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

[José FOURNIER <jaa.f AT cegetel.net>]

Bonjour Marc,

Merci pour ta relecture attentive et tes corrections qui améliorent 
grandement le style. Je ne vois rien à redire sur celles-ci sauf 
peut-être sur le terme "Parliament" que je crois vouloir dire l'ensemble 
des chambres (mais je ne suis pas sûr de moi)
Tu peux donc retenir ton dernier texte .

Cordialement.

Bonne journée.

José



Marc Chauvet wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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