What's up with the French Goverment wanting to Ban Free Software?

[feedback]

Like the thread title says what is up with the French Government wanting to ban free software? (The link is available on the News page here at doom9 or right Here. (http://www.fsffrance.org/news/article2005-11-25.en.html) ).
What is wrong with free?

I also read that the French are about to pass the DADVSI which could effectively ban VSO products among many others. (See Doom9 News).

Regards,:)

[Doobie]

The way the west is going, I might one day move to Russia to be free.

[Sirber]

*cough* Québec *cough* ;)

[Shinigami-Sama]

*cough* Québec *cough* ;)
before or after you seperate from the rest of us Canadians? ;)
no offense, I'm just playing


anyways, this just goes to show us that once a certain ammount of ignorance sets in domoracy turns back into aristoractic, the rich get what they wants and poor get the shaft,

anyways, I have some friends living out in the wine lands, guess I'll hafta throw him a line

[Sirber]

before or after you seperate from the rest of us Canadians? ;)
no offense, I'm just playingNo problem, but I'm Québécois before being a Canadian ;)

[adam]

What is wrong with free?



Its not so much free software they want to eliminate, its open source software. The DADVSI is going to impose all kinds of restrictions on publishers of software. They want each piece of software to be linked to its author/publisher so that they can force them to abide by the DADVSI. They are afraid that if open source software, like a P2P program for example, is distributed and modified freely, that there will be no one to go after to force them to include the mandatory DRM and such as required by the DADVSI. The software will effectively be above the law. So they want to outright ban open source software so that the act of distributing it is a violation in and of itself. I'm not positive, and I'm not even sure its been decided yet or not, but I'm pretty sure that the ban will only apply to software capable of distributing content such as P2P, FTP, IRC, etc... The idea is to crack down on online havens for copyright infringement.

In my opinion its like opening a door with a bazooka.

[Sirber]

How much French p2p opensource projects are there anyway, in France?

[virus]

The DADVSI is going to impose all kinds of restrictions on publishers of software. They want each piece of software to be linked to its author/publisher so that they can force them to abide by the DADVSI. ... So they want to outright ban open source software so that the act of distributing it is a violation in and of itself.
I think "linking a piece of software to its author" and "banning (the distribution of) open source software" aren't necessarily equivalent. Most GPL'ed code I've seen has copyright holders, yet not necessarily the copyright holders are still working on and/or actively distributing the code.

I wonder how you can force the author to modify his code after he has released it in the past under a well-formed, legal license; or force the author to stop the distribution of the "non-compliant" (LOL) code itself, when its sources are spread in hundreds of machines all over the world, which the author himself cannot absolutely control. Are they going to retroactively state that all open sourced code released in the past was breaking the law, and that all the previous legislation on software licenses was just a joke we shouldn't have paid attention to?

Speaking of our domain, both XviD and x264 (and almost surely VLC, too) have French guys officially recognized as authors in their license headers, and all of these programs can be used to produce content. That potentially makes them a target for some of the powers behind that DADVSI crap (you know, the "if you have a computer, you're stealing our money" guys). What consequences can you foresee for them?

On a more general note, the term "open source" includes a very broad range of licenses, including the BSD-style licenses, and that code is effectively used in a lot of commercial applications due to its non-restrictive distribution policy. Are they really claiming that a lot of software/hardware-making companies are now outlawed in France? Sounds funny at the very least.

[adam]

I think "linking a piece of software to its author" and "banning (the distribution of) open source software" aren't necessarily equivalent.

Like I said, its like opening a door with a bazooka. Nevertheless it appears that this is the exact purpose of this bill. They want to crack down on software that becomes an online haven for copyright infringement. Software that takes on a life of its own, where there is no person to force to include the mandatory DRM required by the DADVSI. I think the main thing they want is to simply force developers to stop releasing the source code along with their software, because as long as the source is available to all, there is no way to prevent the distribution of clean versions (DRM removed.)

I wonder how you can force the author to modify his code after he has released it in the past under a well-formed, legal license; or force the author to stop the distribution of the "non-compliant" (LOL) code itself, when its sources are spread in hundreds of machines all over the world, which the author himself cannot absolutely control.

Well I can anticipate enforcement problems right and left but that is exactly what the bill proposes. The direct quote from its proponent was that software developers will need to update their licenses when this passes. As bizarre and pointless as this law is, forcing entities to update software licenses to accommodate new law is common practice in most countries.

As for what to do with the banned releases (software + its source code) that have spread across the internet, its no longer the author's responsibility. The bill makes the distribution unlawful, therefore it is the obligation of the person hosting that software to remove it or face prosecution.

Are they going to retroactively state that all open sourced code released in the past was breaking the law.

I don't see anything in the bill that would make this law retroactive, and indeed few retroactive laws are ever passed anywhere. They are just too problematic. But I understand your point, its quite a departure from what these software developers and users are accustomed to.

On a more general note, the term "open source" includes a very broad range of licenses, including the BSD-style licenses, and that code is effectively used in a lot of commercial applications due to its non-restrictive distribution policy. Are they really claiming that a lot of software/hardware-making companies are now outlawed in France? Sounds funny at the very least.

I think the exact nature of the license is immaterial, the bill will just preclude developers from releasing the source code along with their work. The bill wouldn't outlaw companies that did this in the past, it just forces them to stop the practice in future and current distributions.

BTW: I'm not supporting this silly French Bill in any way, just trying to get a better understanding of it myself.

[virus]

I think the main thing they want is to simply force developers to stop releasing the source code along with their software, because as long as the source is available to all, there is no way to prevent the distribution of clean versions (DRM removed.)
Well, from the free software movement point of view, this sounds more like using an A-bomb to open that door. The implications of all that may be a disaster.

What mainly concerns me is the definition of the scope for this law. To what kind of code are they going to apply the bill to? I recall many failures and debates over the way the scope and the meaning of a law are defined in the bill text itself. A famous example is, I think, the US 8th Amendment that forbids "cruel and unusual punishments" and the way its principles fit with current death penalty application (but IANAL so I may recall things wrong here).

Much in the same way, if the bill doesn't really focuses on some kind of software - as you said, it may be limited to software used for "distribution of content" - and instead employs a rather generic definition, it may be hard to find what software really falls within the law's boundaries, and that would open the door to any kind of C&D practices even for a lot of projects which aren't really touched by the bill as it is (ill-)conceived. (hope my english is good enough to let you get my point :))

The direct quote from its proponent was that software developers will need to update their licenses when this passes. As bizarre and pointless as this law is, forcing entities to update software licenses to accommodate new law is common practice in most countries.
I see what you mean. But an "update" to the GPL that fits that law would destroy the GPL's main point, and thus render the whole license completely unusable and meaningless. There's really no way out.

The bill makes the distribution unlawful, therefore it is the obligation of the person hosting that software to remove it or face prosecution.
This will force relocation outside France for many projects I guess. VLC springs to mind. And x264 whose SVN repository is hosted on videolan.org. Not really a problem as far as accessing a new server is possible, but what will happen to French OS developers? Will they still be able to contribute to a project which is hosted outside their country?

I think the exact nature of the license is immaterial, the bill will just preclude developers from releasing the source code along with their work. The bill wouldn't outlaw companies that did this in the past, it just forces them to stop the practice in future and current distributions.
This is a major problem however, since either you stop distribute (or link to) open-source code embedded into commercial projects, violating the code's license, or you just pretend that the software you're using into your project updates the license (which may not be the case), or you write an own replacement for it. In all cases there are practical problems that may arise for the firm involved. Usage of open source software in commercial applications has been growing for years, and such a ban would have, I fear, worldwide consequences if it happens to spread outside France.

BTW: I'm not supporting this silly French Bill in any way, just trying to get a better understanding of it myself.
Me too :)
And so thanks a lot for sharing your findings with us :)

[iJump]

How about "commercial" software that releases its sourcecode along with its executable?

Also, is there any stipulation on how much software would have to be sold for?

When I was a teenager, I bought a couple of cars from friends for a penny each. Not sure why but there was a legal reason. Maybe we could have "penny" software. Paypal would probably charge a few extra cents on top. But I guess that would still create trails of author/owners.

This law seems so ridiculous to work, especially if it's only france. Like some archaic law that no one pays attention to unless they want to bust you for something else. I feel sorry for the few individuals who will be chosen as the examples of the new law. But I think it's good(not great) to remember that they can only go after an infinitismal number and then hope that the rest get scared.

Let's hope that this proposal is not another global trend.

[adam]

Regarding the scope of this bill, it is not a standalone piece of legislation. It is a proposed amendment to the existing DADVSI bill. What it does is say that when you violate the DADVSI, essentially by not incorporating certain mechanisms into your software like DRM, you can also be charged with criminal counterfeiting if your software falls into that free/open source category and also has the capability to allow public access to copyrighted works (ie: P2P, FTP, etc...) The DADVSI bill is pretty thorough so there is alot of language describing what it does and does not apply to but if I had to describe the scope of this bill I'd say its BIG, too BIG.

@virus. Yes GPL would be an unlawful license in and of itself under this bill, but of course only if used with covered software, (ie: FTP, P2P, etc..)

As for how Frenchman or projects with Frenchman input can get around this legislation, I guess it would depend on how strictly they enforce it. Generally, whether your online actions occur "in France" requires an actual counting and comparing of the number of servers hosting files, their locations, and their relative importance to the distribution. But since this bill proposes penal sanctions, I really think it is aimed at French citizens specifically so my guess would be that a French citizen living in France would be covered regardless of where they dumped their sources.

@iJump, I think you mean "franc" software :)

As for the fear that this becomes a global trend, I can say that at least in the US its probably not too much of a concern. This French bill is actually based almost entirely on a proposed US bill that was pretty definitely shot down. I'd like to think that a bill like this would be impossible to pass anywhere. I'm still kinda doubting that this bill will pass. Its just too sweeping.