Re: Fwd: proposition relative aux logiciels libres (II) (fwd)

[Alessandro Rubini]

> FYI (sorry in French)

Thanks. I can mostly understand written French but can't write it
myself.


In Italy we are discussing a proposal in the same lines, so I'm
summarizing here what we came up with. Sorry if I'm not completely
on-target with the comments, but language problems (and some
disinformation on my side) apply.

> 1. Est-ce que ce texte n'entre pas en conflit avec la directive 
> européenne sur la libre concurrence ?

Actually, it depends on the language used. If the law makes technical
requirements (not political ones), then there's no problem with free
competition.  A law may require that public offices prefer software
products with such-and-such features, and everyone can participate in
the poll. Sure some software companies are not used to offer such
features (allowing copy and modification), but this isn't relevant.

Obviously, public offices can still choose closed products, but the
law may require the officer in charge to support the choice with a
well-documented explanation of why the free alternatives aren't
considered suitable.

> Comme tu le disais, ne serait-il pas 
> plus correct de l'orienter vers les interfaces et formats ouverts ?

This is a different issue, although definitely one easier to push for.
Actually, the Italian proposal will probably go in that direction as
well.  To be fair, we already have a "directive" about using
accessible formats in public web sites, signed by a public
institution, but it's mostly disattended.  Obviously, the same can
happen with the new law, especially in Italy (where you have so many
laws and so inconsistent ones that you really *can't* adhere to all,
so people is used to break laws as soon as they make some real
action).  [This is my personal opinion, but I stand by it and can
support it with real data if needed]

> 2. On fait un descriptif simple du logiciel Libre mais certaines licences 
> qui semblent libres tombent aussi dans cette définition. Ne serait-il pas 
> simple de faire une liste des licences ?

We chose *not* to name licenses, we rather try to define the technical
requirements of such software. While this may fail (as companies can
find ways around this definition), at least it doesn't mark the text
as "pro-gnu and thus against-microsoft".  Let companies choose their
own licenses, as long as they fit the requirements.

Even if they work around the definition, it still would be better than
nothing (and having such text approved is not as unlikely as a text
that explicitly talks gnu and gpl and bsd).

If companies work around the definition and draft semi-free licenses
that still meet the requirement, well... better have semi-free stuff
in public offices than completely-proprietary ones.  I personally
think the most important step in our movement is breaking the general
idea that there is no other way than completely proprietary ("so the
poor programmer can feed his family").

Once the barrier is broken, people will know that there's a variety of
possible licenses, and learns to check what license accompanies each
product.  At that point Free Software won't look a disruptive
movement, but just one of the normal ways to distribute software. When
this happens, the various licesenses will compete on the same level.

> 3. Est-ce que dans le processus démocratique Belge, il ne serait plus 
> facile de faire passer au niveau fédéral (sans commencer une guerre de 
> région) ?

I don't know. It mainly depends on who is interested in this kind of
topic. I'd invest energies both at national and EU level.  We are
doing it in Italy because there's people interested to work on this at
our political level.  The EU is moving towards Free Software (see the
IST programme) but at a different speed (and with a better overall
quality of analysis than we can ever hope on a national level --
again, I speak for my own country, which is a real disaster).

Please forgive the length, hope is helps at least a little.

/alessandro