Hello,
Free Software Association -- Bulgaria' list members, can you comment on the following? As reported, the draft law would seem to discard all non copyleft Free Software, or is this a translation/miscommunication issue?
It would be ideal if the definition of Free Software described in the draft (and final) law corresponds to FSF's.
Hugs, Rui
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: EDRI-gram newsletter edrigram@edri.org To: edri-news@edri.org Subject: EDRI-gram - Number 6, 9 April 2003 Date: 09 Apr 2003 19:32:55 +0200
==================================================================
EDRI-gram
bi-weekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe
Number 6, 9 April 2003
================================================================== Contents ==================================================================
2. Draft law promotes free software in Bulgaria
================================================================== 2. DRAFT LAW PROMOTES FREE SOFTWARE IN BULGARIA ==================================================================
A draft law, currently discussed in parliament in Bulgaria, will oblige all governmental institutions to use free software and open formats with their computer information systems within 2 years. The law addresses all state bodies, mayors of municipalities and regions, higher schools, medical establishments, non-profit legal entities as well as other bodies and entities that receive governmental funding. A permit of exception from this obligation can only be procured on a case-by-case basis, if no free software is available for a specific purpose.
In the Bulgarian definition, free software must allow for:
- Unlimited use of the software for all purposes; - Unlimited access to the source code; - Comprehensive check of its mechanisms of operation; - Use of internal mechanisms and of any arbitrary part of it, so that it can be adapted to the needs of the user; - Production and public distribution of its copies; - Modification and free distribution of changes as well as of the newly designed software under the same conditions as those of the original.
If adopted, the law would bring about a remarkable change of policy. Only a year ago, Minister of the State Administration Dimitar Kalchev triumphantly announced a new contract with Microsoft for the provision of software to the state administration. In total, in 3 years Bulgaria would have to pay USD 8,400,000 (EUR 7,862,245) to Microsoft.
Press release 'The contract with Microsoft is one of the most advantageous contracts sealed in the country' (14.06.2002) http://www.government.bg/English/Priorities/Administration/2002-06-14/671.ht...
A copy of the draft law is available through Veni Markovski veni@veni.com.
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
Free Software Association -- Bulgaria' list members, can you comment on the following? As reported, the draft law would seem to discard all non copyleft Free Software, or is this a translation/miscommunication issue?
Are you referring to this?
In the Bulgarian definition, free software must allow for:
[...]
- Modification and free distribution of changes as well as of the newly
designed software under the same conditions as those of the original.
Also BSD licensed software, e.g., *allows* for distribution of changes under the same conditions. It doesn't require it, so it also allows for distribution under other conditions, but I don't see that this would be forbidden.
IANAL, of course.
Frank
The fact that there could be translation issues and that I don't know what the contents of the draft proposal are is why I was asking for some comments...
'must allow' could mean that if it allows for redistribution it must be in the same conditions.
Rui
On Wed, 2003-04-09 at 19:22, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
Free Software Association -- Bulgaria' list members, can you comment on the following? As reported, the draft law would seem to discard all non copyleft Free Software, or is this a translation/miscommunication issue?
Are you referring to this?
In the Bulgarian definition, free software must allow for:
[...]
- Modification and free distribution of changes as well as of the newly
designed software under the same conditions as those of the original.
Also BSD licensed software, e.g., *allows* for distribution of changes under the same conditions. It doesn't require it, so it also allows for distribution under other conditions, but I don't see that this would be forbidden.
IANAL, of course.
Frank
On 9.IV.2003 at 19:07 Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
Hello,
Free Software Association -- Bulgaria' list members, can you comment on the following? As reported, the draft law would seem to discard all non copyleft Free Software, or is this a translation/miscommunication issue?
It would be ideal if the definition of Free Software described in the draft (and final) law corresponds to FSF's.
[...]
In the Bulgarian definition, free software must allow for:
- Unlimited use of the software for all purposes;
- Unlimited access to the source code;
- Comprehensive check of its mechanisms of operation;
- Use of internal mechanisms and of any arbitrary part of it, so that it
can be adapted to the needs of the user;
- Production and public distribution of its copies;
- Modification and free distribution of changes as well as of the newly
designed software under the same conditions as those of the original.
The translated text of the law is:
4. "Free software" (Free computer program) is a software, whose use license provides the user the following possibilities excluding additional costs: 4.1. Unlimited use of the software for all purposes. 4.2. Unlimited access to the source code. 4.3. Comprehensive check of its mechanisms of operation. 4.4. Use of internal mechanisms and of any arbitrary part of it, so that it can be adapted to the needs of the user. . 4.5. Production and public distribution of its copies 4.6. Modification and free distribution of changes as well as of the newly designed software under the same conditions as those of the original.
So actualy there is no phrase "must allow for", but only a definition.
Anton Zinoviev
Hi,
4.6. Modification and free distribution of changes as well as of the newly designed software under the same conditions as those of the original.
Then, it seems your are effectively restricting the Free Software definition to Copyleft Free Software (not bad per se, but it would exclude a lot of Free Software, which is bad!).
I'm not trying to be a PITA, I'm just playing a little of the devil's advocate part... How about if 4.6 is simply changed to:
4.6. Modification and free distribution of changes.
I think that with this simpler phrase it becomes compatible with the Free Software definition, which would be the ideal 4 items instead of longer 6, but I understand that in this draft law it is divided into smaller items.
Hugs, Rui
On Thu, 2003-04-10 at 11:24, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
On 9.IV.2003 at 19:07 Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
Hello,
Free Software Association -- Bulgaria' list members, can you comment on the following? As reported, the draft law would seem to discard all non copyleft Free Software, or is this a translation/miscommunication issue?
It would be ideal if the definition of Free Software described in the draft (and final) law corresponds to FSF's.
[...]
In the Bulgarian definition, free software must allow for:
- Unlimited use of the software for all purposes;
- Unlimited access to the source code;
- Comprehensive check of its mechanisms of operation;
- Use of internal mechanisms and of any arbitrary part of it, so that it
can be adapted to the needs of the user;
- Production and public distribution of its copies;
- Modification and free distribution of changes as well as of the newly
designed software under the same conditions as those of the original.
The translated text of the law is:
- "Free software" (Free computer program) is a software, whose use license provides the user the following possibilities excluding additional costs:
4.1. Unlimited use of the software for all purposes. 4.2. Unlimited access to the source code. 4.3. Comprehensive check of its mechanisms of operation. 4.4. Use of internal mechanisms and of any arbitrary part of it, so that it can be adapted to the needs of the user. . 4.5. Production and public distribution of its copies 4.6. Modification and free distribution of changes as well as of the newly designed software under the same conditions as those of the original.
So actualy there is no phrase "must allow for", but only a definition.
Anton Zinoviev
Rui Miguel Seabra rms@1407.org wrote:
4.6. Modification and free distribution of changes as well as of the newly designed software under the same conditions as those of the original.
Then, it seems your are effectively restricting the Free Software definition to Copyleft Free Software (not bad per se, but it would exclude a lot of Free Software, which is bad!).
No. The lead-in (that you snipped) says "provides the user the following possibilities" which other free software does, although it might not require it. If it's an accurate translation, then surely all free software is allowed. Why they reinvented the wheel, I don't know. Maybe local laws?
MJR
On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 19:54, MJ Ray wrote:
Rui Miguel Seabra rms@1407.org wrote:
4.6. Modification and free distribution of changes as well as of the newly designed software under the same conditions as those of the original.
Then, it seems your are effectively restricting the Free Software definition to Copyleft Free Software (not bad per se, but it would exclude a lot of Free Software, which is bad!).
No. The lead-in (that you snipped)
That was by accident, I intended to put it in adjacent to 4.6! :|
says "provides the user the following possibilities" which other free software does, although it might not require it. If it's an accurate translation, then surely all free software is allowed. Why they reinvented the wheel, I don't know. Maybe local laws?
I think I have misinterpreted it, my bad.
Rui
On 11.IV.2003 at 19:54 MJ Ray wrote:
Why they reinvented the wheel, I don't know. Maybe local laws?
It was less than reinventing:
4.1. Unlimited use of the software for all purposes.
This is the basic freedom 0.
4.2. Unlimited access to the source code.
This is a precondition of some of the basic freedoms, but in a law it seemed more appropriately this to be said explicitly.
4.3. Comprehensive check of its mechanisms of operation. 4.4. Use of internal mechanisms and of any arbitrary part of it, so that it can be adapted to the needs of the user.
These are the basic freedom 1.
4.5. Production and public distribution of its copies
This is basic freedom 2.
4.6. Modification and free distribution of changes as well as of the newly designed software under the same conditions as those of the original.
And this is basic freedom 3.
We tried to make a representation of the four basic freedoms as described at http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html that is suitable for a law. If you have a better one, that would be nice. :)
Anton Zinoviev
On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 15:47, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
We tried to make a representation of the four basic freedoms as described at http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html that is suitable for a law. If you have a better one, that would be nice. :)
In Portugal, we suggested (and it was accepted by the proposing party):
Article 3rd (Free Software)
It is considered Free Software that which has a license of usage that assures it's user, without adicional costs, the possibility to run the program for any purpose redistribute copies; study how it works and adapt it to the user's needs; and change it and publish those changes; being a requisite for these faculties the access to the source code.
Rui
In Portugal, we suggested (and it was accepted by the proposing party):
It is considered Free Software that which has a license of usage that assures it's user, without adicional costs, ....
I think "without additional condition" could have been a better wording than "without additional cost", to prevent sw vendors to make users "register at no cost" as a condition to have freedom.
Nevertheless, it is very nice to have presented such a text at official political level.
Regards
-- Guillaume Ponce http://www.guillaumeponce.org/
On Tue, 2003-04-15 at 07:25, Guillaume Ponce wrote:
In Portugal, we suggested (and it was accepted by the proposing party):
It is considered Free Software that which has a license of usage that assures it's user, without adicional costs, ....
I think "without additional condition" could have been a better wording than "without additional cost", to prevent sw vendors to make users "register at no cost" as a condition to have freedom.
Indeed. However, we where approached at a pre-release of the draft law. The 'additional cost' is from them and it was intended to avoid someone charging more money for freedoms the software should give right away (but I agree with the additional condition part), but we managed to change it into the direct and explicit definition of Free Software.
Rui
On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 15:47, Anton Zinoviev wrote:
We tried to make a representation of the four basic freedoms as described at http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html that is suitable for a law. If you have a better one, that would be nice. :)
In Portugal, we suggested (and it was accepted by the proposing party):
Article 3rd (Free Software)
It is considered Free Software that which has a license of usage that assures it's user, without adicional costs, the possibility to run the program for any purpose redistribute copies; study how it works and adapt it to the user's needs; and change it and publish those changes; being a requisite for these faculties the access to the source code.
Rui
Anton Zinoviev anton@lml.bas.bg wrote:
described at http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html that is suitable for a law. If you have a better one, that would be nice. :)
As I guessed, the rewording was caused by your local law situation. I hope you got it right and wish you all the best.