member of parliament Pierre Lasbordes, "the emergence of this 
trusted computing would lead to a very limited number of companies imposing 
their security model to the whole world, by allowing or not applications to 
run only on given PCs, through the delivery of digital certificates." (note 
2); that brings, in addition to the risks for privacy and national security, 
obvious issues regarding fair competition.


Note 1: DGCCRF: branch of the French government dealing with Consumption, 
Competition and Treachery Suppression ["Direction générale de la 
consommation, de la concurrence et de la répression des fraudes"]

Note 2: "L'émergence de cette informatique de confiance conduirait un nombre 
très limité de sociétés à imposer leur modèle de sécurité à la 
planète, en autorisant ou non, par la délivrance de certificats 
numériques, des applications à s'exécuter sur des PC donnés."