Delete un and policy folders (#1531)
continuous-integration/drone/push Build is passing Details

Co-authored-by: max.mehl <max.mehl@fsfe.org>
Reviewed-on: #1531
This commit is contained in:
Max Mehl 2020-07-29 18:19:06 +02:00
parent 56adc96207
commit 0953fd2e13
249 changed files with 260 additions and 9041 deletions

View File

@ -148,7 +148,9 @@ RewriteRule ^activities/os(.*) /freesoftware/standards$1 [R=301,L]
RewriteRule ^activities/procurement(.*) /freesoftware/procurement$1 [R=301,L]
# deleted activities
RewriteRule ^(activities/)?nocloud(/.*)? /activities/activities.html [R=301,L]
RewriteRule ^(activities/)?theydontwantyouto(/.*)? /activities/activities.html [R=301,L]
RewriteRule ^activities/policy/.* /activities/policy.html [R=301,L]
RewriteRule ^activities/theydontwantyouto(/.*)? /activities/activities.html [R=301,L]
RewriteRule ^activities/un(/.*)? /activities/policy.html [R=301,L]
# Norwegian language: Bokmal language code
RewriteRule ^(.*)\.no.html /$1.nb.html [R=301,L]

View File

@ -68,8 +68,8 @@ to 2015.
<li>Input
to the European Commission: <a
href="/activities/policy/eu/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy.en.html"> Considerations on Updating the
European Commission's Open Source Strategy</a>. [<a href="/activities/policy/eu/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy-input.pdf">pdf</a>]</li>
href="https://download.fsfe.org/policy/letters/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy-input.pdf"> Considerations on Updating the
European Commission's Open Source Strategy</a>. [<a href="https://download.fsfe.org/policy/letters/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy-input.pdf">pdf</a>]</li>
<li>Public Procurement: Free Software's Wild Frontier. In: Shane Coughlan
(ed.): Thoughts on Open Innovation. Essays on Open Innovation from

View File

@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ tot 2015.
href="http://irights.info/artikel/neu-und-doch-nur-mittelmass-die-open-source-strategie-der-eu-kommission/25302">Nieuw en toch slechts middelmatig: De 'open bron'-strategie van de Europese Commissie</a>. irights.info, 4 mei 2015.</li>
<li>Input voor de Europese Commissie: <a
href="/activities/policy/eu/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy.en.html">Overwegingen aangaande het bijwerken van de open bron-strategie van de Europese Commissie</a>. [<a href="/activities/policy/eu/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy-input.pdf">pdf</a>]</li>
href="https://download.fsfe.org/policy/letters/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy-input.pdf">Overwegingen aangaande het bijwerken van de open bron-strategie van de Europese Commissie</a>. [<a href="https://download.fsfe.org/policy/letters/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy-input.pdf">pdf</a>]</li>
<li>Publieke inkoop: De wilde grens van Vrije Software. In: Shane Coughlan
(ed.): Gedachten over open innovatie. Essays over open innovatie van leidende denkers in het veld. OpenForumAcademy, 2013. Beschikbaar als

View File

@ -33,8 +33,8 @@
Ο Hugo δραστηριοποιείται με το FSFE από τον Σεπτέμβριο του 2009
όταν ήταν βοηθός του Προέδρου
<a href="/about/people/gerloff/">Karsten Gerloff</a> σε ζητήματα πολιτικής
σε <a href="/activities/policy/eu/">Ευρωπαϊκό</a>επίπεδο και σε επίπεδο
<a href="/activities/un/">Ηνωμένων Εθνών</a>. Τώρα ασχολείται
σε <a href="/activities/policy.html">Ευρωπαϊκό</a>επίπεδο και σε επίπεδο
<a href="/activities/policy.html">Ηνωμένων Εθνών</a>. Τώρα ασχολείται
με την <a href="/activities/ftf/ftf.html">Ομάδα Εργασίας Ελευθερίας</a>
και συντονίζει την εργασία του FSFE στη Γαλλία. Σπουδάζει
<a href="http://master.sciences-po.fr/droit/en/content/master-economic-law">Νομικά για την Οικονομία</a>

View File

@ -26,8 +26,8 @@
“I have been working towards computing freedoms within FSFE since 2009.
First as an <a href="/contribute/internship.html">intern</a> when I worked
with <a href="/about/people/gerloff">Karsten Gerloff</a> on policy
issues at the <a href="/activities/policy/eu/">European</a> and <a
href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> level.</p>
issues at the <a href="/activities/policy.html">European</a> and <a
href="/activities/policy.html">United Nations</a> level.</p>
<p>
By joining <a href="/activities/ftf/ftf.html">FSFE's legal task force</a>,

View File

@ -26,8 +26,8 @@
« Depuis 2009, j'œuvre pour les libertés informatiques au sein de la FSFE.
Comme <a href="/contribute/internship.html">stagiaire</a> d'abord, j'ai
travaillé avec <a href="/about/people/gerloff/">Karsten Gerloff</a>, sur les
sujets politiques au <a href="/activities/policy/eu/">niveau européen</a>
et des <a href="/activities/un/">nations unies</a>.
sujets politiques au <a href="/activities/policy.html">niveau européen</a>
et des <a href="/activities/policy.html">nations unies</a>.
</p>
<p>

View File

@ -24,8 +24,8 @@
<p style="text-indent: -0.35em">
“Ik heb sinds 2009 binnen FSFE voor computervrijheden gewerkt.
Eerst als <a href="/contribute/internship.html">stagiair</a>, toen ik met <a href="/about/people/gerloff">Karsten Gerloff</a> werkte aan beleidsonderwerpen op <a href="/activities/policy/eu/">Europees</a> en <a
href="/activities/un/">Verenigde Naties</a>-niveau.</p>
Eerst als <a href="/contribute/internship.html">stagiair</a>, toen ik met <a href="/about/people/gerloff">Karsten Gerloff</a> werkte aan beleidsonderwerpen op <a href="/activities/policy.html">Europees</a> en <a
href="/activities/policy.html">Verenigde Naties</a>-niveau.</p>
<p>
Door mee te doen met <a href="/activities/ftf/ftf.html">FSFE's juridische taakgroep</a> draag ik bij aan het overbrengen van expertise naar de Vrije Software-gemeenschap.</p>

View File

@ -1,14 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<documentset>
<version>1</version>
<document type="ec" date="2007-12-19">
<title>Letter to European Competition Commission Neelie Kroes</title>
<description>
Letter by <a href="/about/people/greve/">Georg Greve</a> to European Competition Commissioner
Neelie Kroes in support of the Opera Software antitrust complaint, offering
</description>
<link>/documents/20071219-opera-antitrust.pdf</link>
</document>
</documentset>

View File

@ -1,183 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<author id="gerloff"/>
<author>Natalia Evdokimova</author>
<date>
<original content="2011-04-19"/>
</date>
<download type="PDF" content="/activities/policy/eu/20110418.ProcurementConsultation.FSFE.response.pdf"/>
<head>
<title>Contribution to the EC public consultation on the modernisation of EU public procurement policy</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Contribution to the EC public consultation on the modernisation of
EU public procurement policy</h1>
<p class="interview-question">Introduction</p>
<p>We appreciate the initiative taken by the European Commission to consult with the public on the
modernisation of European public procurement policy. Free Software Foundation Europe is an
independent, non­profit non­governmental organisation dedicated to the furthering of Free Software
and working for freedom in the digital society. </p>
<p>We are limiting our response to a selected number of questions which bear on the areas of Free
Software and Open Standards.</p>
<p class="interview-question">19. Would you be in favour of allowing more negotiation in public procurement
procedures and/or generalizing the use of the negotiated procedure with prior
publication?</p>
<p>The Green Paper on new EU public procurement policy ("the GP") proposes that
contracting authorities <em>"should be allowed to negotiate the terms of the contract with
potential bidders. ... This could give contracting authorities more flexibility to obtain
procurement outcomes that really fit their needs"</em>. We want the EC be very careful when
allowing wider use of negotiated procedures.</p>
<p>We note that according to the Directive 2004/18/EC, negotiated procedures are to be used
only in exceptional circumstances. Articles 30 and 31 of the Directive 2004/18/EC provide
closed lists of exceptional cases when contracting authorities may use the negotiated
procedure with or without prior publication of contract notice, respectively. In any case,
usage of the negotiated procedure should be justified by special situation and should not be
used in a discriminatory manner. </p>
<p>According to the Recital 2 of the Directive 2004/18/EC, public procurement is subject to
the respect, among other principles, of the principle of equal treatment and the principle
of transparency. The awards of public contracts should guarantee the opening­up of public
procurement to competition. </p>
<p>We believe that the Member States and EU institutions should strictly follow the
fundamental principles of public procurement set in the currently effective Directive and
the Treaty of Lisbon in order to safeguard competition. In no case should negotiated
procedures enable the contracting authority to predetermine the outcome of the process.
So, while simplifying the procurement process for small and medium­size enterprises
(SMEs), the EC should establish additional safeguards to guarantee the openness of public
procurement procedures to the broadest possible set of competent bidders.</p>
<p class="interview-question">39. Should the public procurement Directives regulate the issue of substantial
modifications of a contract while it is still in force? If so, what elements of
clarification would you propose?</p>
<p>A lack of clarity exists as to how software upgrades should be handled in the procurement
process. EC procurement regulations should clarify that major software upgrades (e.g.
upgrades requiring reinstallation of the program in question) should be treated in the
same way as new purchases, and should be re­tendered. It should be made clear that
contracting authorities are obliged to treat software in a similar manner as physical goods,
where there is no doubt that purchases of a new version of the original product have to be
re­tendered.</p>
<p class="interview-question">60. In your view, can the attribution of exclusive rights jeopardise fair competition in
procurement markets?<br/>
61. If so, what instruments would you suggest in order to mitigate such risks / ensure fair
competition? Do you think that the EU procurement rules should allow the award of
contracts without procurement procedure on the basis of exclusive rights only on the
condition that the exclusive right in question has itself been awarded in a transparent,
competitive procedure?</p>
<p>The GP suggests to set up in new Directive a principle that <em>"it would be allowed to award
contracts without a competitive procedure on the basis of exclusive rights, only if these
exclusive rights have been subject to a competitive procedure"</em>.</p>
<p>In the area of software, an overwhelming share of public authorities remains locked into
proprietary systems and file formats. This lock­in endangeres fair competition in public
procurement: currently a significant number of tenders for computer software use
trademarks or specific brands to formulate technical and functional requirements. To avoid
such bad practices, the technical specifications drawn up by public purchasers need to
allow different bidders to participate with different products. The current Directive
directly prohibits technical specifications to create obstacles to the <em>“opening up of public
procurement to competition”</em> (Article 23).</p>
<p>We want the EC to clarify in the new Directive that calls for tenders should be based on
functional requirements, not on specific products or vendors. Public agencies should
always procure software only through a transparent, open procedure to foster competition
in software market and a diversity of tender participants.</p>
<p>Lock­in also plays a significant role in calculating the total cost of ownership (TCO) of a
software solution. Yet these costs are all too often not reflected in current procurement
practices and decisions. The new Directive should specify that when deciding on the
economic merits of a bid, the contracting authority must figure in the full costs of
transitioning out of the solution to be acquired to a new solution by a different vendor in
the future. These "exit costs" are composed of requirements like translating existing data
from proprietary file formats into formats based on Open Standards, and replacing or re­
developing helper applications. This is the only way to ensure that the bid which gets
selected is indeed the most economically advantageous over the lifetime of the purchased
product or service.</p>
<p class="interview-question">70. The criterion of the most economically advantageous tender seems to be best suited
for pursuing other policy objectives. Do you think that, in order to take best account
of such policy objectives, it would be useful to change the existing rules (for certain
types of contracts/ some specific sectors/ in certain circumstances):<br/>
70.1.1. to eliminate the criterion of the lowest price only;<br/>
70.1.2. to limit the use of the price criterion or the weight which contracting authorities
can give to the price;<br/>
70.1.3. to introduce a third possibility of award criteria in addition to the lowest price and
the economically most advantageous offer? If so, which alternative criterion would you
propose that would make it possible to both pursue other policy objectives more
effectively and guarantee a level playing field and fair competition between
European undertakings?</p>
<p>The GP encourages the use of public procurement in support of certain policy-­related
objectives, such as the environmental,social and innovation considerations.
Article 53 of the Directive states that the criteria on which the contracting authorities shall
base the award of public contracts shall be <em>"criteria linked to the subject­matter of the
public contract in question, for example, quality, price, technical merit, aesthetic and
functional characteristics, environmental characteristics"</em>, etc. Thus, contracting
authorities already are able to include environmental or social award criteria in the call for
tenders.</p>
<p>As innovation and technological development are also listed among considerations to be
prioritised, we propose to include in this list such criterion as <em>"the openness of technical
standards"</em>. The revised European Interoperability Framework defines as open
<em>"specifications, software and software development methods that promote collaboration
and the results of which can freely be accessed, reused and shared"</em>. It states that <em>"the
principle of openness is applied in full if (1) all stakeholders can contribute to the
elaboration of the specification and public review is organised; (2) the specification
document is freely available for everybody to study and to share with others; (3) the
specification can be implemented under the different software development approaches."</em></p>
<p>With a list of criteria arrived at through a dialog involving various key players in industry,
politics and community, FSFE has arrived at a <a href="/freesoftware/standards/def.en.html">definition of an Open Standard</a> as a format
or protocol that is
<ul><li>subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a manner equally
available to all parties;</li>
<li>without any components or extensions that have dependencies on formats or
protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open Standard themselves;</li>
<li>free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation by any party or in any
business model;</li>
<li>managed and further developed independently of any single vendor in a process
open to the equal participation of competitors and third parties;</li>
<li>available in multiple complete implementations by competing vendors, or as a
complete implementation equally available to all parties.</li></ul></p>
<p>In Lisbon 2007, Ministers of EU Member States agree that <em>"continuous attention
shall be given to the definition and openness of technical standards and publicly
available specifcations"</em> (Lisbon Ministerial Declaration, 19 September, 2007). The
Digital Agenda for Europe declares that the EU will support development of open
standards and platforms. The European Interoperability Framework v.2
recommends public administrations to favour "open specifications" while
establishing European Public Services. Moreover, existing judicial practice in EU
Member States allows the insertion of Open Standards requirements or preferences
in tender requirements. As the Italian Constitutional Court <a href="http://softwarelibero.it/Corte_Costituzionale_favorisce_softwarelibero_en">ruled</a>, <em>"the concepts of
Free Software and software whose code can be inspected do not refer to a
particular technology, brand or product, but they rather express a legal feature".</em></p>
<p>We believe that inclusion of <em>"the openness of technical standards"</em>, along with
environmental and social criteria, in the list of recommended award criteria would
allow public agencies to procure software based on open specifications more freely
and extensively. This would be an important and substantial step towards promoting
competition and technological development in the European software market.</p>
<p>We would further like to suggest that in the case where public bodies are contracting
software development services, there should be a standard policy of making the resulting
work available as Free Software. This could be formulated as follows: </p>
<p> <em>“The provider grants the contracting authority the right to use, study, share and
improve the resulting work(s) under the terms of a license that is either <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license­list.html">classified as
a Free Software license by the Free Software Foundation</a>, <a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical">approved by the Open
Source Initiative</a>, or both.”</em></p>
<p>Such software development is paid for out of public funds. Hence the resulting work
should be made available to the public for use and improvement. There is also a significant
potential for re­use of software within the European public sector, which is currently not
being exploited.
</p>
</body>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,144 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>FSFEs submission to the European Commission Public Consultation on Copyright</title>
</head>
<body class="article letter" microformats="h-entry">
<p id="category" class="p-category">
<a href="/activities/policy/eu/">European Union</a>
</p>
<h1 class="p-name">FSFEs submission to the European Commission Public Consultation on Copyright</h1>
<div class="e-content">
<p>
To:<br />Internal Market and Services DG,<br />
Unit D1  Copyright
</p>
<p>Dear Sir, Madam,</p>
<p>we are grateful for the opportunity afforded by this consultation to provide input on the future of Europe's copyright rules. FSFE is a charitable non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting freedom in the information society.</p>
<p>We are concentrating our input mainly on questions related to matters concerning software. We remain available to support the Commission's work on copyright reform in the future.</p>
<p>With kind regards,</p>
<p>Hugo Roy<br />Free Software Foundation Europe e.V.</p>
<hr />
<p><strong>Register ID:</strong> <code>33882407107-76</code></p>
<p><strong>Organisation:</strong> Free Software Foundation Europe e.V.</p>
<p><strong>Type of respondent:</strong> <strong>End user/consumer</strong> (e.g. internet user, reader, subscriber to music or audiovisual service, researcher, student) <strong>OR Representative of end users/consumers</strong></p>
<hr />
<ol start="11" style="list-style-type: decimal">
<li><p><strong>Should the provision of a hyperlink leading to a work or other subject matter protected under copyright, either in general or under specific circumstances, be subject to the authorisation of the rightholder?</strong></p>
<p><strong>No</strong></p></li>
</ol>
<p>Hyperlinks are core to the web. If hyperlinking were made subject to the authorisation of any rightholder, then basically any kind of web publishing would be potentially withheld to the authorisation of many rightholders.</p>
<p>In practice, it would mean that:</p>
<ol style="list-style-type: decimal">
<li><p>web publishers would have to identify which hyperlinks merely point to works that are copyrightable subject matter;</p></li>
<li><p>web publishers would have to identify the rightholder and how to contact them; which is nothing trivial for online pages;</p></li>
<li><p>and finally web publishers would have to wait for the rightholders authorisation.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Such a provision would constitute a great burden on freedom of speech to which the Web has been instrumental. The reasonably foreseeable outcomes of such a provision would be either:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>massive inability to apply the provision for web publishers, resulting in massive presumably infringing content; or</p></li>
<li><p>massive avoidance of hyperlinking, resulting in less usable web pages and a lost opportunity to point the public to relevant works.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The prerogatives of the copyright holder over their work <strong>should not</strong> extend to comprise making a hyperlink. Regular hyperlinks should never be considered direct use of a copyrighted work. Indeed, a regular hyperlink does not reproduce, transmit, nor make available in any way a work. Rather, hyperlinks only point to already identifiable resources.</p>
<p>In that regard, the EUCJ ruling “Svensson” C-466/12 is worrisome and the right of making available should be clarified to exclude the use of regular hyperlinks from its scope. Making some hyperlinking practices subject to the authorisation of rightholders only complicates their use, causes chilling effects on freedom of expression, sets up the unenforceable rules and leads to further alienation of copyright law for the general public. Links to illegally communicated works should be rather solved under theories of accessory liability or wrongful omission as they account for flexible circumstances that might occur.</p>
<ol start="13" style="list-style-type: decimal">
<li><p><strong>[In particular if you are an end user/consumer:] Have you faced restrictions when trying to resell digital files that you have purchased (e.g. mp3 file, e-book)?</strong></p>
<p><strong>Yes</strong></p></li>
</ol>
<p>Digital restrictions management (DRM) prevents the consumer to truly own the digital files they have purchased. Not only are consumers often unable to resell digital files, DRM often prevents them from being able to simply use the files they have purchased for legitimate and lawful purposes. Incidentally, consumers who have bought digital files cannot choose which software or device to use, causing issues regarding interoperability and competition.</p>
<p>In practice, digital restrictions management enables publishers, software and hardware vendors to impose on the consumer any kind of restrictions they see fit. Thus, DRM equates to giving publishers <strong>more power to restrict use of a work than they are legally entitled to</strong> under copyright law, over how the digital version of their works are used by the public.</p>
<p>In addition to technical restrictions, consumers are often bound by the terms of use and licensing that govern the acquisition of digital files. These terms deceive consumers who believe they have <em>bought</em> the files and illustrate that consumers <em>do not own</em> the digital content they acquire in the same way they would own equivalent physical goods. For example, James Joseph O'Donnell, a classical scholar and University Professor at Georgetown University, has lost access to e-books he had acquire from Google Books because of the digital restrictions management and region-control that Google exercise on their platform.<a href="#fn1" class="footnoteRef" id="fnref1"><sup>1</sup></a></p>
<p>People with disabilities are often barred from media use because DRM prevents them from converting content to media formats that help them in spite of their disabilities. For example, book publishers protested against the possibility that some e-book reader might electronically convert text into speech. Without such text-to-speech features, blind people will simply not be able to read books they have purchased.</p>
<dl>
<dt><strong>Recommendations</strong></dt>
<dd>
<p>Digital works covered by copyright should, when sold to consumers, be clearly labelled if they are covered by DRM mechanisms</p>
</dd>
</dl>
<br />
<ol start="80" style="list-style-type: decimal">
<li><strong>Are there any other important matters related to the EU legal framework for copyright? Please explain and indicate how such matters should be addressed.</strong></li>
</ol>
<p>Digital restrictions management (DRM) is an illegitimate form of control exercised by content providers and device manufacturers over personal computing.</p>
<p>The Directive 2001/29/EC introduced anti-circumvention provisions that prevent users of personal computers to take back control of their computing. These anti-circumvention provisions should be simply abrogated.</p>
<p>Copyright subject matter covers original works of expression. Technical restrictions such as DRM should not therefore be granted special protection through copyright law because such protection is ill-fitted and disproportionate.</p>
<p>In practice, anti-circumvention provisions also create issues in terms of software interoperability and competition. Digital restrictions management enable illegitimate vendor lock-in that prevents competition. For instance, the French association Videolan who publish the VLC free software media player has been facing important legal uncertainty regarding the ability to play “Blu-Ray media” on which Sony has a DRM.<a href="#fn2" class="footnoteRef" id="fnref2"><sup>2</sup></a> This situation illustrates the illegitimate barrier to Free Software that DRM constitutes: in this case, copyright law is misused by software vendors in order to prevent competition and create lock-in for customers.</p>
<dl>
<dt><strong>Recommendations</strong></dt>
<dd>
<p>Anti-circumvention provisions should be abrogated.</p>
</dd>
</dl>
<hr />
<ol start="22" style="list-style-type: decimal">
<li><p><strong>Should some/all of the exceptions be made mandatory and, if so, is there a need for a higher level of harmonisation of such exceptions?</strong></p>
<p><strong>Yes</strong></p></li>
</ol>
<p>Exceptions to software copyright for reverse-engineering and decompilation purposes should not be weakened, but strengthened.</p>
<p>Circumvention of digital restrictions management (DRM) should be considered outside the scope of protection provided by copyright law, or alternatively an exception for circumvention of DRM for legitimate purposes should be made mandatory in all EU member States. Moreover, circumvention of DRM should not bear compensation to the protected content rightholder, nor to the DRM mechanism owner.</p>
<ol start="24" style="list-style-type: decimal">
<li><p><strong>Independently from the questions above, is there a need to provide for a greater degree of flexibility in the EU regulatory framework for limitations and exceptions?</strong></p>
<p><strong>Yes</strong></p></li>
</ol>
<p>Exceptions and limitations to copyright should benefit from greater legal certainty.</p>
<p>In this regard, the Three-step test should be reasonably interpreted as an obligation <strong>for the legislator</strong> rather than as a means towards weakening exceptions to copyright that the law provides for as seen in some court cases in Europe<a href="#fn3" class="footnoteRef" id="fnref3"><sup>3</sup></a>.</p>
<dl>
<dt><strong>Recommendations</strong></dt>
<dd>
<ul>
<li><p>Exceptions to software copyright for reverse-engineering and decompilation purposes should be strengthened to benefit interoperability and innovation.</p></li>
<li><p>Exceptions to anti-DRM circumvention provisions should be strengthened for interoperability and other legitimate purposes.</p></li>
<li><p>Existing exceptions and limitations to copyright should benefit from greater legal certainty by making explicit that the Three-Step test is an obligation to the legislator, not a a legal reasoning to be used in courts in order to weaken established exceptions and limitations.</p></li>
</ul>
</dd>
</dl>
<hr />
<ol start="4" style="list-style-type: lower-alpha">
<li><strong>How to improve the use and interoperability of identifiers</strong></li>
</ol>
<p>There is no shortage of databases of rights and works information, but they largely lack interoperability - even between databases carrying information about the same type of works. We believe that the true benefit of such databases can only be realised with open standards and public APIs for registering, requesting and modifying information in such databases. We further believe that such interoperability would enable works information to be carried not only in a single database but distributed across multiple databases operated independently of one another: some might be maintained by rights holders themselves, other databases by non-profit organisations or business entities. This would create a network of interoperable databases that support the creator and user of creative works with the flexibility they need to maintain information about works. As we go about our lives online, we create works that are potentially covered by copyright many times every day - hundreds of times, if counting every email we send, picture we take, story we share. Registering this in a single database becomes highly impractical. We believe the role of the EU to ensure and enforce interoperability between such databases and ensuring that the public has equal access to information within them using open standards.</p>
<p>Persistent identifiers are a requirement for ensuring the full benefits of a network of databases are realised. As has been shown in studies by the International Press and Telecommunications Council (IPTC) though, a more pressing issue than the adoption of identifiers is to enable the retention of such identifiers. Such identifiers already exist today, but they are routinely stripped from works as they are shared online. We therefore believe that the role of the EU is not so much in the promoting adoption of identifiers but working with industry and the community to ensure that such identifiers are retained through all stages of creating, curating and using a work.</p>
<dl>
<dt><strong>Recommendations</strong></dt>
<dd>
<p>The role of the EU should be to work with industry and with the commmunity to ensure that identifiers are retained through all stages of publishing, curating and using a work.</p>
</dd>
</dl>
<div class="footnotes">
<h2 id="fn">Footnotes</h2>
<ol>
<li id="fn1"><p><em>Cross a border, loose your ebooks</em>, Aug 17, 2013, BoingBoing, <a href="http://boingboing.net/2013/08/17/cross-a-border-lose-your-eboo.html">http://boingboing.net/2013/08/17/cross-a-border-lose-your-eboo.html</a><a href="#fnref1"></a></p></li>
<li id="fn2"><p><em>VLC : la Hadopi n'a pas la clef pour ouvrir la porte du Blu-ray</em>, PC Inpact, 08/04/2013, <a href="https://www.pcinpact.com/news/78893-vlc-hadopi-na-pas-clef-pour-ouvrir-porte-blu-ray.htm">https://www.pcinpact.com/news/78893-vlc-hadopi-na-pas-clef-pour-ouvrir-porte-blu-ray.htm</a><a href="#fnref2"></a></p></li>
<li id="fn3"><p>In <em>arrêt Mulholland Drive</em> the French Cour de cassation followed a misguided interpretation of the Three-step test that reduced the exception for private copy to a trickle. (Chambre de cassation, civ. 1<sup>re</sup>, Arrêt n° 549 du 28 février 2006, 05-15.824, 05-16.002)<a href="#fnref3"></a></p></li>
</ol>
</div>
</div><!--/e-content-->
</body>
<sidebar promo="about-fsfe">
<div id="related-content">
<h3>Related</h3>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/index_en.htm">Public Consultation on the review of the EU copyright rules</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/drm/drm.html">FSFE on DRM</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
</sidebar>
<date>
<original content="2014-03-05" />
</date>
<author id="roy" />
<legal type="cc-license">
<license>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en</license>
<notice>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.</notice>
</legal>
<download type="pdf" content="20140305-copyright-rules.en.pdf" />
<sidebar/>
</html>

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

View File

@ -1,338 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Valutazione del rapporto sull'implementazione della direttiva InfoSoc</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Il nostro lavoro</a></p>
<h1 id="assessment-of-the-report-on-the-implementation-of-the-InfoSoc-directive">Valutazione
del rapporto sull'implementazione della direttiva InfoSoc</h1>
<h2 id="introduction">Introduzione</h2>
<p>Il 6 giugno di quest'anno abbiamo proposto
<a href="/activities/policy/eu/20150605-Comments-On-Reda-Report.en.html">la
nostra valutazione</a> della bozza sul rapporto sull'implementazione della Direttiva
2001/29/EC. In seguito, alcuni emendamenti sono stati approvati e il rapporto
è stato votato presso il Parlamento Europeo il 9 luglio. Come ci si aspettava,
ci sono stati molti cambiamenti; oggi vi presentiamo la nostra valutazione della versione
finale del rapporto.</p>
<p>Come abbiamo affermato in precedenza, il dinamico ecosistema del Software Libero e
i suoi notevoli successi hanno le proprie fondamenta nella legge sul diritto d'autore.
Per questa ragione, noi, alla FSFE, siamo ben disposti a sostenere una riforma
sulla legislazione del diritto d'autore in Europa. Desideriamo e abbiamo bisogno che esso
sia a prova delle sfide future, sostenibile e realistico.
I cittadini europei hanno bisogno che i propri legislatori guardino al
diritto d'autore come uno dei molti strumenti a disposizione delle politiche per l'innovazione.
Questo implica prendere sul serio gli interessi degli utenti, e plasmare le nuove leggi sul
diritto d'autore basandosi sui fatti. Concretamente, abbiamo bisogno di eccezioni uniformi,
che non siano definite dall'uso di una specifica tecnologia e che non siano
ingiustamente limitate da misure tecnologiche di protezione. Chiediamo anche
che l'Unione Europea riconosca la necessità di un pubblico dominio più forte,
non solo per i lavori artistici e letterari, ma anche per il software. Tutti questi
punti sono stati affrontati nella versione finale del rapporto, anche se
non sempre tanto quanto avremmo voluto.</p>
<h2 id="general-considerations">Considerazioni generali</h2>
<h3 id="definition-of-copyright">Definizione del diritto d'autore</h3>
<p>La FSFE crede che ci sia una distinzione importante da fare
tra la proprietà privata e la così detta “proprietà intellettuale”.
Quest'ultima, essendo composta da beni non-rivali, può essere condivisa all'infinito
senza diminuire il benessere intellettuale del creatore originario.
Come tale, la possibilità di ampliare la distribuzione non solo beneficia i creatori
ma genera anche un più alto livello di innovazione. Questa distinzione,
ancora presente nella maggior parte dei trattati internazionali, è rappresentata solo parzialmente
dalla versione finale del rapporto <a class="fn" id="fnref1" href="#fn1">1</a>.
Questa confusione è una delle ragioni per cui crediamo che l'espressione
“proprietà intellettuale” dovrebbe essere evitata e possibilmente eliminata
del tutto dal linguaggio giuridico.</p>
<p>Diversi articoli<a href="#fn2" class="fn" id="fnref2">2</a>hanno adottano a loro volta
un approccio preoccupante, implicando che la protezione del diritto d'autore sia il solo modo
per generare reddito e quindi incoraggiare la creatività. È
importante riconoscere un'appropriata remunerazione agli autori, ma crediamo che
il diritto d'autore conduca ad un maggior grado di creatività solo quando
le limitazioni alla riproduzione sono bilanciate da un'adeguata quantità di usi
consentiti. Questo equilibrio si trova permettendo un grado decente di
riutilizzo, cosicché i creatori possano costruire continuando il lavoro dei loro predecessori.
Mentre questo è sempre possibile grazie alle licenze di Software Libero, l'intera
comunità trarrebbe beneficio da un più alto grado di riutilizzabilità di tutti i sorgenti
esistenti, indipendentemente dalla licenza sotto la quale sono stati distribuiti.</p>
<h3 id="technological-neutrality">Neutralità tecnologica</h3>
<p>Il rapporto sembra incorporare il principio di neutralità tecnologica.
Questo dovrebbe assicurare che tutti i diritti saranno disponibili,
per gli autori, gli editori e gli utenti, indipendentemente dalla tecnologia impiegata.
L'articolo 64 invoca espressamente l'impiego di una struttura legislativa tecnologicamente
neutrale, promuovendo l'equivalenza tra l'uso analogico e quello digitale.
Questo principio potrebbe avere un impatto positivo sulle
<a href="#technological-neutrality-and-the-open-norm">eccezioni al diritto d'autore</a>
e sulla <a href="#digital-rights-management">gestione digitale dei diritti</a>
(Digital Rights Management - DRM), ma dipenderà da come sarà concretamente implementato nella legislazione.</p>
<h3 id="copyright-and-borders">Diritto d'autore e frontiere</h3>
<p>Mentre la Commissione sembra spingere verso un'armonizzazione più profonda
del mercato digitale che includa una riforma di almeno alcuni aspetti
del diritto d'autore e dei diritti vicini, il Parlamento Europeo potrebbe non adottare
una posizione definitiva, con articoli differenti che puntino in direzioni differenti.
Non è chiaro se questo impatterà direttamente sul software, ma
l'attuale legislazione frammentaria sul diritto d'autore sicuramente non aiuta
a fornire un ambiente tra i più chiari e uniformi per quelle licenze
che sono interpretate secondo le giurisdizioni Europee.</p>
<h2 id="exceptions">Eccezioni</h2>
<p>La FSFE ha sostenuto anche la riforma per le eccezioni al diritto d'autore. Il rapporto
redige alcuni punti interessanti a riguardo.</p>
<h3 id="uniformity-of-exceptions">Uniformità delle eccezioni</h3>
<p>La bozza del rapporto chiedeva leggi uniformi, all'interno dell'UE,
per l'interpretazione delle eccezioni e delle limitazioni. Abbiamo sostenuto questa
visione perché, al momento, una decisa divergenza nell'implementazione tra gli
stati membri crea un considerevole attrito nel mercato interno all'UE. Questo
attrito coinvolge in maniera sproporzionata individui, progetti e
piccole e medie imprese, i quali spesso mancano delle risorse giuridiche necessarie
per assicurare che le proprie azioni rimangano all'interno dell'area
coperta dalle limitazioni ed eccezioni al diritto d'autore.</p>
<p>Il rapporto, come approvato dal Parlamento, assume una posizione molto più debole
chiedendo armonizzazione e standard minimi solo per <em>alcune</em>
eccezioni<a href="#fn3" class="fn" id="fnref3">3</a>. Questa miglioria parziale
non è soddisfacente, perché non risolverà il problema principale
della direttiva “InfoSoc”, la quale ha fallito nel fornire un sistema di diritto d'autore
adeguatamente armonizzato. Mantenere differenti classi di eccezioni (completamente
armonizzate, armonizzate secondo uno standard minimo, opzionali, a discrezione
dello Stato) renderà il sistema del diritto d'autore solamente più
complicato per tutte le parti coinvolte.</p>
<h3 id="waivability-of-exceptions">Rinuncia alle eccezioni</h3>
<p>Un'aggiunta interessante al rapporto finale rende le eccezioni
irrinunciabili tramite clausole contrattuali<a href="#fn4" class="fn" id="fnref4">4</a>.
Questo renderà più semplice sapere quali diritti abbia un utente, indipendentemente
dal contenuto specifico della licenza (libera o proprietaria). Inoltre, il rapporto finale
richiede che sia reso impossibile limitare in via contrattuale laccesso ad informazioni
che non siano coperte da diritto d'autore o da un diritto analogo.
Questo dovrebbe risultare in una maggiore disponibilità dell'informazione che sarebbe
stata altrimenti ingiustamente tenuta segreta. Come tale, questa è una miglioria ben accolta.</p>
<h3 id="technological-neutrality-and-the-open-norm">Neutralità tecnologica e la norma aperta</h3>
<p>Il principio di neutralità tecnologica, come già menzionato, è
applicato più chiaramente per quanto riguarda le eccezioni. Sosteniamo una riforma
della Direttiva sul diritto d'autore che assicuri un'equa applicazione delle eccezioni
sia nel campo digitale che analogico. Il
rapporto attuale<a href="#fn5" class="fn" id="fnref5">5</a> chiede alla Commissione di
rivedere le eccezioni al diritto d'autore per adattarle meglio all'attuale ambiente
tecnologico e per raggiungere sia la neutralità tecnologica
che una migliore compatibilità attraverso l'interpretazione delle attuali eccezioni.</p>
<p>Il rapporto finale<a href="#fn6" class="fn" id="fnref6">6</a> propone
di raggiungere la neutralità tecnologica attraverso una più larga interpretazione
delle attuali eccezioni, mantenendo il "three-step-test" introdotto dalla Convenzione di Berna come guida
per prevenire un'eccessiva espansione. Questa opzione è stata presentata nella bozza
del rapporto e introdurrebbe un elemento importante di adattabilità nelle legislazioni
riformate, fornendo una guida chiara per le corti su come
interpretare le eccezioni e le limitazioni. In vista di un ambiente tecnologico
in rapida evoluzione, una norma aperta assicurerebbe che la legge sul diritto d'autore
dell'UE rimanga rilevante e attuabile nel lungo termine. In precedenza abbiamo sostenuto
questo proposito ed ora diamo il benvenuto ai risultati raggiunti dal
Parlamento Europeo.</p>
<h3 id="text-and-data-mining">Estrazione di testo e dati</h3>
<p>Alcuni detentori di diritti d'autore sostengono che gli utenti necessitino
di una licenza ulteriore per estrarre informazioni da un'opera coperta da
diritto d'autore con l'aiuto di strumenti software. La FSFE considererebbe qualsiasi
simile imposizione come altamente dannosa per la creatività.
Il solo fatto che i documenti digitali siano più facilmente soggetti ad
analisi automatizzate non rappresenta certamente una ragione sufficiente a
trattarli in modo differente da quelli analogici.</p>
<p>Le analisi automatizzate di testi e dataset sono basilari per molti
servizi web a cui si affidano ogni giorno molti cittadini europei. La necessità di
licenze aggiuntive per l'estrazione di testo e dati incrementerebbe enormemente
i costi per la creazione di nuovi lavori basati su quelli esistenti. Questo
introdurrebbe anche un ulteriore livello di attrito. La cosa più dannosa sarebbero
i costi, in termini di lavoro non creato, di tale requisito.</p>
<p>La bozza del rapporto chiedeva una struttura più semplice, che includesse
esplicitamente il diritto di estrarre dati come parte del diritto di accesso
ad un lavoro protetto. Il Parlamento non fa abbastanza su questo punto,
chiedendo alla Commissione solamente di considerare questo problema
<a href="#fn7" class="fn" id="fnref7">7</a>, lasciandolo pertanto irrisolto.</p>
<h2 id="digital-rights-management">Gestione digitale dei diritti</h2>
<p>Attualmente, alcuni proprietari usano la Restrizione digitale dei diritti
(o Gestione digitale dei diritti; DRM in sigla) per limitare tecnicamente
ciò che gli utenti possono fare con i lavori che hanno legalmente acquisito.
Molto di frequente, queste misure ostacolano le persone nellutilizzare, in modi
completamente coperti da eccezioni e limitazioni, le opere in questione.</p>
<p>In aggiunta, queste misure tecnologiche
spesso trasmettono dati ai proprietari dei diritti o a terze parti
senza la consapevolezza o il consenso attivo dell'utente, cosa che
rappresenta un grave rischio per la privacy e autonomia di quest'ultimo.
Quando si applica ai dispositivi, il DRM in effetti impone costrizioni
al proprietario che sono così gravi da far sorgere significative preoccupazioni
riguardo ai diritti del consumatore<a href="#fn8" class="fn" id="fnref8">8</a>.</p>
<p>La bozza del rapporto mirava a risolvere questi problemi imponendo
la pubblicazione del codice sorgente delle protezioni tecnologiche.
Il rapporto finale, in questo, lascia a desiderare, anche se ottiene alcuni
miglioramenti. Il requisito esplicito per il codice sorgente è stato
irragionevolmente eliminato, sostituito dalla pubblicazione di “tutte
le informazioni disponibili riguardo le misure tecnologiche necessarie ad
assicurare l'interoperabilità”<a href="#fn9" class="fn" id="fnref9">9</a>,
e dalla menzione di una migliore interoperabilità nel software e nei terminali
<a href="#fn10" class="fn" id="fnref10">10</a>. Queste condizioni
aiuteranno i progettisti del Software Libero a creare programmi che
possano accedere a contenuti protetti, ma i miglioramenti per la privacy degli utenti
e la loro sicurezza saranno solamente indiretti e condizionati dallo sviluppo di
alternative nel Software Libero, poiché la versione proprietaria delle
tecnologie di controllo degli accessi non sarà soggetta allo scrutinio pubblico.</p>
<p>Il rapporto compie un altro passo in contrasto con il DRM<a href="#fn11" class="fn"
id="fnref11">11</a> affermando che l'eccezione per copia privata non
può essere limitata da misure tecnologiche (se è garantito il compenso
all'autore). Diamo il benvenuto a questa esplicita protezione dell'eccezione
per copia privata, ma dobbiamo puntualizzare che il DRM impedisce tutte
le eccezioni. Mentre è possibile sostenere che non tutte le eccezioni
meritino lo stesso grado di protezione, bisognerebbe tenere a mente
che alcune meritano almeno lo stesso grado garantito alla copia privata
(es. eccezioni per le librerie) e che, in ogni caso, ulteriori
frammentazioni nelle eccezioni causeranno confusione su quali siano i diritti
a disposizione degli utenti.</p>
<p>Uno spiraglio di speranza può essere trovato nel principio di
neutralità tecnologica: se gli stessi atti che gli utenti possono legalmente
intraprendere in ambiente analogico dovessero essere considerati legali
in quello digitale, allora alla tecnologia DRM non dovrebbe essere consentito di
ostacolare qualsivoglia eccezione. Il Parlamento non è stato molto esplicito, ma tale
lettura del testo sembra giustificata e speriamo che la proposta
da parte della Commissione sosterrà attivamente questa interpretazione.</p>
<h2 id="public-domain">Pubblico dominio</h2>
<p>Come abbiamo già affermato, il dominio pubblico è una importante risorsa per
chiunque crei lavori originali. La creatività non viene dal nulla,
ma attinge da una moltitudine di input e influenze. Il
pubblico dominio - lavori che non sono coperti dal diritto d'autore e che possono essere
usati liberamente - è una riserva particolarmente ricca di tali input. Salvaguardare
e possibilmente estendere il pubblico dominio è essenziale per rendere possibile
la creatività futura. Gli autori dovrebbero avere l'opzione di pubblicare i propri
lavori direttamente nel pubblico dominio, qualora lo desiderino.</p>
<p>Qui il rapporto va nella direzione giusta, dato che l'articolo 31
si appella ad una protezione migliore del pubblico dominio e richiede che la Commissione
consideri di fornire agli autori la possibilità di contribuirvi direttamente.
Inoltre afferma esplicitamente che le opere, una volta divenute di pubblico dominio,
non possono essere riappropriate nuovamente tramite digitalizzazione.</p>
<h3 id="works-created-with-public-funds-should-be-available-to-the-public">Le opere
create con fondi pubblici dovrebbero essere a disposizione del pubblico</h3>
<p>Il punto 5 della bozza del rapporto chiedeva che ogni lavoro prodotto
da enti pubblici (appartenenti al potere legislativo, amministrativo o giudiziario) dovesse essere
messo a disposizione del pubblico per l'uso e la modifica.
Abbiamo suggerito di includere esplicitamente alla lista i software prodotti con
fondi pubblici e che questo obbiettivo sarebbe raggiunto al meglio tramite l'uso
delle licenze di Software Libero. Ciononostante, l'attuale articolo 30
presenta delle richieste molto più deboli; anche se la sua formulazione non ha
effetti negativi sul Software Libero, non impone al software sviluppato
per le pubbliche amministrazioni di essere distribuito sotto una licenza libera.
In questo modo il Parlamento ha perso
un'occasione per fermare un incredibile spreco di risorse pubbliche.</p>
<h2 id="linking">Link</h2>
<p>Nella bozza del rapporto c'era la proposta di affermare chiaramente
che i link ipertestuali non potessero essere considerati “comunicazioni ad
un nuovo pubblico” ai fini della legge sul diritto d'autore. Siamo stati fortemente
d'accordo con questa proposta, perché tale qualificazione giuridica limiterebbe pesantemente
la libertà di espressione senza fornire alcun vantaggio agli autori.
Inoltre, un World Wide Web appesantito da tale rischio sarebbe
molto meno dinamico e quindi soffocato nella sua forza innovativa.</p>
<p>Affrontando vari emendamenti che hanno provato ad assoggettare i link
alla protezione del diritto d'autore, l'intero argomento è stato escluso dalla
versione finale, evitando così il rischio di un rapporto finale che richiedesse
una struttura legislativa anche meno adatta alle tecnologie attuali.
Non possiamo comprendere come un problema così semplice, fondamentale
per l'esistenza di Internet così come lo conosciamo, possa generare
una tale quantità di controversie e rimanere ancora ignorato. Questo comportamento
comporta rimandare la decisione, o (più probabile)
delegarla implicitamente alla Corte di Giustizia dell'Unione Europea.</p>
<h2 id="conclusion">Conclusione</h2>
<p>Anche se il rapporto propone alcuni miglioramenti all'attuale struttura
legislativa, lo stesso presenta varie battute d'arresto rispetto alle bozze originali
e non riesce a risolvere completamente i problemi maggiori con l'attuale
legislazione sul diritto d'autore. Il prossimo passo per la Commissione è di pubblicare
le proprie proposte per la riforma del diritto d'autore (attesa per la fine del 2015).
Vorremmo che la Commissione avanzasse lungo il percorso aperto dal Parlamento,
e lo portasse anche oltre, apportando delle migliorie sui punti più critici.
Chiediamo che rendano chiaro che nessuna eccezione al diritto d'autore dovrebbe
mai essere limitata dal DRM, che forniscano una serie di eccezioni completamente
armonizzata, che rinforzino il principio di neutralità tecnologica
e che rendano tutti i lavori finanziati pubblicamente parte del pubblico dominio.
Infine, chiediamo di mantenere e rafforzare la distinzione
tra proprietà fisica e la così detta “proprietà intellettuale”,
essendo essenziale per una diffusione equa della conoscenza.</p>
<h2 id="fn">Note</h2>
<ol>
<li id="fn1">Vedi Preambolo K e articolo 50<a href="#fnref1"></a></li>
<li id="fn2">Articoli 1, 4, 5, 7, 19<a href="#fnref2"></a></li>
<li id="fn3">Articoli 37 e 38<a href="#fnref3"></a></li>
<li id="fn4">Articolo 61<a href="#fnref4"></a></li>
<li id="fn5">Articoli 35 e 43<a href="#fnref5"></a></li>
<li id="fn6">Articoli 43 e 44<a href="#fnref6"></a></li>
<li id="fn7">Articolo 48<a href="#fnref7"></a></li>
<li id="fn8">Puoi trovare ulteriori informazioni su come il DRM impone restrizioni
ai diritti degli utenti su <a href="http://www.defectivebydesign.org/">defective by design</a>, su <a href="http://drm.info">drm.info</a>, in
<a href="https://blogs.fsfe.org/eal/2013/05/03/digital-and-physical-restrictions-on-your-own-device/">questo
post</a> dalla nostra fellowship o controllando
<a href="/tags/tagged.en.html#nDRM">i nostri articoli</a>
al riguardo.<a href="#fnref8"></a></li>
<li id="fn9">Articolo 62<a href="#fnref9"></a></li>
<li id="fn10">Articolo 63<a href="#fnref10"></a></li>
<li id="fn11">Articolo 57<a href="#fnref11"></a></li>
</ol>
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Indice</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="#intro">Introduzione</a></li>
<li><a href="#general-considerations">Considerazioni generali</a></li>
<li><a href="#exceptions">Eccezioni</a></li>
<li><a href="#public-domain">Pubblico dominio</a></li>
<li><a href="#linking">Link</a></li>
<li><a href="#conclusion">Conclusione</a></li>
</ul>
<h2>Link correlati</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/20150605-Comments-On-Reda-Report.en.html">La
nostra valutazione della prima bozza del rapporto</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&amp;reference=P8-TA-2015-0273&amp;language=EN">Il rapporto</a></li>
<li><a href="https://juliareda.eu/2015/06/reda-report-adopted-a-turning-point-in-the-copyright-debate/">Valutazioni di Julia Reda</a></li>
<li><a href="http://copywrongs.eu/">Copywrongs.eu</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
<translator>Emanuele Croce, 17/09/2015</translator>
</html>

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

View File

@ -1,141 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>FSFE - Unsere Arbeit bei der Europäischen Union</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Unsere Arbeit</a></p>
<h1>Europäische Union</h1>
<div id="introduction">
<p>
Seit 2001 beschäftigen wir uns mit der Politik der Europäischen Union,
als die FSFE als sachverständige dritte Partei im
Kartellrechtsverfahren der Kommission gegen Microsoft auftrat. Seitdem
fördern wir Freie Software und achten besonders darauf, dass
grundlegende Prinzipien wie fairer Wettbewerb berücksichtigt werden.
</p>
</div>
<h2>EU Browser Fall</h2>
<p>
Die Free Software Foundation Europe unterstützte das
Kartellrechtsverfahren der Europäischen Kommission gegen Microsoft als
interessierter Sachverständiger. Die Untersuchung begann am 16. Januar
als die GD Wettbewerb der Europäische Kommission ihren Bericht zu
Einwänden einreichte, die sich auf Microsofts Missbrauch der
Web-Standards und der Bündelung des Internet Explores (IE) an die
Produktgruppen der Windows Betriebssysteme bezogen. Es basierte auf
einer Beschwerde von Opera, einem europäischen Unternehmen, das Web
Browser entwickelt und von der FSFE 2007 öffentlich unterstützt wurde.
</p>
<h2>Europäische Interoperabilität</h2>
<p>
Die Europäische Kommission untersucht die Praxis, mit der Microsoft
Wettbewerber daran hindert, Schnittstellen zu einer Vielzahl seiner
Desktop-Programme für Gewerbetreibende aufzubauen. Der FSFE-Präsident
Karten Gerloff betont:" Wir begrüßen die Entscheidung der Kommission,
die Untersuchung zur Interoperabilität nicht abzuschließen während sie
weiterhin beobachtet, ob die Versprechen von Microsoft ausreichen, um
den Wettbewerb zu fördern."
</p>
<p>
Die FSFE setzt sich ebenso für <a href="/freesoftware/standards/">Offene
Standards</a> ein, die eine Schlüsselrolle für Interoperabilität
einnehmen. Daher wirbt die FSFE für ihre Anwendung, vor allem
durch die <a href="/news/2009/news-20091127-01.de.html">Revision des
Europäischen Rahmenwerks zu Interoperabilität</a>.
</p>
<h2>Weitere laufende Aktivitäten</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/fp7/fp7.de.html">Siebtes EU Rahmenprogramm</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/ipred2/ipred2.de.html">IPRED 2 - Kriminalisierung
des Urheberrechts- und der Warenzeichenverletzung</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/self/self.de.html">SELF (Science, Education and Learning in Freedom)</a></li>
</ul>
<h2>Was wir erreicht haben</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/ms-vs-eu/ms-vs-eu.de.html">Die FSFE und die
Kartellklage gegen Microsoft</a> (2001-2007)</li>
<li><a href="/activities/fp6/fp6.de.html">Sechstes Rahmenprogramm der
EU</a> (2002)</li>
</ul>
<h2>Verwandte Neuigkeiten</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091216-01.html">2009/12/16: Die FSFE
begrüßt größere Auswahlmöglichkeiten für Nutzer bei Browsers, warnt
davor, dass Freie Software von Interoperabilität ausgeschlossen
wird</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091127-01.html">2009/11/27: EU gibt
proprietären Lobbyisten bei Interoperabilität nach</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091109-02.html">2009/11/09: FSFE im Kampf
für Europäische Interoperabilität</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091008-01.html">2009/10/08: Microsoft-
Abkommen lässt Freie Software im Regen stehen</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091006-01.html">2009/10/06: Microsoft-
Kartellrechtsklage: FSFE bietet der Europäische Kommission Analyse
an</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20090728-01.html">2009/07/28: EU
Browserfall: FSFE sagt, die Details des Abkommens werden
entscheiden</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20090227-01.html">2009/02/27: FSFE beteiligt
sich an EU Browserfall</a></li>
</ul>
<h2>Dokumente und Veröffentlichungen</h2>
<ul>
<li><p><b><a href="/freesoftware/standards/ps.de.html">Eine Untersuchung über die
Ausgewogenheit von Standardisierung und Patenten</a></b>
(2008-12-02)<br /> Im Anschluss an den
"<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemshortdetail.cfm?item_id=3371">IPR
in ICT Standardisation</a>" Workshop vor zwei Wochen, analysierte der
FSFE-Präsident <a href="/people/greve/">Georg Greve</a> die Konflikte
zwischen Patenten und Standards. Der Ergebnisbericht zeigt die
schädlichsten Effekte von Patenten auf Standards auf und untersucht die
Effektivität der gängigen Strategien dagegen, sowie möglicher zukünftiger
Lösungsversuche.
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/documents/eur5greve.de.html">Freie Software in Europa -
Europäische Perspektiven und die Arbeit der FSFE</a></b>
(2003-05-20)<br /> In diesem Artikel werden die langfristig Vorteile
Freier Software in verschiedenen Bereichen erklärt und gezeigt, wie
europäische Staaten von Freier Software profitieren können.
(<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/pdf/europe/spring2003/EU5%20Georg%20Gree%20ATL-replace.pdf">Veröffentlicht</a>
in der
<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/europe/spring2003/eu_spring2003_contents.asp">Frühling
2003</a> Ausgabe der
<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/europe/europe_intro.shtml">Public Service Review - European Union</a>
mit einem Vorwort von Romano Prodi)
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/lafis.de.html">FP6 EOI: LAFIS - LAying the Foundations for the Information
Society</a></b> (2002-06-04)<br /></p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/focal.de.html">FP6 EOI: FOCAL - FOcussing Competence for Advantages of
Liberty</a></b> (2002-06-04)<br /></p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/recommendation.de.html">Empfehlung der FSFE und unterstützender Parteien</a></b> (2002-04-30)<br />
for the <a href="/activities/fp6/fp6.de.html">Sechstes Rahmenprogramm</a>
</p></li>
</ul>
</body>
<translator>Andreas Aubele</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,170 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Η Εργασία μας στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Η Εργασία μας</a></p>
<h1>Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση</h1>
<div id="introduction">
<p>
Η ανάμειξή μας με την πολιτική της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης πάει πίσω
στο 2001, όταν το FSFE έγινε ενδιαφερόμενο τρίτο μέρος στην υπόθεση
αντιμονοπωλιακής νομοθεσίας της Επιτροπής εναντίον της Microsoft.
Από τότε, συνεχίζουμε να διαφημίζουμε το Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό εστιάζοντας
στο σεβασμό σε θεμελιώδεις αρχές όπως ο δίκαιος ανταγωνισμός.
</p>
</div>
<!-- h2>Links</h2>
<alllinks/-->
<h2>Επισκόπηση των πολιτικών της ΕΕ: Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό και Ανοιχτά Πρότυπα
</h2>
<p>
Πολλές χώρες στην Ευρώπη έχουν πολιτικές, νόμους ή συστάσεις
που αφορούν το Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό και τα Ανοιχτά Πρότυπα.
Σε συνεργασία με την κοινότητα του Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού,
προετοιμάζουμε μια αναλυτική επισκόπηση αυτών των πολιτικών.
Θέλουμε να δώσουμε σε ακτιβιστές και διαμορφωτές πολιτικής
ένα εργαλείο συγκριτικής ανάλυσης προσεγγίσεων που υπάρχουν
στις διάφορες χώρες και να μάθουμε και από τις καλές και από
τις λιγότερο καλές πρακτικές. Η εργασία αυτή βρίσκεται σε εξέλιξη.
Παρακαλώ στείλτε οτιδήποτε μπορείτε να προσθέσετε στο
&lt;policies AT fsfeurope DOT org&gt;, μαζί με σχόλια που πιθανόν
να έχετε.<br/>
Μπορείτε να διαβάσετε περισσότερα
<a href="/activities/policy/eu/fspolicies.html"> εδώ</a>.
</p>
<h2>Η υπόθεση της ΕΕ για τους περιηγητές Ιστού</h2>
<p>
Το Ευρωπαϊκό Ίδρυμα Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού υποστήριξε την Ευρωπαϊκή
Επιτροπή στη διερευνητική διαδικασία περί αντιμονοπωλιακής νομοθεσίας
εναντίον της Microsoft ως ενδιαφερόμενο τρίτο μέρος.
Η διερεύνηση ξεκίνησε στις 16 Ιανουαρίου όταν η Γενική Διεύθυνση
Ανταγωνισμού της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής ανακοίνωσε ότι είχε εκδώσει μια
δήλωση ενστάσεων σχετικά με την κατάχρηση από τη Microsoft των προτύπων
στον παγκόσμιο ιστό και την πρόσδεση του Internet Explorer (IE) στην
οικογένεια προϊόντων του Λειτουργικού Συστήματος Windows. Η δήλωση
έγινε με βάση μια καταγγελία η οποία υποβλήθηκε από την Opera, μια
Ευρωπαϊκή εταιρία που ασχολείται με την ανάπτυξη περιηγητών ιστού
και η οποία υποστηρίχθηκε δημόσια από το FSFE το 2007.
</p>
<h2>Η Διαλειτουργικότητα στην Ευρώπη</h2>
<p>
Η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή διερευνά τον τρόπο με τον οποίο η Microsoft
αποτρέπει τους ανταγωνιστές από τη διεπαφή με πολλά από τα προγράμματά
της εφαρμογών γραφείου. Ο Πρόεδρος του FSFE's Karsten Gerloff λέει:
"Καλωσορίζουμε την απόφαση της Επιτροπής να κρατήσει ανοικτή την έρευνα
για τη διαλειτουργικότητα ενώ παρακολουθεί αν οι υποσχέσεις της Microsoft
βοηθούν στην προώθηση του ανταγωνισμού".
</p>
<p>
Το FSFE επίσης ασκεί πίεση για τα
<a href="/freesoftware/standards/">Ανοιχτά Πρότυπα</a>, τα οποία
είναι κλειδί για τη διαλειτουργικότητα και ως τέτοια το FSFE προβάλλει
την υιοθέτησή τους, ιδιαίτερα μέσα από την
<a href="/news/2009/news-20091127-01.el.html">αναθεώρηση του Ευρωπαϊκού
Πλαισίου Διαλειτουργικότητας</a>.
</p>
<h2>Άλλες τρέχουσες δραστηριότητες</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/news/2011/news-20111128-02.html">Horizon 2020</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/fp7/fp7.html">7ο Πρόγραμμα Πλαίσιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/ipred2/ipred2.html">IPRED 2 - Η ποινικοποίηση της παραβίασης πνευματικών
δικαιωμάτων και εμπορικών σημάτων</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/self/self.html">SELF (Science, Education and Learning in Freedom)</a></li>
</ul>
<h2>Τι επιτύχαμε</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/ms-vs-eu/ms-vs-eu.html">Το FSFE και η αντιμονοπωλιακή υπόθεση εναντίον της Microsoft</a> (2001-2007)</li>
<li><a href="/activities/fp6/fp6.html">6ο Πρόγραμμα Πλαίσιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής</a> (2002)</li>
</ul>
<h2>Σχετικές ειδήσεις</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091216-01.html">2009/12/16: Το FSFE καλωσορίζει τη διεύρυνση των επιλογών
του χρήστη στους περιηγητές, προειδοποιεί ότι το Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό εξαιρείται από τη διαλειτουργικότητα</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091127-01.html">2009/11/27: Η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή καταρρέει υπό την πίεση
ομάδων ιδιοκτησιακών λύσεων σχετικά με τη διαλειτουργικότητα</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091109-02.html">2009/11/09: Το FSFE στη μάχη για τη διαλειτουργικότητα στην Ευρώπη
</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091008-01.html">2009/10/08: Ο διακανονισμός της Microsoft βάζει το
Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό στον πάγο</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091006-01.html">2009/10/06:Υπόθεση της Microsoft περί αντιμονοπωλιακής νομοθεσίας:
το FSFE προσφέρει αναλυτική έκθεση στην Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή
</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20090728-01.html">2009/07/28: Η Υπόθεση της ΕΕ για τους περιηγητές ιστού:
Το FSFE λέει ότι οι λεπτομέρειες του διακανονισμού θα είναι κρίσιμες
</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20090227-01.html">2009/02/27: Το FSFE παίρνει μέρος στην υπόθεση της ΕΕ
για τους περιηγητές ιστού
</a></li>
</ul>
<h2>Έγγραφα και Δημοσιεύσεις</h2>
<ul>
<li><p><strong><a href="20110429.CollectiveRedress.Response.FSFE.pdf">Η
συμβολή του FSFE στη συλλογική έννομη προστασία (2011-04-30)</a></strong><br/>
στη <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2011_collective_redress/index_en.html">δημόσια διαβούλευση</a> της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής «Προς μία
συνεκτική Ευρωπαϊκή προσέγγιση στη συλλογική έννομη προστασία».
</p></li>
<li><p><strong><a href="20110418.ProcurementConsultation.FSFE.response.pdf">Η
συμβολή του FSFE στις δημόσιες προμήθειες Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού (2011-04-18)</a>
</strong><br/> στη <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/modernising_rules/consultations/index_en.htm">δημόσια διαβούλευση</a>
της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής σχετικά με τον «εκσυγχρονισμό της πολιτικής δημόσιων
προμηθειών της ΕΕ».
</p></li>
<li><p><strong><a href="20100930-NetNeutrality.Consultation.pdf">Η έκθεση
του FSFE σχετικά με τη Δικτυακή Ουδετερότητα (2010-09-30)</a></strong><br/> στη
<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/library/public_consult//net_neutrality/index_en.htm">δημόσια διαβούλευση</a> της Ευρωπαϊκής
Επιτροπής σχετικά με το «ανοιχτό διαδίκτυο και τη δικτυακή ουδετερότητα».
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/freesoftware/standards/ps.el.html">Ανάλυση της ισορροπίας: Προτυποποίηση και Διπλώματα Ευρεσιτεχνίας</a></b>
(2008-12-02)<br />
Με αφορμή την ημερίδα "<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemshortdetail.cfm?item_id=3371">IPR in ICT
Standardisation</a>" πριν δύο εβδομάδες στις Βρυξέλλες, ο πρόεδρος του FSFE <a href="/about/people/greve/">Georg Greve</a>
ανέλυσε τις συγκρούσεις ανάμεσα στις πατέντες και τα πρότυπα. Το αποτέλεσμα είναι μια δημοσίευση για τις πιο επιζήμιες
επιπτώσεις των πατεντών στα πρότυπα, την αποτελεσματικότητα των υφιστάμενων μέτρων αποκατάστασης και για πιθανά
επανορθωτικά μέτρα στο μέλλον
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/documents/eur5greve.el.html">Το Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό στην Ευρώπη - Η Ευρωπαϊκή προοπτική
και η εργασία του FSFE</a></b> (2003-05-20)<br />
Ένα άρθρο που αναλύει τα οφέλη σε μεγάλη κλίμακα από το Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό σε πολλές περιοχές και πώς η Ευρώπη
και οι Ευρωπαϊκές χώρες μπορούν να επωφεληθούν από το Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό.
(<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/pdf/europe/spring2003/EU5%20Georg%20Gree%20ATL-replace.pdf">Δημοσιεύτηκε</a>
στο <a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/europe/spring2003/eu_spring2003_contents.asp">Spring 2003</a>
τεύχος του
<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/europe/europe_intro.shtml">Public Service Review - European Union</a>
με πρόλογο του Romano Prodi)
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/lafis.html">FP6 EOI: LAFIS - LAying the Foundations for the Information
Society</a></b> (2002-06-04)<br /></p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/focal.html">FP6 EOI: FOCAL - FOcussing Competence for Advantages of
Liberty</a></b> (2002-06-04)<br /></p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/recommendation.html">Recommendation by the FSFE and supporting parties</a></b> (2002-04-30)<br />
for the <a href="/activities/fp6/fp6.html">6th framework programme</a>
</p></li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,146 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Our Work at the European Union - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Our Work</a></p>
<h1>European Union</h1>
<div id="introduction">
<p>
Our involvement in the European Union policy goes back to 2001,
when FSFE became an interested third-party in the Commission's
antitrust case against Microsoft. Since then, we have kept
on promoting Free Software by focusing on fundamental principles that must be respected, such as fair competition.
</p>
</div>
<!-- <h2>Links</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
<h2>EU Policies overview: Free Software and Open Standards</h2>
<p>
Many countries in Europe have policies, laws or
recommendations concerning Free Software and Open
Standards. In collaboration with the Free Software
community, we are preparing a comprehensive overview of
these policies. We want to provide both activists and
policy makers with a tool to compare the approaches that
exist in different countries, and to learn from both good
and less good practices. This is a work in progress.
Please email anything you can add to &lt;policies AT
fsfeurope DOT org&gt;, along with any comments you may have.<br/>
You can read more <a href="/activities/policy/eu/fspolicies.html"> here</a>.
</p>
<h2>EU Browser case</h2>
<p>
Free Software Foundation Europe supported the European Commission's
antitrust investigation against Microsoft as an interested third party.
The investigation began on the 16th of January when the European
Commission DG Competition reported that it had issued a statement of
objections regarding Microsoft's abuse of web standards and the tying of
Internet Explorer (IE) to the Windows Operating System product family.
It is based on a complaint submitted by Opera, a European company
involved in web browser development, which FSFE publicly supported in
2007.
</p>
<h2>European Interoperability</h2>
<p>
The European Commission is investigating the way Microsoft prevents
competitors from interfacing with many of its desktop productivity
programs. FSFE's President Karsten Gerloff says: "We welcome the
Commission's decision to keep the interoperability investigation open
while it monitors whether Microsoft's promises help to promote
competition."
</p>
<p>
FSFE is also pushing for <a href="/freesoftware/standards/">Open Standards</a>, which
are key to interoperability and as such FSFE promotes their adoption, especially through the <a href="/news/2009/news-20091127-01.en.html">revision of the European Interoperability Framework</a>.
</p>
<h2>Other ongoing activities</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/news/2011/news-20111128-02.html">Horizon 2020</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/fp7/fp7.en.html">7th EC Framework Programme</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/ipred2/ipred2.en.html">IPRED 2 - Criminalisation of copyright and trademark infringement</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/self/self.en.html">SELF (Science, Education and Learning in Freedom)</a></li>
</ul>
<h2>What we achieved</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/ms-vs-eu/ms-vs-eu.en.html">FSFE and the antitrust case against Microsoft</a> (2001-2007)</li>
<li><a href="/activities/fp6/fp6.en.html">6th EC Framework Programme</a> (2002)</li>
</ul>
<h2>Related news</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091216-01.html">2009/12/16: FSFE welcomes greater user choice in browsers, warns that Free Software is excluded from interoperability</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091127-01.html">2009/11/27: EC caves in to proprietary lobbyists on interoperability</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091109-02.html">2009/11/09: FSFE in battle for European interoperability
</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091008-01.html">2009/10/08: Microsoft settlement leaves Free Software in the cold
</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091006-01.html">2009/10/06: Microsoft antitrust case: FSFE offers analysis to European Commission
</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20090728-01.html">2009/07/28: EU browser case: FSFE says details of settlement will be crucial
</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20090227-01.html">2009/02/27: FSFE engages in the EU browser case
</a></li>
</ul>
<h2>Documents and Publications</h2>
<ul>
<li><p><strong><a href="20110429.CollectiveRedress.Response.FSFE.pdf">FSFE's contribution on collective redress (2011-04-30)</a></strong><br/> to the European Commission's <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2011_collective_redress/index_en.html">public consultation</a> "Towards a coherent European approach to collective redress".
</p></li>
<li><p><strong><a href="20110418.ProcurementConsultation.FSFE.response.pdf">FSFE's contribution on public procurement of Free Software (2011-04-18)</a></strong><br/> to the European Commission's <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/modernising_rules/consultations/index_en.htm">public consultation</a> on "modernisation of EU public procurement policy".
</p></li>
<li><p><strong><a href="20100930-NetNeutrality.Consultation.pdf">FSFE's submission on Net Neutrality (2010-09-30)</a></strong><br/> to the European Commission's <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/library/public_consult//net_neutrality/index_en.htm">public consultation</a> on "open internet and net neutrality".
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/freesoftware/standards/ps.en.html">Analysis on balance: Standardisation and Patents</a></b> (2008-12-02)<br />
Following up on the "<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemshortdetail.cfm?item_id=3371">IPR in ICT Standardisation</a>" Workshop two weeks ago in Brussels, FSFE president <a href="/about/people/greve/">Georg Greve</a> analysed the conflicts between patents and standards. The resulting paper is about the most harmful effects of patents on standards, the effectiveness of current remedies, and potential future remedies.
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/documents/eur5greve.en.html">Free Software in Europe - European perspectives and work of the FSF
Europe</a></b> (2003-05-20)<br />
An article explaining the large-scale beneficial aspects of Free Software
in multiple areas and how Europe and the European countries can benefit
from Free Software.
(<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/pdf/europe/spring2003/EU5%20Georg%20Gree%20ATL-replace.pdf">Published</a>
in the
<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/europe/spring2003/eu_spring2003_contents.asp">Spring 2003</a>
issue of the
<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/europe/europe_intro.shtml">Public Service Review - European Union</a>
with a foreword by Romano Prodi)
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/lafis.en.html">FP6 EOI: LAFIS - LAying the Foundations for the Information
Society</a></b> (2002-06-04)<br /></p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/focal.en.html">FP6 EOI: FOCAL - FOcussing Competence for Advantages of
Liberty</a></b> (2002-06-04)<br /></p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/recommendation.en.html">Recommendation by the FSFE and supporting parties</a></b> (2002-04-30)<br />
for the <a href="/activities/fp6/fp6.en.html">6th framework programme</a>
</p></li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,105 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Notre action au sein de l'Union Européenne - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Notre action</a></p>
<h1>Union Européenne</h1>
<div id="introduction">
<p>
Nous avons pris part aux politiques de l'Union Européenne en 2001, quand la FSFE est devenue une tierce partie dans le procès contre l'abus de position dominante de Microsoft. Depuis lors, nous n'avons cessé de promouvoir les logiciels libres en nous concentrant sur le respect de principes fondamentaux tels que la concurrence équitable.
</p>
</div>
<h2>Choix du navigateur</h2>
<p>
La Free Software Foundation Europe a soutenu l'enquête
antitrust contre Microsoft menée par la Commission européenne le 16 janvier 2008 quand la Commission à la concurrence a publié un communiqué concernant les abus de Microsoft sur les standards web ainsi que la vente liée d'Internet Explorer aux produits de la famille du système d'exploitation Windows. L'enquête fait suite à une plainte déposée par Opera, une entreprise européenne de développement de navigateur web, que la FSFE a ouvertement soutenue en 2007.
</p>
<h2>Interoperabilité européenne</h2>
<p>
La Commission Européenne enquête sur la manière dont Microsoft empêche ses concurrents d'interopérer avec nombre de ses logiciels de bureautique. Le président de la FSFE, Karsten Gerloff a déclaré&#160;: «&#160;Nous sommes heureux de la décision de la commission de maintenir ouverte l'enquête sur l'interopérabilité tandis qu'elle surveille si les promesses de Microsoft aident à promouvoir la concurrence.&#160;»
</p>
<p>
La FSFE pousse aussi les <a href="/freesoftware/standards/">standards ouverts</a>, qui sont la clé de l'interopérabilité et en tant que tels&#160;; la FSFE promeut leur adoption, notamment au moyen de la <a href="/news/2009/news-20091127-01.html">révision du Cadre européen d'interopérabilité</a>.
</p>
<h2>Autres activités en cours</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/fp7/fp7.html">7ème programme cadre de la commission européenne</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/ipred2/ipred2.html">IPRED 2 - Criminalisation des infractions aux droits d'auteur et aux marques déposées</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/self/self.html">SELF (Science, Education and Learning in Freedom)</a></li>
</ul>
<h2>Ce que nous avons accompli</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/ms-vs-eu/ms-vs-eu.html">FSFE et le procès contre l'abus de position dominante de Microsoft</a> (2001-2007)</li>
<li><a href="/activities/fp6/fp6.html">le 6ème programme cadre</a> (2002)</li>
</ul>
<h2>Informations complémentaires</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091216-01.fr.html">2009/12/16&#160;: La FSFE se réjouit de l'élargissement des choix pour l'utilisateur en matière de navigateurs, mais alerte que le Logiciel libre est exclu de l'interopérabilité</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091127-01.html">2009/11/27&#160;: EC caves in to proprietary lobbyists on interoperability</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091109-02.html">2009/11/09&#160;: La FSFE en guerre pour l'interopérabilité (en anglais)
</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091008-01.html">2009/10/08&#160;: L'arrangement avec Microsoft laisse le Logiciel Libre sur le carreau
</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091006-01.html">2009/10/06&#160;: Microsoft antitrust case: LA FSFE propose une analyse à la commission européenne [en anglais]
</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20090728-01.html">2009/07/28&#160;: EU browser case: la FSFE déclare que les détails de l'accord vont etre cruciaux [en anglais]
</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20090227-01.html">2009/02/27&#160;: La FSFE s'implique dans le dossier de l'UE concernant les navigateurs Internet
</a></li>
</ul>
<h2>Documents et publications</h2>
<ul>
<li><p>
<strong><a href="20100930-NetNeutrality.Consultation.pdf">Réponse de la FSFE sur la neutralité du réseau (2010-09-30) (en)</a></strong><br/>
à la <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/library/public_consult//net_neutrality/index_en.htm">consultation publique (en)</a> lancée par la Commission Européenne sur le thème «&#160;open internet and net neutrality&#160;» (Internet ouvert et neutralité du réseau).
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/freesoftware/standards/ps.html">Analyse de l'équilibre entre normes et brevets</a></b> (2008-12-02)<br />
À la suite de l'atelier sur <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemshortdetail.cfm?item_id=3371">Les droits de propriété intellectuelle dnas la standardisation des technologies de l'information et de la communication</a> [en anglais] qui a eu lieu à Bruxelles, le fondateur de la FSFE <a href="/about/people/greve/">Georg Greve</a> a analysé les conflits entre brevets et standards. Le résultat est un article sur les effets les plus nocifs des brevets sur les standards, sur l'efficacité des remèdes actuels et les potentiels remèdes à venir.
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/documents/eur5greve.html">Logiciels libres en Europe - perspectives europénnes et travail de la FSFE</a></b> (2003-05-20)<br />
Un article expliquant les aspects bénefiques au sens large des logiciels libres dans de nombreux domaines et comment l'Europe et les pays européens peuvent profiter des logiciels libres.
(<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/pdf/europe/spring2003/EU5%20Georg%20Gree%20ATL-replace.pdf">Publié</a>
dans l'édition de
<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/europe/spring2003/eu_spring2003_contents.asp">printemps 2003</a>
de la
<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/europe/europe_intro.shtml">Public Service Review - Union Europénne</a>
avec un avant propos de Romano Prodi)
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/lafis.en.html">FP6 EOI: LAFIS - LAying the Foundations for the Information
Society (poser les bases d'une société de l'information)</a></b> (2002-06-04)<br /></p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/focal.en.html">FP6 EOI: FOCAL - FOcussing Competence for Advantages of
Liberty (concentrer les compétences pour apporter les avantages de la liberté)</a></b> (2002-06-04)<br /></p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/recommendation.en.html">Recommendation de la FSFE et soutien des parties</a></b> (2002-04-30)<br />
pour le<a href="/activities/fp6/fp6.html">6ème programme cadre</a>
</p></li>
</ul>
</body>
<translator>maelle, Jil Larner (Mont Blanc, France)</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,147 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Ons werk bij de Europese Unie - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Ons werk</a></p>
<h1>Europese Unie</h1>
<div id="introduction">
<p>
Onze betrokkenheid bij het beleid van de Europese Unie gaat terug tot 2001,
toen FSFE een belanghebbende derde partij werd in de
antitrustzaak van de Commissie tegen Microsoft. Sindsdien hebben we
Vrije Software gepromoot waarbij we de nadruk hebben gelegd op het respecteren van fundamentele principes
zoals eerlijke competitie.
</p>
</div>
<!-- <h2>Links</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
<h2>Overzicht van EU-beleid: Vrije Software en Open Standaarden</h2>
<p>
Veel landen in Europa hebben beleid, wetten of
aanbevelingen over Vrije Software en Open
Standaarden. In samenwerking met de Vrije Softwaregemeenschap
bereiden we een uitgebreid overzicht van
dit beleid voor. We willen activisten en beleidsmakers voorzien van
gereedschap om de verschillen in aanpak in verschillende landen met elkaar te
vergelijken en om te leren van goede en slechte praktijken.
Dit is werk in uitvoering.
E-mail alstublieft alles dat u kan toevoegen aan &lt;policies AT
fsfeurope PUNT org&gt;, met daarbij eventueel uw commentaar.<br/>
U kan er <a href="/activities/policy/eu/fspolicies.html"> hier</a> meer over lezen.
</p>
<h2>EU-browserzaak</h2>
<p>
Free Software Foundation Europe steunde het antitrustonderzoek van de Europese Commissie
tegen Microsoft als belanghebbende derde partij. Het onderzoek begon op
16 januari toen het Directoraat-Generaal Competitie van de Europese
Commissie rapporteerde dat het een verklaring had uitgebracht met
bezwaren tegen het misbruik dat Microsoft maakt van webstandaarden en het bundelen van
Internet Explorer (IE) met de Windows-besturingssysteemproductfamilie.
Het is gebaseerd op een klacht die is ingediend door Opera, een Europees bedrijf
dat betrokken is bij webbrowserontwikkeling, en door FSFE openlijk is gesteund in
2007.
</p>
<h2>Europese interoperabiliteit</h2>
<p>
De Europese Commissie onderzoekt de manier waarop Microsoft voorkomt dat
concurrenten kunnen werken met veel van haar desktopproductiviteitsprogramma's.
FSFE's voorzitter Karsten Gerloff zegt: "We zijn blij met de beslissing van de
Commissie om het onderzoek naar interoperabiliteit open te houden terwijl zij
bijhoudt of Microsoft zich houdt aan haar afspraken om competitie te helpen promoten."
</p>
<p>
FSFE komt ook op voor <a href="/freesoftware/standards/">Open Standaarden</a>, die de
sleutel vormen voor interoperabiliteit en als zodanig promoot FSFE het aannemen ervan, vooral door de <a href="/news/2009/news-20091127-01.en.html">revisie van het Europees interoperabiliteitsraamwerk</a>.
</p>
<h2>Andere lopende activiteiten</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/news/2011/news-20111128-02.html">Horizon 2020</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/fp7/fp7.en.html">7e EC Raamwerkprogramma</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/ipred2/ipred2.en.html">IPRED 2 - Criminalisatie van auteursrecht en overtreding van handelsmerk</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/self/self.en.html">SELF (Wetenschap, Educatie en Leren in Vrijheid, "Science, Education and Learning in Freedom")</a></li>
</ul>
<h2>Wat we hebben bereikt</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/ms-vs-eu/ms-vs-eu.en.html">FSFE en de antitrustzaak tegen Microsoft</a> (2001-2007)</li>
<li><a href="/activities/fp6/fp6.en.html">6e EC Raamwerkprogramma</a> (2002)</li>
</ul>
<h2>Verwant nieuws</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091216-01.html">2009/12/16: FSFE is blij met meer keuze in browsers voor de gebruiker en waarschuwt dat Vrije Software is uitgesloten van interoperabiliteit</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091127-01.html">2009/11/27: EC schikt zich naar lobbyisten voor onvrije software als het gaat om interoperabiliteit</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091109-02.html">2009/11/09: FSFE strijdt voor Europese interoperabiliteit
</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091008-01.html">2009/10/08: Microsoftschikking laat Vrije Software in de kou
</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091006-01.html">2009/10/06: Microsoft antitrustzaak: FSFE biedt analyse aan Europese Commissie
</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20090728-01.html">2009/07/28: EU-browserzaak: FSFE zegt dat details van de schikking cruciaal zullen zijn
</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20090227-01.html">2009/02/27: FSFE raakt betrokken bij EU-browserzaak
</a></li>
</ul>
<h2>Documenten en Publicaties</h2>
<ul>
<li><p><strong><a href="20110429.CollectiveRedress.Response.FSFE.pdf">FSFE 's bijdrage over collectieve revisie (2011-04-30)</a></strong><br/> aan de Europese Commissie's <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2011_collective_redress/index_en.html">publieke consultatie</a> "Naar een coherente Europese aanpak van collectieve revisie".
</p></li>
<li><p><strong><a href="20110418.ProcurementConsultation.FSFE.response.pdf">FSFE's bijdrage over publieke inkoop van Vrije Software (2011-04-18)</a></strong><br/> aan de Europese Commissie's <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/modernising_rules/consultations/index_en.htm">publieke consultatie</a> over "modernisering van publiek inkoopbeleid van de EU".
</p></li>
<li><p><strong><a href="20100930-NetNeutrality.Consultation.pdf">FSFE's inzending over netneutraliteit (2010-09-30)</a></strong><br/> aan de Europese Commissie's <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/library/public_consult//net_neutrality/index_en.htm">publieke consultatie</a> over "open internet en netneutraliteit".
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/freesoftware/standards/ps.en.html">Analyse over balans: Standaardisatie en Patenten</a></b> (2008-12-02)<br/>
Na de "<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemshortdetail.cfm?item_id=3371">IPR in ICT Standaardisatie</a>"-workshop twee weken geleden in Brussel, analyseerde FSFE-voorzitter <a href="/about/people/greve/">Georg Greve</a>
de conflicten tussen patenten en standaarden. Het resulterende
document gaat over de schadelijkste effecten van patenten op standaarden, de
effectiviteit van huidige remedies en potentiële toekomstige remedies.
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/documents/eur5greve.en.html">Vrije Software in Europa - Europese perspectieven en werk van de FSFE</a></b> (2003-05-20)<br/>
Een artikel dat uitlegt wat op verschillende gebieden de grootschalige voordelen van Vrije Software zijn
en hoe Europa en de Europese landen voordeel kunnen hebben van Vrije Software.
(<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/pdf/europe/spring2003/EU5%20Georg%20Gree%20ATL-replace.pdf">Gepubliceerd</a>
in het
<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/europe/spring2003/eu_spring2003_contents.asp">voorjaarsnummer van 2003</a>
van
<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/europe/europe_intro.shtml">Public Service Review - European Union</a>
met een voorwoord door Romano Prodi)
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/lafis.en.html">FP6 EOI: LAFIS - Het leggen van de funderingen voor de informatiesamenleving, "LAying the Foundations for the Information
Society"</a></b> (2002-06-04)<br/></p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/focal.en.html">FP6 EOI: FOCAL - Competentie richten op de voordelen van vrijheid, "FOcussing Competence for Advantages of
Liberty"</a></b> (2002-06-04)<br/></p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/recommendation.en.html">Aanbevelingen van de FSFE en steunende partijen</a></b> (2002-04-30)<br/>
voor het <a href="/activities/fp6/fp6.en.html">6e raamwerkprogramma</a>
</p></li>
</ul>
</body>
<translator>André Ockers</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,146 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>O que fazemos na União Europeia - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">O que fazemos</a></p>
<h1>União Europeia</h1>
<div id="introduction">
<p>
O nosso envolvimento na política da União Europeia remonta a 2001,
quando a FSFE se tornou terceira parte interessada no caso anti dominio do mercado
da Commissão contra a Microsoft. Desde então, pugnàmos pela promoção
do Software Livre focando-nos em princípios fundamentais que têm que ser respeitados, como é o caso da concorrência leal.
</p>
</div>
<!-- <h2>Links</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
<h2>Panorâmica das Políticas da UE: Software Livre e Padrões Abertos</h2>
<p>
Muitos países europeus têm políticas, leis ou
recomendações sobre Software Livre e Padrões
Abertos. Em colaboração com a comunidade de Software
Livre, estamos a preparar uma panorâmica abrangente
de tais políticas. Queremos proporcionar tanto a activistas
como a políticos uma ferramenta de comparação das abordagens
de diferentes países a estas matérias, o obter da ambos as melhores
e as menos boas práticas. Este é um trabalho em andamento.
Solicitamos que envie o que quer que possa ser um contributo para &lt;policies AT
fsfeurope DOT org&gt;, assim como quaisquer comentários que possa ter.<br/>
Tem mais informação <a href="/activities/policy/eu/fspolicies.html">aqui</a>.
</p>
<h2>O caso do Navegador da UE</h2>
<p>
A Free Software Foundation Europe apoiou a investigação anti monopólio da Commissão
Europeia contra a Microsoft enquanto terceira parte interessada.
A investigação teve início a 16 de Janeiro quando a DG de Concorrência
da Comissão Europeia informou que tinha emitido uma declaração de objecções
relativamente ao abuso da Microsoft em padrões web e à vinculação
do Internet Explorer (IE) à família de produtos do Sistema Operativo Windows.
Baseia-se numa queixa apresentada pela Opera, uma empresa europeia
envolvida no desenvolvimento de navegação web, que a FSFE apoiou publicamente em
2007.
</p>
<h2>Interoperabilidade Europeia</h2>
<p>
A Comissão Europeia está a investigar a forma como a Microsoft impede
os concorrentes de interagir com muitos dos seus programas de
produtividade. Diz o Presidente da FSFE, Karsten Gerloff: "Saudamos a
decisão da Commissão de manter em aberto a investigação sobre a interoperabilidade
enquanto verifica se as promessas da Microsoft ajudam a promover a
concorrência."
</p>
<p>
A FSFE está também a pressionar em favor dos <a href="/freesoftware/standards/">Padrões Abertos</a>, que
são chave para a interoperabilidade e por isso FSFE promove a sua adopção, especialmente através da <a href="/news/2009/news-20091127-01.en.html">revisão do Quadro Europeu para a Interoperabilidade</a>.
</p>
<h2>Outras actividades em curso</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/news/2011/news-20111128-02.html">Horizonte 2020</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/fp7/fp7.en.html">7º Programa Quadro da CE</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/ipred2/ipred2.en.html">IPRED 2 - Criminalização da infracção de direitos de autor (copyright) e de marca comercial (trademark)</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/self/self.en.html">SELF (Science, Education and Learning in Freedom)</a>[ou Ciência, Educação e Aprendizagem em Liberdade]</li>
</ul>
<h2>O que já alcançàmos</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/ms-vs-eu/ms-vs-eu.en.html">A FSFE e o caso anti-monopólio contra a Microsoft</a> (2001-2007)</li>
<li><a href="/activities/fp6/fp6.en.html">6º Programa Quadro da CE</a> (2002)</li>
</ul>
<h2>Notícias relacionadas</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091216-01.html">2009/12/16: FSFE welcomes greater user choice in browsers, warns that Free Software is excluded from interoperability</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091127-01.html">2009/11/27: EC caves in to proprietary lobbyists on interoperability</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091109-02.html">2009/11/09: FSFE in battle for European interoperability
</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091008-01.html">2009/10/08: Microsoft settlement leaves Free Software in the cold
</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091006-01.html">2009/10/06: Microsoft antitrust case: FSFE offers analysis to European Commission
</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20090728-01.html">2009/07/28: EU browser case: FSFE says details of settlement will be crucial
</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20090227-01.html">2009/02/27: FSFE engages in the EU browser case
</a></li>
</ul>
<h2>Documentos e Publicações</h2>
<ul>
<li><p><strong><a href="20110429.CollectiveRedress.Response.FSFE.pdf">FSFE's contribution on collective redress (2011-04-30)</a></strong><br/> to the European Commission's <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2011_collective_redress/index_en.html">public consultation</a> "Towards a coherent European approach to collective redress".
</p></li>
<li><p><strong><a href="20110418.ProcurementConsultation.FSFE.response.pdf">FSFE's contribution on public procurement of Free Software (2011-04-18)</a></strong><br/> to the European Commission's <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/modernising_rules/consultations/index_en.htm">public consultation</a> on "modernisation of EU public procurement policy".
</p></li>
<li><p><strong><a href="20100930-NetNeutrality.Consultation.pdf">FSFE's submission on Net Neutrality (2010-09-30)</a></strong><br/> to the European Commission's <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/library/public_consult//net_neutrality/index_en.htm">public consultation</a> on "open internet and net neutrality".
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/freesoftware/standards/ps.en.html">Analysis on balance: Standardisation and Patents</a></b> (2008-12-02)<br />
Following up on the "<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemshortdetail.cfm?item_id=3371">IPR in ICT Standardisation</a>" Workshop two weeks ago in Brussels, FSFE president <a href="/about/people/greve/">Georg Greve</a> analysed the conflicts between patents and standards. The resulting paper is about the most harmful effects of patents on standards, the effectiveness of current remedies, and potential future remedies.
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/documents/eur5greve.en.html">Free Software in Europe - European perspectives and work of the FSF
Europe</a></b> (2003-05-20)<br />
An article explaining the large-scale beneficial aspects of Free Software
in multiple areas and how Europe and the European countries can benefit
from Free Software.
(<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/pdf/europe/spring2003/EU5%20Georg%20Gree%20ATL-replace.pdf">Published</a>
in the
<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/europe/spring2003/eu_spring2003_contents.asp">Spring 2003</a>
issue of the
<a href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/europe/europe_intro.shtml">Public Service Review - European Union</a>
with a foreword by Romano Prodi)
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/lafis.en.html">FP6 EOI: LAFIS - LAying the Foundations for the Information
Society</a></b> (2002-06-04)<br /></p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/focal.en.html">FP6 EOI: FOCAL - FOcussing Competence for Advantages of
Liberty</a></b> (2002-06-04)<br /></p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/fp6/recommendation.en.html">Recommendation by the FSFE and supporting parties</a></b> (2002-04-30)<br />
for the <a href="/activities/fp6/fp6.en.html">6th framework programme</a>
</p></li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,180 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>О деятельности ЕФСПО на уровне ЕС — ЕФСПО</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">О деятельности ЕФСПО</a></p>
<h1>Европейский союз</h1>
<div id="introduction">
<p>Деятельность фонда на уровне Европейского союза началась в 2001 году
с участия в качестве одной из заинтересованных сторон в антимонопольном
судебном процессе Еврокомиссии против корпорации «Майкрософт». С тех пор
фонд содействует свободному программному обеспечению, уделяя особое
внимание соблюдению важнейших принципов, таких как добросовестная
конкуренция и взаимное уважение.</p>
</div>
<h2>Европейская политика: Свободные программы и открытые стандарты</h2>
<p>Во многих странах Европы есть правила, законы или рекомендации,
касающиеся свободных программ и открытых стандартов. Совместно
с сообществом свободного программного обеспечения мы подготавливаем
подробный обзор этих правил. Мы хотим предоставить как активистам, так
и ответственным лицам средство сопоставления подходов, действующих
в разных странах, и извлечения уроков как из хорошей, так и из менее
хорошей практики. Эта работа продолжается. Присылайте, пожалуйста,
все то, что вы можете добавить, по адресу
&lt;policies AT fsfeurope DOT org&gt;, вместе с любыми замечаниями,
которые у вас возникнут.<br/> Подробности можно узнать <a
href="/activities/policy/eu/fspolicies.html"> на отдельной
странице</a>.</p>
<h2>Дело о браузерах</h2>
<p>Европейский фонд свободного программного обеспечения в качестве одной
из заинтересованных сторон содействовал Еврокомиссии в расследовании
монопольного положения корпорации «Майкрософт» на рынке браузеров.
Рассмотрение дела началось 16 января, когда Генеральный директорат
Еврокомиссии по вопросам конкуренции опубликовал заявление, в котором
обвинил корпорацию в нарушении стандартов сети Интернет и принудительной
поставке браузера Internet Explorer с операционными системами семейства
Windows. Иск в Еврокомиссию подала норвежская компания Opera,
специализирующаяся на разработке одноименного браузера. ЕФСПО публично
поддержал компанию в 2007 году.</p>
<h2>Совместимость на европейском уровне</h2>
<p>Европейская комиссия расследует методы, которые корпорация
«Майкрософт» использует для предотвращения совместимости программ
конкурентов со своими настольными приложениями. Как заявил президент
ЕФСПО Карстен Герлофф, «мы приветствуем решение Еврокомиссии
о продолжении сбора сведений по вопросам совместимости и наблюдения
за тем, насколько обещания корпорации «Майкрософт» помогают развитию
конкуренции».</p>
<p>Кроме того, ЕФСПО выступает за использование <a
href="/freesoftware/standards/"> открытых стандартов</a> как основы
совместимости. Фонд продвигает их внедрение в рамках <a
href="/news/2009/news-20091127-01.html"> пересмотра Европейской
концепции совместимости</a>.</p>
<h2>Другие текущие кампании</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/news/2011/news-20111128-02.html">
Горизонт-2020</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/fp7/fp7.html">Седьмая структурная
программа Еврокомиссии</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/ipred2/ipred2.html"> IPRED 2 — Криминализация
нарушений авторского права и товарных знаков</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/self/self.html"> SELF (Свободная наука,
образование и познание)</a></li>
</ul>
<h2>Чего мы добились</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/ms-vs-eu/ms-vs-eu.html">ЕФСПО и
антимонопольное судебное разбирательство против корпорации
«Майкрософт»</a> (2001-2007)</li>
<li><a href="/activities/fp6/fp6.html">Шестая структурная
программа Еврокомиссии</a> (2002)</li>
</ul>
<h2>Новости по теме</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091216-01.html">2009/12/16: ЕФСПО
приветствует предоставление пользователям более широкого выбора
браузеров и предупреждает о том, что совместимость со свободными
программами не рассматривается</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091127-01.html">2009/11/27: Еврокомиссия
уступает лоббистам несвободных программ в вопросах
совместимости</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091109-02.html">2009/11/09: ЕФСПО
в борьбе за совместимость на европейском уровне</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091008-01.html">2009/10/08: В
соглашении с корпорацией «Майкрософт» не учтены интересы свободных
программ</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20091006-01.html">2009/10/06:
Антимонопольное расследование в отношении корпорации «Майкрософт»: ЕФСПО
предлагает Еврокомиссии свой анализ ситуации</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20090728-01.html">2009/07/28: Дело о
браузерах в Евросоюзе: ЕФСПО заявляет о решающем значении деталей
соглашения</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2009/news-20090227-01.html">2009/02/27: ЕФСПО
участвует в деле о браузерах</a></li>
</ul>
<h2>Документы и публикации</h2>
<ul>
<li><p><strong><a
href="20110429.CollectiveRedress.Response.FSFE.pdf"> Выступление ЕФСПО
на коллективном пересмотре (2011-04-30)</a></strong><br/>
На <a
href="http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2011_collective_redress/index_en.html">
открытом семинаре</a> Еврокомиссии «Об общеевропейском подходе
к коллективному пересмотру».</p></li>
<li><p><strong><a
href="20110418.ProcurementConsultation.FSFE.response.pdf"> Выступление
ЕФСПО по вопросам закупок свободного программного обеспечения
(2011-04-18)</a></strong><br/>
На <a
href="http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/modernising_rules/consultations/index_en.htm">
открытом семинаре</a> Еврокомиссии по «модернизации политики публичных
закупок Евросоюза».</p></li>
<li><p><strong><a href="20100930-NetNeutrality.Consultation.pdf">
Записка ЕФСПО о нейтральности сетей (2010-09-30)</a></strong><br/>
На <a
href="http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/library/public_consult//net_neutrality/index_en.htm">
открытом семинаре</a> Еврокомиссии по «открытому Интернету и
нейтральности сетей».</p></li>
<li><p><strong><a href="/freesoftware/standards/ps.html"> Анализ баланса:
стандартизация и патенты</a></strong> (2008-12-02)<br />
После семинара «<a
href="http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemshortdetail.cfm?item_id=3371">IPR
in ICT Standardisation</a>», который прошел две недели назад в Брюсселе,
президент ЕФСПО <a href="/about/people/greve/">Георг Греве</a> проанализировал
противоречия между патентами и стандартами. В документе описано, какое
пагубное воздействие оказывают патенты на стандарты, дана оценка
эффективности существующих решений этих проблем и будущие способы
исправления ситуации.</p></li>
<li><p><strong><a href="/documents/eur5greve.en.html">Свободное программное
обеспечение в Европе — европейские перспективы и деятельность
ЕФСПО</a></strong> (2003-05-20)<br />
В статье разъяснены крупномасштабные выгоды от использования свободных
программ в различных областях жизни Европы в целом и отдельных стран
в частности. <a
href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/pdf/europe/spring2003/EU5%20Georg%20Gree%20ATL-replace.pdf">
Опубликована</a> в обзоре <a
href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/europe/europe_intro.shtml"> Public
Service Review — European Union</a> со вступительным словом Романо Проди
(<a
href="http://www.publicservice.co.uk/europe/spring2003/eu_spring2003_contents.asp">Весенний
выпуск</a> 2003 года).</p></li>
<li><p><strong><a href="/activities/fp6/lafis.en.html">FP6 EOI:
LAFIS — Работа над фундаментом информационного общества</a></strong>
(2002-06-04)<br /></p></li>
<li><p><strong><a href="/activities/fp6/focal.en.html">FP6 EOI:
FOCAL — Сосредоточение знаний для службы делу свободы</a></strong>
(2002-06-04)<br /></p></li>
<li><p><strong><a
href="/activities/fp6/recommendation.en.html">Рекомендации ЕФСПО
и партнеров</a></strong> (2002-04-30)<br /> для <a
href="/activities/fp6/fp6.en.html">Шестой структурной программы
Еврокомиссии</a> </p></li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,482 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Ελευθερία να ανταγωνιζόμαστε:
Διορθώνοντας τη διαδικασία προμηθειών λογισμικού</title>
</head>
<body>
<div class="compare">
<h1>Ελευθερία να ανταγωνιζόμαστε:
Διορθώνοντας τη διαδικασία προμηθειών λογισμικού</h1>
<p>Την Τρίτη 7 Δεκεμβρίου, δημοσιεύσαμε ένα
<a href="/news/2010/news-20101207-01.html">δελτίο τύπου</a> για μια σύμβαση
που ανατέθηκε από την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή, με την οποία η Επιτροπή και άλλοι
Ευρωπαϊκοί θεσμοί θα δαπανήσουν μέχρι και 189 εκατομμύρια Ευρώ σε ιδιοκτησιακό
λογισμικό και σχετιζόμενες με αυτό υπηρεσίες. Έχουμε την άποψη ότι με την
ανάθεση αυτής της σύμβασης, η Επιτροπή για μια ακόμη φορά απέτυχε να
ανταποκριθεί στις δικές της κατευθυντήριες γραμμές και συστάσεις για τη
χρήση Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού και Ανοικτών Προτύπων και έχασε την ευκαιρία
να ανοίξει τη διαδικασία προμηθειών για το λογισμικό στον ανταγωνισμό
από εταιρείες Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού.</p>
<p>Η εν λόγω σύμβαση, που καλείται SACHA II, είναι ευθύνη της Γενικής
Διεύθυνσης της Επιτροπής για την Πληροφορική (DIGIT για συντομία).
Λίγες ημέρες μετά από τη δημοσίευση του δελτίου τύπου, λάβαμε απάντηση
από τον κ. Francisco García Moran, τον επικεφαλής της DIGIT.</p>
<p>Θα θέλαμε να ευχαριστήσουμε τον κ. García Moran που ανταποκρίθηκε
λεπτομερώς στις ανησυχίες. Ζήτησε να δημοσιεύσουμε την απάντησή του,
το οποίο κάνουμε ευχαρίστως.
<a href="/activities/policy/eu/ECletter.20101210.en.pdf">Εδώ</a> είναι η επιστολή
που λάβαμε.</p>
<h2>Η απάντηση της Επιτροπής δεν κάνει τίποτα
για να καθησυχάσει τις ανησυχίες μας</h2>
<p>Δυστυχώς, η απάντηση της Επιτροπής ούτε δείχνει ότι η στάση μας ήταν
λάθος, ούτε μπορεί να κατευνάσει την κριτική μας. Για αυτό θα θέλαμε να
επιστρέψουμε ορισμένες ερωτήσεις στον κ. García Moran. Εκτιμάμε την
ευκαιρία που μας δίνεται να βρεθούμε σε μια λεπτομερή συζήτηση για τη
στρατηγική της Επιτροπής για το λογισμικό και τις πρακτικές προμηθειών
που ακολουθεί και προσδοκούμε έναν εποικοδομητικό διάλογο.</p>
<p>
Σημειώνουμε ότι η απάντηση της DIGIT δεν απαντά στην κριτική μας για
την αναντιστοιχία ανάμεσα στις κατευθύνσεις και τις συστάσεις της Επιτροπής
(όπως αναερεται στο
<a href="/news/2010/news-20101207-01.html">δελτίο τύπου</a>),
και την μαζική προμήθεια αδειών χρήσης για ιδιοκτησιακό λογισμικό. </p>
<p>
Αυτή η κριτική ισχύει και για την πρόσφατη σύμβαση SACHA II, καθώς επίσης
και για τη
<a href="http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:71324-2008:TEXT:EN:HTML&amp;tabId=1">σύμβαση-πλαίσιο
με την Fujitsu-Siemens</a> για την προμήθεια προϊόντων της Microsoft στις
10 Ιανουαρίου 2008. </p>
<p>
Θα θέλαμε να δούμε την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή να στηρίξει τη δημόσια ρητορική της
σχετικά με το Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό, τα Ανοιχτά Πρότυπα και τη διαλειτουργικότητα
με δικές της ενέργειες. Αυτό θα απαιτούσε από την DIGIT να επανεξετάσει κάποιες
πρακτικές προμηθειών έτσι ώστε να ανοίξει τη διαδικασία προμηθειών λογισμικού
στον ανταγωνισμό. </p>
<div class="clear">
<h3 class="grid-40 left">
Η επιστολή της Επιτροπής από τις 10 Δεκ 2010 </h3>
<h3 class="grid-60 right">Τα σχόλια του FSFE</h3>
</div>
<div class="clear">
<p class="grid-40 left">
(1) Το δελτίο τύπου δεν αναφέρει το γεγονός
ότι η σύμβαση στην οποία αναφέρεστε είναι το αποτέλεσμα ανοικτού
διαγωνισμού με βάση ως πρόκριμα την υψηλότερη σχέση ποιότητας προς
τιμή. Αυτή είναι μια σημαντική παράλειψη σε ένα δελτίο τύπου το οποίο,
από τη μία πλευρά, λέει ότι η Επιτροπή θα πρέπει να αποφύγει τη
διακριτική μεταχείριση και να ανοίξει τις δημόσιες προμήθειες στον
ανταγωνισμό, και από την άλλη κατηγορεί την Επιτροπή ότι δεν κάνει
αρκετά για να διατηρήσει το κόστος χαμηλό και να δαπανήσει τα χρήματα
των φορολογουμένων κατά τον καλύτερο δυνατό τρόπο.
</p>
<p class="grid-60 right">
Είναι φυσικό να υποθέσουμε ότι μια υπεύθυνη δημόσια διοικητική υπηρεσία
όπως είναι η Επιτροπή δεν θα δαπανούσε τέτοια ποσά χωρίς ανοικτή διαδιακασία
υποβολής προτάσεων. Δεν θεωρήσαμε απαραίτητο να επισημάνουμε το αυτονόητο.</p>
<p class="grid-60 right">
Η κριτική μας απευθύνεται στον τρόπο με τον οποίο αυτή η διαδικασία
υποβολής προτάσεων έχει σχεδιαστεί και στην απουσία συντονισμένης
προσπάθειας για διεύρυνση της χρήσης Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού και Ανοικτών
Προτύπων από την πλευρά της DIGIT.</p>
</div>
<div class="clear even">
<p class="grid-40 left even">
(2) Η πρώτη πρόταση στο δελτίο τύπου σας ("77ze Commission will spend EUR 189
million on proprietary software over the next six years'") είναι εντελώς
παραπλανητική για τους ακόλουθους λόγους:
<br /><br /><!--i know that's ugly but the only way to fix quickly i could find-->
(a) Επιχορηγούμενο ποσό. Η πρόταση αφήνει να εννοηθεί ότι η Επιτροπή έχει
χορηγήσει το συνολικό ποσό των 189 εκατομμυρίων ΕΥΡΩ για την ίδια,
χωρίς να αναφέρει το γεγονός ότι η εν λόγω σύμβαση καλύπτει επίσης τις
ανάγκες των άλλων 36 Θεσμικών Οργάνων, Οργανισμών και άλλων Υπηρεσιών
της ΕΕ. Το ποσό της επιχορήγησης για τις ανάγκες της Επιτροπής ανέρχεται
σε €67,4 εκατομμύρια (βλέπε VI.2 παράγραφο της προκήρυξης του διαγωνισμού).
</p>
<p class="grid-60 right even">
Αντιλαμβανόμαστε ότι οι θεσμοί στους οποίους το λογισμικό και οι υπηρεσίες
θα παρέχονται, χρηματοδοτούνται από προϋπολογισμούς της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, και
ότι θα αποκτήσουν το λογισμικό και τις υπηρεσίες, μέσω της σύμβασης SACHA II.
Η σύμβαση υπεγράφη από την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή, και τα χρήματα θα προέλθουν
από πορτοφόλι των φορολογουμένων.
</p>
</div>
<div class="clear">
<p class="grid-40 left">
(b) Δέσμευση για δαπάνη. Η Επιτροπή δεν έχει δεσμευτεί να δαπανήσει
το σύνολο του ποσού αυτού. Στην περίπτωση της σύμβασης-πλαισίου
(ή «πλαισίου συμφωνίας») όπως αυτή, το ποσό που αναφέρεται στην
προκήρυξη ανάθεσης αντιστοιχεί στο μέγιστο ανώτατο όριο προϋπολογισμού
που μπορεί να χρησιμοποιηθεί σε όλη τη διάρκεια της σύμβασης
(συμπεριλαμβανομένων όλων των πιθανών ανανεώσεων). Για να αποφευχθούν
νέες διοικητικές διαδικασίες, τέτοια δημοσιονομικά ανώτατα όρια περιέχουν
διατάξεις για διάφορα απρόβλεπτα που μπορεί να προκύψουν κατά τη διάρκεια
ή κατά τη λήξη της σύμβασης.</p>
<p class="grid-60 right">
Ενώ αυτό είναι ένα ανώτατο όριο προϋπολογισμού, δεν είναι καθόλου
ασυνήθιστο για τις δημόσιες διοικήσεις να φτάνουν σε τέτοια ανώτατα
όρια στις δημόσιες συμβάσεις τους.
</p>
<p class="grid-60 right">
Προκειμένου να μην υπάρξει σύγχυση στο ενδιαφερόμενο κοινό, θα είναι
σε θέση η DIGIT να παράσχει μια ένδειξη του ποσοστού της συνολικής
τελικής τιμής που έχει δαπανηθεί σύμφωνα με την ισχύουσα σύμβαση της
Επιτροπής με την Fujitsu (2008/S 53-071324) για την παροχή προϊόντων
λογισμικού και αδειών χρήσης από τη Microsoft;</p>
</div>
<div class="clear even">
<p class="grid-40 left even">
(c) Διάρκεια. Η διάρκεια της εν λόγω σύμβασης για προμήθειες είναι δύο ετών,
που μπορεί (αλλά δεν είναι απαραίτητο) να ανανεώνονται μέχρι δύο φορές για
περίοδο ενός έτους η καθεμία. Η συνολική διάρκεια είναι συνεπώς τεσσάρων
(όχι έξι) ετών. Τα δύο επιπλέον έτη καλύπτουν μόνο τη συντήρηση των αδειών
χρήσης που ήδη αποκτήθηκανκεκτημένων αδειών.</p>
<p class="grid-60 right even">
Επομένως, η συνολική διάρκεια της σύμβασης είναι έξι έτη, στη διάρκεια
της οποίας μπορούν να δαπανηθούν 189 εκατ. ευρώ από τα δημόσια ταμεία.</p>
<p class="grid-60 right even">
Πρόκειται η Επιτροπή να αλλάξει την προσέγγισή της στην προμήθεια λογισμικού
μετά από την αρχική διετή περίοδο, έτσι ώστε οι Ευρωπαίκές ΜΜΕ Ελεύθερου
Λογισμικού να διευκολυνθούν στην υποβολή προσφορών για συμβάσεις με τα
Ευρωπαϊκά θεσμικά όργανα; Αν συμβαίνει κάτι τέτοιο, θα είμαστε πολύ ευτυχείς
να έχουμε αποδειχθεί λάθος εδώ. Αν όχι, η κριτική μας παραμένει.</p>
</div>
<div class="clear">
<p class="grid-40 left">(d) Είδος καλυπτόμενου λογισμικού. Σε αντίθεση
με τη δήλωσή σας, η εν λόγω σύμβαση δεν καλύπτει μόνο την απόκτηση
ιδιοκτησιακού λογισμικού, αλλά και του λογισμικού ανοικτού κώδικα (ΛΑΚ)
και συναφών με αυτό υπηρεσιών, όπως η υποστήριξη υψηλού επιπέδου σε
προϊόντα ανοικτού κώδικα, για παράδειγμα από τις Red Hat, Atlassian,
Balsamiq Studios, Adaptavist και άλλες.
</p>
<p class="grid-60 right">
Δεν έχουμε κάνει τέτοια δήλωση. Το δελτίο τύπου του FSFE ρητά αναφέρει
ότι τα θεσμικά όργανα που καλύπτονται θα αποκτήσουν «μια ευρεία γκάμα
κυρίως ιδιοκτησιακού λογισμικού».</p>
<p class="grid-60 right">
Επιπλέον, φαίνεται να υπάρχει κάποια σύγχυση από την πλευρά της DIGIT
σχετικά με το τι ακριβώς είναι το Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό. Τα περισσότερα
από τα προϊόντα της Red Hat στην πραγματικότητα εκπληρώνουν τον
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html">ορισμό για το
Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό</a>. Τα προϊόντα της Atlassian
<a href="http://www.atlassian.com/about/licensing/license.jsp">διανέμονται
με ιδιοκτησιακές άδειες χρήσης</a>, όπως και
<a href="http://balsamiq.com/images/BalsamiqEula.pdf">εκείνα της Balsamiq</a>.
Θα είναι τιμή για το FSFE να βοηθήσει την DIGIT στο κλείσιμο τυχόν κενών
που ενδεχομένως υπάρχουν στην κατανόηση των αδειών χρήσης
Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού.</p>
</div>
<div class="clear even">
<p class="grid-40 left even">(3) Υποστηρίζετε ότι η Επιτροπή θα έπρεπε
να καταλήξει σε μια στρατηγική για να επωφεληθεί από το Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό.
Δράττομαι της ευκαιρίας να σας ενημερώσω ότι η Επιτροπή έχει όντως στρατηγική
ΛΑΚ από το 2001. Μια περίληψη της τελευταίας έκδοσης της στρατηγικής αυτής
είναι διαθέσιμη στον ιστότοπο της DIGIT για την EUROPA portal1. Μια νέα έκδοση
βρίσκεται στο τελικό προσχέδιο και θα δημοσιευθεί πολύ σύντομα. Ως αποτέλεσμα
της στρατηγικής αυτής, περισσότερα από 250 προϊόντα ΛΑΚ που αφορούν σε όλες
τις κατηγορίες που διαχειρίζεται η DIGIT είναι ήδη σε χρήση από την Επιτροπή.
Για λόγους πληρότητας, ίσως αξίζει να αναφέρουμε μερικά επιπλέον παραδείγματα
των επιτευγμάτων στον τομέα αυτό, στο ύψος των οποίων πολύ λίγες (αν υπάρχουν)
δημόσιες διοικήσεις στον κόσμο μπορούν να φτάσουν:</p>
<p class="grid-60 right even">
Για το γεγονός ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή χρησιμοποιεί Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό
δεν χωράει καμία αμφιβολία. Ούτε πρόκειται για κάποια ξεχωριστή επιτυχία.
Στο τέλος του 2008, η εταιρεία συμβούλων
<a href="http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=801412">Gartner προσδοκούσε
το 100% των επιχειρήσεων να χρησιμοποιούν τουλάχιστον κάποιο Ελεύθερο
Λογισμικό ως το τέλος του 2009</a>.</p>
<p class="grid-60 right even">
Η υποστηριζόμενη από την Επιτροπή
<a href="http://www.flosspols.org/deliverables/D03HTML/FLOSSPOLS-D03%20local%20governments%20survey%20reportFINAL.html">μελέτη
FLOSSPOLS βρήκε ότι 78% των δημόσιων διοικήσεων χρησιμοποιούσαν
τουλάχιστον κάποιο Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό</a> ήδη από το 2004/5.</p>
<p class="grid-60 right even">
Ταυτόχρονα, η Επιτροπή και τα άλλα θεσμικά όργανα που περιλαμβάνονται σε
αυτήν τη σύμβαση, εξακολουθούν να δαπανούν σημαντικά χρηματικά ποσά σε
ιδιοκτησιακό λογισμικό, όπως επιβεβαιώνεται τόσο από την SACHA ΙΙ όσο και
από τη χωριστή σύμβαση-πλαίσιο της 10ης Ιανουαρίου του 2008 για την παροχή
προϊόντων και αδειών χρήσης της Microsoft. Το γεγονός αυτό αφήνει κάποιες
αμφιβολίες για την αποτελεσματικότητα της στρατηγικής της Επιτροπής.
</p>
</div>
<div class="clear">
<p class="grid-40 left">
(a)Η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή τρέχει λύσεις πληροφορικής σε περισσότερους
από 350 εξυπηρετητές Linux.</p>
<p class="grid-60 right">
Θα θέλαμε να ρωτήσουμε την Επιτροπή σχετικά με τον συνολικό αριθμό των
εξυπηρετητών που έχει σε λειτουργία η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή και τα άλλα
θεσμικά όργανα που καλύπτονται από τη σύμβαση SACHA ΙΙ, καθώς και σχετικά
με το ποσοστό αυτών των εξυπηρετητών που χρησιμοποιούν λειτουργικά συστήματα
Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού όπως το GNU/Linux ή BSD συστήματα.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="grid-40 left">
(b) Το Κέντρο Δεδομένων της DIGIT διαχειρίζεται περισσότερους από 800
εξυπηρετητές ιστού ανοικτου κώδικα.</p>
<p class="grid-60 right">
Θα ήταν ενδιαφέρον να γνωρίζουμε πόσους εξυπηρετητές ιστού η Ευρωπαϊκή
Επιτροπή και τα άλλα θεσμικά όργανα που καλύπτει η σύμβαση SACHA II,
έχουν θέσει σε λειτουργία· τι λογισμικό χρησιμοποιούν· και τι ποσοστό
αυτών των εξυπηρετητών ιστού είναι στ' αλήθεια Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό.</p>
<p class="grid-40 left">
[...]</p>
</div>
<div class="clear even">
<p class="grid-40 left even">(h) Η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή διαχειρίζεται επίσης
τρεις σημαντικούς δημόσιους ιστοτόπους, οι οποίοι επίσης εξ ολοκλήρου
χρησιμοποιούν ΛΑΚ: τον www.osor.eu (παρατηρητήριο και αποθετήριο ανοικτού
κώδικα για την ηλεκτρονική διακυβέρνηση), www.semic.eu (κέντρο ανταλλαγής
σημασιολογικών στοιχείων) και τον www.epractice.eu (κοινότητα για την
ηλεκτρονική διακυβέρνηση, ένταξη και υγεία)
</p>
<div class="grid-60 right even">
<p>
Έχουμε πλήρη επίγνωση αυτών των ιστοτόπων, και εκτιμάμε τη χρησιμότητά τους
για πολλές ευρωπαϊκές δημόσιες υπηρεσίες. Ωστόσο, μας λυπεί το γεγονός ότι
η Επιτροπή δεν καταβάλλει μεγαλύτερες προσπάθειες προς την κατεύθυνση της
χρήσης των πλεονεκτημάτων του Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού και των Ανοικτών Προτύπων
όταν πρόκειται για την εσωτερική της υποδομή της Πληροφορικής. Τέτοιες
προσπάθειες θα συνέβαλαν κατά πολύ στην αύξηση της διαλειτουργικότητας,
της διαφάνειας και του ανταγωνισμού· Θα έκαναν δυνατή για μεγαλύτερο αριθμό
Ευρωπαϊκών ΜΜΕ την παροχή υπηρεσιών προς την Επιτροπή· και θα μπορούσαν να
μειώσουν τις δαπάνες της Επιτροπής για την Πληροφορική. Χωρίς αποφασιστικά
βήματα προς την κατεύθυνση αυτή, οι κατευθυντήριες γραμμές και συστάσεις της
Επιτροπής θα είναι τελικά μάταιες.</p>
<p>
Η πρόσκληση υποβολής προσφορών SACHA II σχεδιάστηκε με τρόπο ώστε να γίνεται
πολύ δύσκολο, αν όχι αδύνατο, για τις εταιρίες Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού να
προσφέρουν τα προϊόντα και τις υπηρεσίες τους:</p>
<p>
Η πρόσκληση για την υποβολή προσφορών περιλαμβάνει έναν μακρύ κατάλογο
συγκεκριμένων προϊόντων, αντί για ένα σύνολο λειτουργικών προδιαγραφών.
Ενώ διατυπώσεις όπως</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Ονομασίες προϊόντων και εμπορικά σήματα: Κάθε φορά που οι
προδιαγραφές αναφέρουν κάποιο συγκεκριμένο όνομα προϊόντος ή
εμπορικό σήμα και η αρκούντως ακριβής και πλήρως κατανοητή περιγραφή
δεν είναι δυνατή, τέτοια αναφορά θα πρέπει να θεωρηθεί ως αναφορά
στο εν λόγω προϊόν ή το ισοδύναμό της. (SACHA II
<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/informatics/procurement/calls_docs/2009029/2009029_annex6.pdf]">Annex 6</a> : 5.1.4.)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
ίσως να ικανοποιούν ίσως όχι το γράμμα του νόμου, είναι βέβαιο ότι
δεν οδηγούν σε ανταγωνιστικές προσφορές από έναν μεγάλο αριθμό
προμηθευτών διαφορετικών προγραμμάτων. Αυτό το θέμα ήταν στο
επίκεντρο των διαδικασιών της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής για καταπάτηση
εναντίον ορισμένων κρατών μελών όσον αφορά τις μεροληπτικές προδιαγραφές
στους διαγωνισμούς υποβολής προτάσεων με την ένδειξη "Intel ή ισοδύναμοι"
επεξεργαστές (βλέπε <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/1210&amp;format=HTML&amp;aged=0&amp;language=EN&amp;guiLanguage=en">Δελτίο τύπου
IP/04/1210</a>, 13 Οκτ 2004)</p>
<p>
Το Παράρτημα 4 (<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/informatics/procurement/calls_docs/2009029/2009029_annex4.pdf">Annex 4</a>) των προδιαγραφών του διαγωνισμού
περιέχει 251 κατονομαζόμενα προίόντα λογισμικού (χωρίς να υπολογίζονται
διαφορετικές ποικιλίες αυτών των προϊόντων). Μας εκπλήσσει το γεγονός ότι
η DIGIT δεν κατάφερε να παράσχει μια «επαρκώς συγκεκριμένη και πλήρως
κατανοητή περιγραφή» για οποιοδήποτε από τα προϊόντα αυτά χωρίς να
καταφεύγει σε ονόματα προϊόντων και εμπορικών σημάτων.</p>
<p>
Η DIGIT δημοσίευσε μια συνολική πρόσκληση για υποβολή προσφορών για ένα
πολύ μεγάλο και διαφορετικό σύνολο προγραμμάτων. Αν η Επιτροπή ήθελε
πραγματικά να αποκτήσει Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό και συναφείς υπηρεσίες, μια
ορθή προσέγγιση θα ήταν να ανακοινώσει διαγωνισμό προτάσεων για έναν
αριθμό μικρότερων, πιο συγκεκριμένων συμβάσεων. Οι Ευρωπαϊκές ΜΜΕ θα
είχαν διευκολυνθεί στη συμμετοχή τους σε τέτοιους διαγωνισμούς.</p>
<p>
Θα εκτιμούσαμε αν η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή θα μπορούσε να μας ενημερώσει
για το πως οι δαπάνες στο πλαίσιο της σύμβασης SACHA II θα κατανεμηθούν
μεταξύ των διαφόρων προϊόντων και υπηρεσιών λογισμικού που απαριθμούνται
στην πρόσκληση για προσφορές. Τι ποσοστό των δαπανών στο πλαίσιο της
παρούσας σύμβασης θα διατεθεί για την αγορά Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού και
συναφών υπηρεσιών;</p>
<p>
Θα μπορούσε επίσης η Επιτροπή να μας ενημερώσει πόσες προσφορές
υποβλήθηκαν συνολικά; Αυτή θα ήταν μια ενδιαφέρουσα ένδειξη του
αριθμού των εταιρειών που θεώρησαν ότι ήταν σε θέση επιτυχώς να
υποβάλουν πρόταση.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="clear">
<p class="grid-40 left">(4) Το δελτίο τύπου σας υποθέτει ότι το
ιδιοκτησιακό λογισμικό είναι, εξ ορισμού, ανίκανο να είναι διαλειτουργικό
ή να υλοποιήσει πρότυπα. Αυτό απλά δεν είναι αλήθεια. Το ιδιοκτησιακό
λογισμικό μπορεί να εφαρμόσει τα πρότυπα όπως και το ΛΑΚ. Εξ όσων γνωρίζω,
η εταιρική υποδομή Πληροφορικής της Επιτροπής υποστηρίζει ήδη όλα τα
σημαντικά πρότυπα Πληροφορικής, είτε με ιδιοκτησιακό λογισμικό ή/και με ΛΑΚ.
Εάν γνωρίζετε κάποιο μεγάλο πρότυπο Πληροφορικής που δεν υποστηρίζεται από
την υποδομή της Επιτροπής, θα ήμουν ευγνώμων αν με ενημερώνατε γι' αυτό,
ώστε να λάβω τα κατάλληλα μέτρα.
</p>
<div class="grid-60 right">
<p>
Το δελτίο τύπου μας δεν κάνει καμία τέτοια υπόθεση. Το FSFE υποστηρίζει ότι
τα <a href="/freesoftware/standards/def.html">Ανοιχτά Πρότυπα</a> μπορούν να εφαρμοστούν
και στο Ελεύθερο και στο ιδιοκτησιακό λογισμικό. Τα Ανοιχτά Πρότυπα, τα οποία
δεν εξαρτώνται από κανέναν συγκεκριμένο προμηθευτή, και τα οποία μπορούν να
εφαρμοστούν σε οποιοδήποτε μοντέλο λογισμικού, προσφέρουν ελευθερία από το
κλείδωμα σε προμηθευτές και ανοίγουν την αγορά λογισμικού στην καινοτομία
και τον ανταγωνισμό. </p>
<p>
Εκτιμούμε ιδιαίτερα το αίτημά σας για παροχή δεδομένων, και θα κάνουμε
χρήση αυτής της ευκαιρίας, όποτε κριθεί απαραίτητο.</p>
<p>
Το σημαντικό ερώτημα είναι αν τα Ευρωπαϊκά θεσμικά όργανα είναι προσιτά
στους πολίτες, ανεξάρτητα από το είδος του λογισμικού που επιλέγουν να
χρησιμοποιούν. Ένα ξεχωριστό παράδειγμα αποτυχημένης εφαρμογής είναι το
γεγονός ότι οι ιστομεταδόσεις από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο δεν είναι ορατές
από όσο γνωρίζουμε με τη χρήση ενός λειτουργικού συστήματος GNU/Linux.
Αυτό είναι ένα σημαντικό εμπόδιο για τη συμμετοχή και εμπλοκή των πολιτών
στη διαδικασία λήψης αποφάσεων της ΕΕ. Θα καλωσορίζαμε τη βοήθεια του DIGIT
στην άρση αυτού του εμποδίου για δημοκρατική συμμετοχή.</p>
<p>
Θα θέλαμε επίσης να σημειωθεί ότι η Επιτροπή διατηρεί την προτίμησή της
για ιδιοκτησιακούς τύπους αρχειοθέτησης εγγράφων, και το προσωπικό ακόμη
δεν είναι σε θέση να λαμβάνει έγγραφα σε τύπους .odf χωρίς να περάσει από
κεντρική μετάφραση, παρά το γεγονός ότι αυτό έχει καθιερωθεί ως ένα επίσημο
πρότυπο ISO.
</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="clear even">
<p class="grid-40 left even">(5) Αυτή η διαδικασία σύναψης συμβάσεων
είναι εντελώς άσχετη με την εν εξελίξει αναθεώρηση του Ευρωπαϊκού Πλαισίου
Διαλειτουργικότητας. Σχετικά με αυτό το σημείο, θα ήθελα απλώς να υπενθυμίσω
ότι η Επιτροπή έχει δεσμευτεί να υιοθετήσει την Communication on
Interoperability (η οποία θα περιλαμβάνει και το Ευρωπαϊκό Πλαίσιο
Διαλειτουργικότητας και την Ευρωπαϊκής Στρατηγική για τη Διαλειτουργικότητα)
πριν από το τέλος του 2010, όπως αναφέρεται στο σημείο 2.2.3 της Ψηφιακής
Ατζέντας. Δεδομένου ότι αυτό το αρχείο οδεύει προς την οριστική έγκρισή του,
θα ήταν άτοπο για μένα να προβώ σε περαιτέρω σχόλια σχετικά με τη διαδικασία.
</p>
<div class="grid-60 right even">
<p>
Το δελτίο τύπου μας αναφέρει απλώς ότι τόσο η παρούσα σύμβαση όσο και
η αναθεώρηση του Ευρωπαϊκού Πλαισίου Διαλειτουργικότητας συντονίζονται
από την DIGIT. </p>
<p>
Ανυπομονούμε για την επικείμενη δημοσίευση του Ευρωπαϊκού Πλαισίου
Διαλειτουργικότητας, και
<a href="/freesoftware/standards/eifv2.html">παρά τις ενδείξεις
για το αντίθετο</a> εξακολουθούμε να ελπίζουμε ότι θα προσφέρει τουλάχιστον
το ίδιο επίπεδο κατευθύνσεων για τον ευρωπαϊκό δημόσιο τομέα σχετικά με τα
Ανοιχτά Πρότυπα, όπως και η αρχική έκδοση.
</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="clear">
<p class="grid-40 left even">Μπορώ μόνο να πω ότι λυπάμαι που δεν διασταυρώσατε
τις πηγές σας, πριν δημοσιεύσετε το δελτίο τύπου. Αυτό φαίνεται να βασίζεται
αποκλειστικά σε ένα άρθρο το οποίο περιέχει πλήθος παραπλανητικών στοιχείων.
Αν είχατε έρθει σε επαφή μαζί μας, θα ήταν ευχαρίστηση για το τμήμα μου να
σας δώσει ακριβή πραγματικά στοιχεία, και είμαι βέβαιος ότι το αποτέλεσμα
θα ήταν πιο ισορροπημένο.
</p>
<div class="grid-60 right even">
<p>
Είμαι στην ευχάριστη θέση να σας πληροφορήσω ότι, αντί να στηρίζουμε
τη δημόσια παρέμβασή μας μόνο στα άρθρα του Τύπου, ακολουθήσαμε τις
συνήθεις βέλτιστες πρακτικές του FSFE να απευθυνθούμε στην πηγή και,
στην περίπτωση αυτή, επενδύσαμε σημαντικό χρόνο στη μελέτη των δημόσια
διαθέσιμων εγγράφων που σχετίζονται με την παρούσα σύμβαση προμήθειας. </p>
<p>
Λυπούμαστε που η ίδια η σύμβαση SACHA ΙΙ δεν έχει δημοσιευθεί.
Εάν η σύμβαση επρόκειτο να γίνει δημόσια διαθέσιμη, το FSFE και
άλλοι Ευρωπαίοι πολίτες που νοιάζονται για το τρόπο με τον οποίο
οι φόροι τους επενδύονται και οι θεσμοί τους ασκούν τις δραστηριότητές
τους, θα ήταν σε θέση να επαληθεύσουν αν η συμφωνία αυτή είναι
πραγματικά προς το συμφέρον τους.</p>
<p>
Το ίδιο ισχύει και για άλλες συμβάσεις που συνήψε η Επιτροπή σχετικά με
την προμήθεια λογισμικού, όπως η
<a href="http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:71324-2008:TEXT:EN:HTML&amp;tabId=1">49 εκατ. ευρώ
σύμβαση-πλαίσιο για λογισμικό και υπηρεσίες της Microsoft</a> που κατακυρώθηκε
στην Fujitsu Siemens στις 10 Ιανουαρίου 2008.
</p>
<p>
Στόχος μας είναι η αύξηση της χρήσης Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού και
Ανοικτών Προτύπων σε όλα τα τμήματα του Ευρωπαϊκού δημόσιου τομέα.
Αυτό περιλαμβάνει το άνοιγμα των δημόσιων προμηθειών στη συμμετοχή
εταιρειών Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού. Το FSFE θα χαρεί να συνεργαστεί με
την DIGIT και άλλα μέρη της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, προκειμένου να
υποστηρίξει τον ανταγωνισμό, την επιλογή και την ελευθερία στην
Ευρωπαϊκή αγορά λογισμικού.
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,451 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Freedom to compete: Fixing software procurement</title>
</head>
<body>
<div class="compare">
<h1>Freedom to compete: Fixing software procurement</h1>
<p>On Tuesday December 7, we issued a <a href="/news/2010/news-20101207-01.en.html">press release</a> about a contract
awarded by the European Commission, under which the EC and other
European institutions will spend up to 189 million Euro on proprietary
software and related services. We are of the view that in issuing this
contract, the EC has once more failed to live up to its own guidelines
and recommendations about the use of Free Software and Open Standards,
and has missed an opportunity to open up software procurement to
competition from Free Software companies.</p>
<p>The contract in question, called SACHA II, is the responsibility of
the EC's Directorate-General for Informatics (DIGIT for short). A few
days after our press release, we received a written reply from Mr
Francisco García Moran, the head of DIGIT.</p>
<p>We would like to thank Mr García Moran for replying to our concerns in
detail. He requested that we publish his reply, which we are glad to
do. <a href="/activities/policy/eu/ECletter.20101210.en.pdf">Here</a> is the original letter we received.</p>
<h2>The EC's reply does nothing to allay our concerns</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, the EC's reply neither shows our stance to be
wrong, nor does it allay our criticism. This is why we would like to
return some questions to Mr García Moran. We appreciate the
opportunity to enter into a detailed discussion of the EC's software
strategy and its software procurement practices, and hope for a
constructive dialogue.</p>
<p>
We note that DIGIT's reply does not answer our criticism regarding
the mismatch between the Commission's own guidelines and
recommendations (as referred to in the <a href="/news/2010/news-20101207-01.en.html">press release</a>), and the
massive acquisition of licenses for proprietary software.</p>
<p>
This criticism applies to both the recent SACHA II contract, as
well as the <a href="http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:71324-2008:TEXT:EN:HTML&amp;tabId=1">framework contract with Fujitsu-Siemens</a> for the
provision of Microsoft products concluded on January 10, 2008.</p>
<p>
We would like to see the European Commission back up its public
rhetoric regarding Free Software, Open Standards and interoperability
with its own actions. This would require DIGIT to rethink some
procurement practices in order to open up public software procurement
to competition.</p>
<div class="clear">
<h3 class="grid-40 left">
EC letter from Dec 10th, 2010 </h3>
<h3 class="grid-60 right">FSFE's comments
</h3>
</div>
<div class="clear">
<p class="grid-40 left">
(1) The press release does not mention the fact that the contract you refer to is the
result of an open call for tenders awarded on the basis of the highest quality/price
ratio. This is a major omission in a press release which, on the one hand, says that
the Commission should avoid discrimination and open up public procurement to
competition, and, on the other, accuses the Commission of not doing enough to
keep its costs low and to spend the taxpayers' money in the best possible way.
</p>
<p class="grid-60 right">
It is only natural to assume that a responsible public administration
such as the EC would not spend such sums without an open call for
tender. We did not consider it necessary to highlight something that
should be self-evident.</p>
<p class="grid-60 right">
Our criticism is directed at the way in which this call for tender
was designed, and at the underlying lack of a coordinated effort
to make greater use of Free Software and Open Standards on the
part of DIGIT.</p>
</div>
<div class="clear even">
<p class="grid-40 left even">
(2) The first sentence of your press release ("77ze Commission will spend EUR 189
million on proprietary software over the next six years'") is totally misleading for
the following reasons:
<br /><br /><!--i know that's ugly but the only way to fix quickly i could find-->
(a) Awarded amount. The sentence implies that the Commission has awarded
the total amount of EUR 189 million for itself, without mentioning the fact
that the contract in question also covers the needs of 36 other EU
Institutions, Agencies and other Bodies. The amount awarded for the
Commission's own needs is EUR 67.4 million (see paragraph VI.2 of the
contract notice).
</p>
<p class="grid-60 right even">
We understand that the institutions for which software and services
will be provided are funded by European Union budgets, and that they
will obtain software and services through the SACHA II contract. The
contract is signed by the European Commission, and the money will come
out of the taxpayers' purse.
</p>
</div>
<div class="clear">
<p class="grid-40 left">
(b) Commitment to spend. The Commission has not committed itself to spend
the whole of this amount. In the case of a framework contract (or
"framework agreement") such as this one, the amount mentioned in the
award notice corresponds to the maximum budgetary ceiling which can be
used over the entire duration of the contract (including all possible
renewals). In order to avoid new administrative procedures, such
maximum budgetary ceilings contain provisions for various contingencies
which could arise during or at the end of the contract.</p>
<p class="grid-60 right">
While this is a maximum budget, it is not at all uncommon for public
administrations to reach such ceilings in their procurement contracts.
</p>
<p class="grid-60 right">
In order to provide orientation to the concerned public, would DIGIT
be able to provide an indication of the percentage of the total final
value which has been spent under the Commission's current contract
with Fujitsu (2008/S 53-071324) to provide Microsoft software products
and licenses?</p>
</div>
<div class="clear even">
<p class="grid-40 left even">
(c) Duration. The duration of the contract in question for acquisitions is two
years, which may (but do not have to) be renewed up to two times for a
period of one year each. The total duration is therefore four (not six) years.
The two additional years only cover maintenance of already acquired
licences.</p>
<p class="grid-60 right even">
It follows that the total duration of the contract is six years,
during which EUR 189 million in public funds may be spent.</p>
<p class="grid-60 right even">
Is the EC going to change its approach to software procurement after
the initial two years, so that European Free Software SMEs will have
an easier time bidding for contracts with the European institutions?
If that is the case, we will be very glad to have been proved wrong
here. If not, our criticism stands.</p>
</div>
<div class="clear">
<p class="grid-40 left">(d) Type of software covered. Contrary to your statement, the contract in
question does not only cover the acquisition of proprietary software, but
also of open source software (OSS) and of OSS-related services, such as
high-level support of OSS products, for example from Red Hat, Atlassian,
Balsamiq Studios, Adaptavist and others.
</p>
<p class="grid-60 right">
We have made no such statement. FSFE's press release explicitly
states that the institutions covered will "acquire a wide range of
mostly proprietary software".</p>
<p class="grid-60 right">
Furthermore there seems to be some confusion on DIGIT's part regarding
what, exactly, is Free Software. Most of Red Hat's products indeed
fulfil the <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html">Free Software definition</a>. Atlassian's products are
<a href="http://www.atlassian.com/about/licensing/license.jsp">distributed under proprietary licenses</a>, as are <a href="http://balsamiq.com/images/BalsamiqEula.pdf">those
by Balsamiq</a>. FSFE will
be honoured to assist DIGIT in closing any possible gaps that may
exist in the understanding of Free Software licenses.</p>
</div>
<div class="clear even">
<p class="grid-40 left even">(3) You argue that the Commission should have come up with a strategy to take
advantage of Free Software. I take this opportunity to inform you that the
Commission has actually had an OSS strategy since 2001. A summary of the last
version of this strategy is available at DIGIT'S website on the EUROPA portal1. A
new version is in its final draft phase and will be published very soon. As a result
of this strategy, more than 250 OSS products pertaining to all the categories
managed by DIGIT are already in use at the Commission. For the sake of
completeness, it may be worth mentioning some additional examples of
achievements in this area, which very few (if any) public administrations in the
world can match:</p>
<p class="grid-60 right even">
The fact that the European Commission uses Free Software is not in
doubt. Nor is it a special achievement. At the end of 2008, the
consultancy <a href="http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=801412">Gartner expected 100% of businesses to use at least some
Free Software by the end of 2009</a>.</p>
<p class="grid-60 right even">
The EC-backed <a href="http://www.flosspols.org/deliverables/D03HTML/FLOSSPOLS-D03%20local%20governments%20survey%20reportFINAL.html">FLOSSPOLS study found that 78% of public administrations
were using at least some Free Software</a> already in 2004/5.</p>
<p class="grid-60 right even">
At the same time, the EC and the other institutions included in this
contract continue to spend substantial amounts of money on proprietary
software, as exemplified both by SACHA II and the separate framework
contract for the provision of Microsoft products and licenses,
concluded January 10, 2008. This casts some doubt on the effectiveness
of the EC's strategy.
</p>
</div>
<div class="clear">
<p class="grid-40 left">
(a)The European Commission runs IT solutions on more than 350 Linux
servers.</p>
<p class="grid-60 right">
We would like to ask the Commission about the total number of
servers run by the European Commission and the other institutions
covered by the SACHA II contract, and about the percentage of
these servers that use Free Software operating systems such as
GNU/Linux or BSD systems.</p>
</div>
<div class="clear">
<p class="grid-40 left">
(b) DIGIT'S Data Centre manages more than 800 OSS web servers.</p>
<p class="grid-60 right">
We would be interested to know how many web servers the European
Commission and the other institutions covered by the SACHA II contract
are operating; which software they use; and what percentage of these
web servers actually are Free Software.</p>
<p class="grid-40 left">
[...]</p>
</div>
<div class="clear even">
<p class="grid-40 left even">(h) The European Commission also manages three important public websites,
also entirely powered by OSS software: www.osor.eu (e-govemment
related open source observatory and repository), www.semic.eu (semantic
assets exchange centre) and www.epractice.eu (community of e-
Govemment, e-Inclusion and e-Health)
</p>
<div class="grid-60 right even">
<p>
We are fully aware of these websites, and appreciate their
usefulness to many European public bodies. However, we regret that
the Commission is not making greater efforts towards availing
itself of the advantages of Free Software and Open Standards when
it comes to its internal IT infrastructure. Such efforts would
greatly help to increase interoperability, transparency and
competition; they would enable a greater number of European SMEs
to provide services to the Commission; and they would be likely to
reduce the Commission's IT costs. Without decisive steps in this
direction, the Commission's own guidelines and recommendations would
ultimately be futile.</p>
<p>
The SACHA II call for tender was designed in a way that made it
very hard, if not impossible, for Free Software companies
to offer their products and services:</p>
<p>
The call for tender includes a long list of specific products, rather
than a set of functional specifications. While formulations such as</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Product names and trademarks: Whenever the tendering
specifications mention a specific product name or trademark
and a sufficiently precise and fully intelligible description
is not possible, such mention should be understood as
referring to that product or its equivalent. (SACHA II <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/informatics/procurement/calls_docs/2009029/2009029_annex6.pdf]">Annex
6</a> : 5.1.4.)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
may or may not satisfy the letter of the law, they are certainly not
conducive to competitive bidding by a large number of providers of
different programs. This issue was at the heart of the European
Commission's infringement proceedings against a number of Member
States regarding discriminatory specifications in calls for tender
specifying "Intel or equivalent" processors (see <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/1210&amp;format=HTML&amp;aged=0&amp;language=EN&amp;guiLanguage=en">Press release
IP/04/1210</a>, October 13, 2004)</p>
<p>
<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/informatics/procurement/calls_docs/2009029/2009029_annex4.pdf">Annex 4</a> of the tendering specifications
lists 251 named software products (not counting different varieties of
those products). We are surprised that DIGIT found itself unable to
provide a "sufficiently precise and fully intelligible description"
for any of these products without resorting to product names and
trademarks.</p>
<p>
DIGIT issued a comprehensive call for tender for a very large and
diverse set of programs. If the Commission had truly wanted to acquire
Free Software and related services, an appropriate approach would have
been to tender a number of smaller, more specific contracts. European
SMEs would have found it much easier to bid for such contracts.</p>
<p>
We would appreciate if the European Commission could inform us
how spending under the SACHA II contract will be allotted among the
different software products and services listed in the the call for
tender. Which percentage of spending under this contract will go
towards the purchase of Free Software and related services?</p>
<p>
Would the Commission also be able to inform us how many bids were
received in total? This would be an interesting indication of the
number of companies who felt that they were in a position to
successfully bid for this contract.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="clear">
<p class="grid-40 left">(4) Your press release assumes that proprietary software is, by definition, unable to be
interoperable or to implement standards. This is simply not true. Proprietary
software can implement standards as much as OSS. To the best of my knowledge,
the Commission's corporate IT infrastructure already supports all major IT
standards, be it with proprietary software and/or OSS. Should you be aware of any
major IT standard not currently supported by the Commission's infrastructure, I
would be obliged if you could let me know about it, so that I can take appropriate
measures.
</p>
<div class="grid-60 right">
<p>
Our press release assumes no such thing. FSFE maintains that <a href="/freesoftware/standards/def.en.html">Open
Standards</a> can be implemented
in both Free and proprietary software. Open Standards, which do not
depend on any particular vendor, and which can be implemented in any
software model, offer freedom from vendor lock-in and open up the
software market to innovation and competition.</p>
<p>
We very much appreciate your request for input, and will avail
ourselves of this opportunity whenever necessary.</p>
<p>
The important question is rather whether European institutions are
accessible to citizens regardless of the type of software they
choose to use. A notable failing, for example, is the fact that
webcasts from the European Parliament cannot to our knowledge
currently be viewed using a GNU/Linux operating system. This is a
major impediment to the participation and involvement of citizens
in the EU's decision making process. We would welcome DIGIT's help
in removing this obstacle to democratic participation.</p>
<p>
We would also note that the Commission maintains a preference for
proprietary document formats, and staff are still unable to receive
documents in .odf formats without going through central translation,
despite this having been established as a formal ISO standard.
</p></div>
</div>
<div class="clear even">
<p class="grid-40 left even">(5) This procurement procedure is totally unrelated to the ongoing revision of the
European Interoperability Framework. Concerning this point, I should simply like
to remind that the Commission has committed itself to adopting its
Communication on Interoperability (which will include both the European
Interoperability Framework and the European Interoperability Strategy) before the
end of 2010, as stated in point 2.2.3 of the Digital Agenda. Since this file is
heading towards its final adoption, it is inappropriate for me to make any further
comments about the process.
</p>
<div class="grid-60 right even">
<p>
Our press release merely states that both this procurement and the
revision of the European Interoperability Framework are
coordinated by DIGIT.</p>
<p>
We are looking forward to the impending publication of the European
Interoperability Framework, and, <a href="/freesoftware/standards/eifv2.en.html">despite indications to the contrary</a>
, remain hopeful that it
will provide at least the same level of leadership for the European
public sector as the original version where Open Standards are
concerned.
</p></div>
</div>
<div class="clear">
<p class="grid-40 left even">I can only regret that you did not cross-check your sources prior to issuing the press
release. This appears to be based exclusively on an article which contains plenty of
misleading elements. Should you have contacted us, it would have been a pleasure for my
department to provide you with accurate factual information, and I am sure that the result
would have been more balanced.
</p>
<div class="grid-60 right even">
<p>
I am pleased to inform you that rather than basing our public
intervention merely on articles in the press, we followed FSFE's
customary best practice of going to the source and, in this case,
investing considerable amounts of time into studying the publicly
available documents related to this procurement.</p>
<p>
We regret that the SACHA II contract itself has not been published. If
the contract were to be made publicly available, FSFE and other
European citizens who care about the way in which their taxes are
invested and their institutions conduct their business would be able
to verify that this agreement is truly in their best interest.</p>
<p>The same applies for other contracts concluded by the Commission
regarding the acquisition of software, such as the <a href="http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:71324-2008:TEXT:EN:HTML&amp;tabId=1">EUR 49 million
framework contract for Microsoft software and services</a> awarded to
Fujitsu Siemens on January 10, 2008.
</p>
<p>
Our goal is to increase the use of Free Software and Open Standards in
all parts of the European public sector. This includes opening up
public procurement to participation by Free Software companies. FSFE
will be happy to work with DIGIT and other parts of the European
Commission in order to support competition, choice and freedom in the
European software market.
</p></div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,213 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>FSFE - EU Policies overview: Free Software and Open Standards</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Our Work</a></p>
<h1>EU Policies overview: Free Software and Open Standards</h1>
<div id="introduction">
<p>Many countries in Europe have laws and recommendations
referring to Free Software and Open Standards. The picture
is certainly complex, and can be confusing at times. </p>
<p>On this page, we attempt to provide an overview of the
laws and policies that exist throughout Europe. If you are
working for Free Software in your country, it is useful
for you to know what your government says about the topic.
Comparisons between different countries can also be
instructive.</p>
<p>This page is a DRAFT. Please help us improve it and
complete the picture! Do you know about a policy we're
missing? Have we overlooked an aspect of a policy in your
country? </p>
<p><a href="mailto:policy@lists.fsfe.org">Write to us</a>. Please
include a link to the relevant government publication
whenever possible, ideally along with a (rough)
translation of the relevant passages.</p>
<p>This is a work in progress. Please help us make this
overview the best it can be! </p>
</div>
<h2 class="country">EU</h2>
<p> In 2004 <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Docd552.pdf?id=19529"> the European Interoperability Framework v.1</a> was published, where, for the first time on the pan-European level, Free Software and proprietary software were treated equally. The EC encouraged the use of Open Standards in e-government services to effectively implement software interoperability both on national and international levels.</p>
<p>The term “Open Standards” is not in use in <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/isa/strategy/doc/annex_i_eis_en.pdf"> the European Interoperability Strategy</a> and <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/isa/strategy/doc/annex_ii_eif_en.pdf"> the EIF v.2</a>, published in 2010. Instead, the EC introduced the term “open specifications” and proposed that“when establishing European public services, public administrations should prefer open specifications, taking due account of the coverage of functional needs, maturity and market support”.</p>
<p>The EC actively promotes public procurement of Free Software: in <a href="http://www.osor.eu/idabc-studies/OSS-procurement-guideline-public-draft-v1%201.pdf">2008</a> and <a href="http://www.osor.eu/idabc-studies/OSS-procurement-guideline%20-final.pdf"> 2010</a> special guidelines for public administrations were published on how and why to publicly acquire Free Software. </p>
<p>Among other important EU documents on Free Software and Open Standards, <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0245R(01):EN:NOT"> EU Digital Agenda</a> explicitly states that public procurement of software and ICT should promote efficiency and reduce lock-in. </p>
<h2 class="country">Austria</h2>
<p> National policy on public procurement of Free Software could not be found. Though in 2010 Austria announced its <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/document.cfm?action=display&amp;doc_id=747"> plan to create interoperable e-government systems based on Open Standards and Free Software</a>. </p> <h2 class="country">Belgium</h2>
<p> Since 2004, federally commissioned software must be delivered with the source code. Federal authorities are <a href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0"> recommended to acquire Free Software,but final decisions should be based on total costs</a>. </p>
<p>Starting in 2008, Belgian federal government services were obliged to <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/document.cfm?action=display&amp;doc_id=747"> use the Open Document Format when exchanging documents</a>. </p>
<h2 class="country">Bulgaria</h2>
<p>Open Standards and Free Software appear to play no significant role in Bulgaria's eGovernment strategies. In 2008 the Bulgarian government announced that <a href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0"> it will consider Free Software while reviewing its national IT strategy</a>. </p>
<h2 class="country">Cyprus</h2>
<p> There appears to be no Free Software policies. </p>
<h2 class="country">Czech Republic</h2>
<p> Free Software policies could not be found. </p>
<h2 class="country">Denmark</h2>
<p> Free Software procurement policy could not be found.</p>
<p> In 2003 the Danish government adopted a <a href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0"> Software Strategy </a> emphasizing value for money, competition, freedom of choice, and interoperability. The policy expresses no preference for Free Software. </p>
<p> In 2007-2008, the Danish government ran a <a href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0"> pilot program </a>, where government institutions were required to carry Open Document Format and Microsofts Office Open XML format on all computers. They were obliged to accept ODF created by the public, businesses, and other governmental units. Since 2011, ODF must be used by all state authorities. </p>
<h2 class="country">Estonia</h2>
<p> Free Software policies could not be found. </p>
<h2 class="country">Finland</h2>
<p> Finnish government <a href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0"> has recommended government agencies to consider Free Software </a> since 2003. </p>
<p> In 2009 JUHTA, the public administration of information, <a href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0"> has released the recommendation on the use of Free Software in public administrations </a>. This policy document is intended to guide public institutions in the procurement of Free Software. Nevertheless, until now Open Standards and Free Software are not yet among the top priorities of the Finnish national IT policy. </p>
<h2 class="country">France</h2>
<p> The French government was among the first in Europe to consider setting up a national Free Software policy. The first proposals are dated from 1999. Since then, several ministries, including Ministries of Defence, Culture, and the Economy, moved to Free Software operating systems. </p>
<p> In 2007 <a href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0"> a guide for using Free Software in public administrations was published </a>. Open Standards are used in e-government systems at the national, regional and local level. </p>
<p> Also, France has a public procurement law which includes the definition of Open Standards but <a href="http://www.osor.eu/idabc-studies/OSS-procurement-guideline-public-draft-v1%201.pdf"> does not provide them with mandatory or preferable status</a>. </p>
<p>On September 19 2012, the newly appointed French government published a <a href="http://www.april.org/sites/default/files/20130319-ayrault-memorandum-english-translation.pdf">circular on Free Software</a> in public administration. The document aims at giving guidelines and recommendations to public bodies related to their use of Free Software. It highlighted the advantages of Free Software in term of competition, technological sovereignty and cost control. It also stressed the importance of sharing knowledge and skills in the digital society. The document promotes public contribution to Free Software project and regular contact with Free Software communities. The policy created several working groups -on desktop applications, data bases, server OS and virtualisation systems- and a "kernel team" to favor interoperability, promote good practices and manage public contribution to Free Software projects. </p>
<p>On June 25 2013, <a href="http://www.senat.fr/dossier-legislatif/pjl12-441.html">a law</a> concerning the “Policy and planning for the rebuilding of the school of the Republic ” was voted by the French Parliament. Article 10 of the law, concerning e-learning, states that procurement for e-learning services has to “consider Free Software and open format offers, if any”.</p>
<p>On July 9 2013 the prioritisation of Free Software <a href="http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/14/ta/ta0180.asp">was voted</a> by the French parliament for the first time. It concerns learning resources used by the French Higher Education public service. Article L. 123-4-1 states that<blockquote>"The Public Service for Higher Education provides digital services and educational resources to its users." <br />"free software is used on a priority basis."</blockquote></p>
<h2 class="country">Germany</h2>
<p> The German government actively recommends and promotes usage and procurement of Free Software by public administrations. As an example, in 2007 <a href="http://www.osor.eu/idabc-studies/OSS-procurement-guideline-public-draft-v1%201.pdf"> the Foreign office moved to the ODF</a>.</p>
<p> Under Germany's Standards and Architectures for eGovernment Applications 4.0 (<a href="http://www.cio.bund.de/SharedDocs/Publikationen/DE/Standards_und_Architekturen/saga_4_0_englisch_download.pdf;jsessionid=0DD1062AA9F141D2F7B505CEBC654B77.2_cid164?__blob=publicationFile">SAGA 4.0, 2008</a>), ODF was recommended for editable text documents. Since 2007, all communications with the federal courts may be transmitted in the ODF format. </p>
<h2 class="country">Greece</h2>
<p> Free Software policies or major initiatives could not be found. </p>
<h2 class="country">Hungary</h2>
<p> Free Software policies could not be found. </p>
<h2 class="country">Ireland</h2>
<p> Free Software policies or major initiatives could not be found. </p>
<h2 class="country">Italy</h2>
<p> The Italian government encourages the use of Free Software by the public administrations and calls for its extensive use where possible. </p>
<p><a href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0">
The 2004 Italian Directive for public procurement of software </a> stated
that in the acquisition of software, the public administration must
consider Free Software and judge software according to transferability,
interoperability, dependency on supplier, and the availability of the
source code for inspection.</p>
<p>In 2007 Italy launched its own repository of Free Software for public
administrations (<a href="http://cde.osspa.cnipa.it/"> Ambiente di Sviluppo Cooperativo</a>). </p>
<h2 class="country">Latvia</h2>
<p> Free Software policies or major initiatives could not be found. </p>
<h2 class="country">Lithuania</h2>
<p> Free Software policies could not be found. </p>
<h2 class="country">Luxemburg</h2>
<p> Free Software policies or major initiatives could not be found. </p>
<h2 class="country">Malta</h2>
<p> In 2010 Malta Information Technology Agency has launched a series of policies with the aim to inform and guide government organizations in the procurement process of ICT solutions. Among them, <a href="https://www.mita.gov.mt/MediaCenter/PDFs/1_GMICT-P-0097-Open-Source-Software-v1.0.pdf"> the Open Source Software Policy</a>, <a href="https://www.mita.gov.mt/MediaCenter/PDFs/1_GMICT-D-0097-Open-Source-Software-v2.0.pdf"> Open Source Software Directive</a>, <a href="https://www.mita.gov.mt/MediaCenter/PDFs/1_GMICT-P-0099-Open-Standards-v1.0.pdf"> Open Standards policy</a>, <a href="https://www.mita.gov.mt/MediaCenter/PDFs/2_GMICT-D-0099-Open-Standards-v1.0.pdf"> Open Standards Directive</a> were published. It states there that government should actively consider acquisition of Free Software taking into account all direct and indirect costs when calculating the cost-effectiveness of Free Software. All prospective ICT investments, procured and / or developed internally within the public sector, shall adopt Open Standards. Open Standards-based solutions and applications should be preferred. </p>
<h2 class="country">Netherlands</h2>
<p> Netherlands appear to have one of the most Free Software-oriented e-government and procurement policies in EU.</p>
<p>From December 2007 the Dutch parliament has been using exclusively Open Standards.
<a href="https://noiv.nl/">The OSOSS ("open source as a part of the software strategy") Program</a> was
created to help stimulate the use of Open Standards by public administrations
and provide information on Free Software. </p>
<p> In <a href="https://noiv.nl/files/2009/12/Action_plan_english.pdf">the Action plan</a> published in 2007 the Dutch Cabinet intends to encourage the use of Free Software and Open Standards within the public and semi-public sectors. The key focus here is: “use Open Standards, or come up with a very good reason why this is not possible”. All institutions that still insist on the use of proprietary software must provide reasons for maintaining it until a later date. </p>
<h2 class="country">Poland</h2>
<p> The Polish government <a href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0"> recommends the use of Open Standards in public agencies </a>. According to <a href="http://www.osor.eu/news/pl-ninety-percent-op-public-administrations-use-open-source"> the results of the survey</a> carried out in 2010, 90% of the Polish public administrations are using Free Software, though most of it is installed on servers. </p>
<h2 class="country">Portugal</h2>
<p> Portugal government <a href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0"> recommends use of Free Software in the public administration, but these recommendations are not legally-binding</a>. </p>
<h2 class="country">Romania</h2>
<p> Free Software policies or major initiatives could not be found. </p>
<h2 class="country">Slovakia</h2>
<p> Free Software policies or major initiatives could not be found. </p>
<h2 class="country">Slovenia</h2>
<p> Since 2003 Free Software and proprietary software are <a href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0"> given equal consideration in public procurement</a>.</p>
<p> Today only Slovenian courts adopted Open Office as a standard for office usage, but the Slovenian government has recently decided that <a href="http://www.osor.eu/news/si-slovenian-public-administrations-moving-to-open-source-desktops"> by 2015 80 percent of the government's offices should be using Free software on their desktops </a>. </p>
<h2 class="country">Spain</h2>
<p> The Spanish authorities promote the Free Software and encourage its usage by public agencies. In 2010 the Spanish government adopted <a href="http://www.csae.mpr.es/csi/pdf/ENI_INTEROPERABILITY_ENGLISH_final.pdf"> the National Interoperability Framework </a> where it forbid public administrations from using exclusively non-open standards without offering an Open-Standard alternative, unless such alternatives do not exist. </p>
<h2 class="country">Sweden</h2>
<p> Swedish government <a href="http://www.campussource.de/org/opensource/docs/schwed.studie.pdf"> recommends public institutions to judge Free Software and proprietary software on an even basis in the public procurement processes </a>. </p>
<h2 class="country">UK</h2>
<p> In 2010 the UK government reviewed its <a href="http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/open_source.pdf"> Free Software strategy </a> but remained pro-active user of Free Software. It states that the UK government will actively and fairly consider Free Software solutions alongside proprietary ones in making procurement decisions. Procurement decisions will be made on the basis on the best value for money solution to the business requirement, taking account of total lifetime cost of ownership of the solution, including exit and transition costs, after ensuring that solutions fulfill minimum and essential capability, security, scalability, transferability, support and manageability requirements. However, Free Software is given a preference, where there is no significant overall cost difference between free and non-free software products.</p>
<p> The UK Government will require suppliers to provide evidence of consideration of Free Software solutions during procurement exercises if this evidence is not provided, bidders are likely to be disqualified from the procurement. The UK Government will expect software developers to consider where necessary a suitable mix of Free Software and proprietary products to ensure that the best possible overall solution can be found.</p>
<p> The Government adopts Open Standards and uses these to communicate with the citizens and businesses that have adopted Free Software solutions.</p>
<p> In <a href="http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/PPN%203_11%20Open%20Standards.pdf"> a procurement policy note 2011 </a> the UK Cabinet recommends government departments wherever possible to deploy Open Standards in their procurement specifications.</p>
<p> In <a href="http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/uk-government-ict-strategy-2011_0.odt"> Government ICT Strategy</a>, published on 30.03.2011, the UK Government impose compulsory Open Standards for the Government ICT infrastructure for interoperability and security reasons. It expressly states that government agencies should procure Free Software solutions, where appropriate - to help with this, a special toolkit for procurers on the use of Free Software will be published within next 6 months. Also, the UK Cabinet will promote more active participation of small and medium-size enterprises as well as voluntary and social sector, social enterprise organizations in bidding for government ICT contracts. </p>
</body>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,448 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>FSFE - Visione d'insieme delle politiche UE: Il Software Libero e gli
Standard Aperti</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Our Work</a></p>
<h1>FSFE - Visione d'insieme delle politiche UE: Il software Libero e gli
Standard Aperti.</h1>
<div id="introduction">
<p>
Molti paesi in Europa hanno leggi e raccomandazioni che si riferiscono
al Software Libero e agli Standard Aperti. Il quadro è sicuramente complesso, e
può indurre confusione.
</p>
<p>
L'obiettivo di questa pagina è quello di dare un quadro d'insieme delle leggi e
politiche esistenti a livello europeo. Se lavori per il Software Libero nel tuo
paese, può esserti utile conoscere la posizione del governo sull'argomento. Una
comparazione tra i diversi paesi può essere istruttiva.
</p>
<p>
Questa pagina è una BOZZA. Per favore, aiutaci a migliorarla e
completare il quadro d'insieme! Sei esperto di un elemento di cui non parliamo?
Abbiamo trascurato un aspetto della legislazione nel tuo paese?
</p>
<p>
Scrivici all'indirizzo policies AT fsfeurope PUNTO org. Per favore, se
possibile, includi un link alle pubblicazioni del governo sull'argomento, se
possibile includendo una traduzione in inglese (anche non accurata), dei
passaggi più importanti.
</p>
<p>
Questo è un lavoro in corso. Aiutaci a migliorarlo!
</p>
</div>
<h2 class="country">UE</h2>
<p>
Nel 2004 <a
href="http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Docd552.pdf?id=19529"> l'European
Interoperability Framework v.1</a> è pubblicato. Per la prima volta a
livello europeo, il Software Libero ed il software proprietario vengono trattati
paritariamente. La Commissione Europea incoraggiava l'uso degli Standard Aperti
nei servizi delle pubbliche amministrazioni, per implementare effettivamente
l'interoperabilità del software, sia a livello nazionale che internazionale.
</p>
<p>
La definizione di "Standard Aperti" non è in uso né nella <a
href="http://ec.europa.eu/isa/strategy/doc/annex_i_eis_en.pdf"> Strategia
Europea per l'Interoperabilità</a>, né in <a
href="http://ec.europa.eu/isa/strategy/doc/annex_ii_eif_en.pdf"> EIF v.2.</a>,
pubblicato nel 2010. Invece, la Commissione introduce il termine "specifiche
aperte" e sostiene che "quando offrono servizi pubblici europei, le pubbliche
amministrazioni dovrebbero preferire delle specifiche aperte, considerando la
soddisfazione dei bisogni funzionali, la maturità e l'appoggio del mercato".
</p>
<p>
La Commissione Europea promuove l'approvvigionamento di Software Libero:
nel <a
href="http://www.osor.eu/idabc-studies/OSS-procurement-guideline-public-draft-v1
%201.pdf">2008</a> e nel <a
href="http://www.osor.eu/idabc-studies/OSS-procurement-guideline%20-final.pdf">
2010</a> fissa le linee guida per le pubbliche amministrazioni su come e perché
adottare il software libero.
</p>
<p>
Tra gli altri documenti importanti sul Software Libero e gli Standard
Aperti, <a
href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0245R(
01):EN:NOT"> EU Digital Agenda </a>afferma in modo esplicito che le forniture
pubbliche di software e tecnologie dovrebbero promuovere l'efficienza e ridurre
gli accordi esclusivi.
</p>
<h2 class="country">Austria</h2>
<p>
Non esiste una politica nazionale sulla fornitura di Software Libero.
Nel 2010 l'Austria ha annunciato un<a
href="http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/document.cfm?action=
display&amp;doc_id=747"> piano per creare sistemi interoperabili di e-government
basati sugli Standard Aperti e il Software Libero</a>
</p>
<h2 class="country">Belgio</h2>
<p>
Dal 2004, il software prodotto per il governo federale deve essere
fornito con il codice sorgente. Le autorità federali sono invitate a <a
href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0"> acquisire
Software Libero, tuttavia la decisione finale deve basarsi sui costi totali</a>.
</p>
<p>
Dal 2008, i servizi del governo federale belga devono utilizzare <a
href="http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/document.cfm?action=
display&amp;doc_id=747"> l'Open Document Format per lo scambio di documenti
</a>.
</p>
<h2 class="country">Bulgaria</h2>
<p>
Gli Standard Aperti e il Software Libero non sembrano giocare un ruolo
significante nelle strategie di riforma delle procedure in Bulgaria. Nel 2008,
il governo bulgaro annunciò che <a
href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0"> avrebbe
considerato il Software Libero durante la revisione delle proprie strategie in
ambito tecnologico</a>.
</p>
<h2 class="country">Cipro</h2>
<p>Assenza di riferimenti al software libero nelle politiche. </p>
<h2 class="country">Repubblica Ceca</h2>
<p>Assenza di riferimenti al software libero nelle politiche. </p>
<h2 class="country">Danimarca</h2>
<p>Assenza di riferimenti al software libero nelle politiche.</p>
<p>
Nel 2003 il governo danese ha adottato una <a
href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0">Strategia
in materia di software </a>enfatizzando la sua importanza della valorizzazione
delle risorse, della concorrenza, della libertà di scelta e
dell'interoperabilità. La politicha non esprime preferenze per il Software
Libero.
</p>
<p>
Nel 2007-2008 il governo danese ha condotto un <a
href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0">programma
pilota </a>, per il quale
le istituzioni governative erano tenute a mantenere una copia di tutti i
documenti in formato Open Document Format ed in formato Microsoft Office XML.
Erano obbligati ad accettare i documenti ODF creati dal pubblico, dalle aziende
e dalle altre agenzie governative. Dal 2011, i documenti ODF devono essere
utilizzati da tutte le pubbliche istituzioni.
</p>
<h2 class="country">Estonia</h2>
<p> Assenza di riferimenti al software libero nelle politiche. </p>
<h2 class="country">Finlandia</h2>
<p>
Il governo finlandese <a
href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0"> ha
raccomandato alle agenzie governative di utilizzare il Software Libero </a> dal
2003 </p>
<p>
Nel 2009 JUHTA, la pubblica amministrazione dell'informazione, <a
href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0">
ha rilasciato le raccomandazioni sull'uso del Software Libero nelle pubbliche
amministrazioni </a>.
Questo documento programmatico ha la funzione di guidare le pubbliche
istituzioni nell'approvvigionamento di software Libero.
Comunque, fino ad oggi, gli Standard Aperti ed il Software Libero non rientrano
nelle priorità del governo finlandese in materia di tecnologia.
</p>
<h2 class="country">Francia</h2>
<p>
Il governo francese è stato tra i primi in Europa a considerare di impostare una
politica nazionale sul Software Libero. Le prime proposte sono datate 1999.
Successivametne, molti ministeri,
incluso il Ministero della Difesa, della Cultura, dell'Economia hanno migrato a
sistemi operativi basati sul Software Libero.
</p>
<p>
Nel 2007 <a
href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0"> una guida
all'uso del Software Libero nelle pubbliche amministrazioni `e stata pubblicata
</a>.
Oggi gli Standard Aperti sono utilizzati nei sistemi informatici pubblici a
livello nazionale, regionale e locale.
</p>
<p>
Inoltre, la Francia ha una legge sugli approvvigionamenti che include la
definizione di Open Standard, ma <a
href="http://www.osor.eu/idabc-studies/OSS-procurement-guideline-public-draft-v1
%201.pdf">
senza dotarli di status obbligatorio o preferenziale</a>.
</p>
<h2 class="country">Germania</h2>
<p>
Il governo tedesco raccomanda attivamente, e promuove l'uso e la fornitura di
Software Libero da parte delle pubbliche amministrazioni.
Ad esempio, dal 2007, <a
href="http://www.osor.eu/idabc-studies/OSS-procurement-guideline-public-draft-v1
%201.pdf">
il Ministero degli Esteri utilizza lo standard ODF</a>.
</p>
<p>
Secondo gli Standard e Architetture della Germania per le applicazioni di
eGovernment 4.0 (<a
href="http://www.cio.bund.de/SharedDocs/Publikationen/DE/
Standards_und_Architekturen/saga_4_0_englisch_download.pdf;jsessionid=
0DD1062AA9F141D2F7B505CEBC654B77.2_cid164?__blob=publicationFile">SAGA 4.0,
2008</a>), ODF è raccomandato per tutti i documenti di testo modificabili. Dal
2007, tutte le comunicazioni con i tribunali federali possono essere trasmesse
in formato ODF.
</p>
<h2 class="country">Grecia</h2>
<p> Assenza di riferimenti al software libero nelle politiche. </p>
<h2 class="country">Ungheria</h2>
<p> Assenza di riferimenti al software libero nelle politiche. </p>
<h2 class="country">Irlanda</h2>
<p> Assenza di riferimenti al software libero nelle politiche. </p>
<h2 class="country">Italia</h2>
<p> Il governo italiano incoraggia l'uso del Software Libero nelle pubbliche
amministrazioni e raccomanda un uso estensivo dello stesso dove possibile. </p>
<p> <a href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0"> La
Direttiva Italiana del 2005 per la fornitura pubblica di software </a>
afferma che nell'acquisizione del software, le pubbliche amministrazioni devono
considerare il Software Libero, e valutare il software rispetto
alla trasferibilità, dipendenza dal fornitore, e la disponibilità del codice
sorgente per ispezioni.
</p>
<p>
Nel 2007 l'Italia ha lanciato il proprio ambiente di Software Libero per le
pubbliche amministrazioni (<a href="http://cde.osspa.cnipa.it/"> Ambiente di
Sviluppo
Cooperativo</a>).
</p>
<h2 class="country">Lettonia</h2>
<p> Assenza di riferimenti al software libero nelle politiche. </p>
<h2 class="country">Lituania</h2>
<p> Assenza di riferimenti al software libero nelle politiche. </p>
<h2 class="country">Lussemburgo</h2>
<p> Assenza di riferimenti al software libero nelle politiche. </p>
<p>
Nel 2010 l'Agenzia Maltese per la Tecnologia dell'Informazione ha annunciato una
serie di politiche con lo scopo di informare e guidare le organizzazioni
governative
nella fornitura di soluzioni informatichem tra cui
<a
href="https://www.mita.gov.mt/MediaCenter/PDFs/1_GMICT-P-0097-Open-Source-
Software-v1.0.pdf">
la politica per il software Open Source</a>,
<a
href="https://www.mita.gov.mt/MediaCenter/PDFs/1_GMICT-D-0097-Open-Source-
Software-v2.0.pdf">
la direttiva per il software open source</a>,
<a
href="https://www.mita.gov.mt/MediaCenter/PDFs/1_GMICT-P-0099-Open-Standards-v1.
0.pdf"> la politica per gli Standard Aperti</a>,
<a
href="https://www.mita.gov.mt/MediaCenter/PDFs/2_GMICT-D-0099-Open-Standards-v1.
0.pdf"> La Direttiva Open Standard</a>
sono state pubblicate. Si afferma che il governo dovrebbe considerare attivamente l'acquisizione di Software Libero,
tenendo conto di tutti i costi diretti e indiretti, calcolando l'efficacia del Software Libero rispetto ai costi.
Tutti i potenziali investimenti riguardanti il settore pubblico dovrebbero adottare gli Standard Aperti. Le soluzioni e
applicazioni basate sugli Standard Aperti dovrebbero essere preferite.
</p>
<h2 class="country">Paesi Bassi</h2>
<p> I Paesi Bassi hanno una delle pubbliche amministrazioni maggiormente
orientate all'uso del Software Libero nell'UE. </p>
<p>
A partire dal dicembre del 2007, il Parlamento dei Paesi Bassi ha usato
esclusivamente Standard Aperti.
<a href="https://noiv.nl/">Il programma OSOSS ("Open Source come parte della
Strategia del Software") </a>
fu creato per stimolare l'uso di Standard Aperti dalle pubbliche amministrazioni
e fornire informazioni sul Software Libero.
</p>
<p>
Nel <a href="https://noiv.nl/files/2009/12/Action_plan_english.pdf">piano d'azione </a>
pubblicato nel 2007 il Governo dei Paesi Bassi vuole incoraggiare l'uso del Software Libero
e degli Standard Aperti nei settori pubblico e semi-pubblco.
L'argomento chiave è: "Usare gli Standard Aperti, a meno che non ci siano ragioni ben precise per cui questo non è possibile".
Tutte le istituzioni che continuano ad utilizzare software proprietario devono
fornire delle motivazioni per mantenerlo fino ad una data ulteriore.
</p>
<h2 class="country">Polonia</h2>
<p> Il governo polacco <a href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0"> raccomanda l'uso degli Standard Aperti per le istituzioni pubbliche </a>.
Secondo <a href="http://www.osor.eu/news/pl-ninety-percent-op-public-administrations-use-open-source">i risultati del sondaggio</a> condotto nel 2010, il 90% delle
pubbliche amministrazioni polacche utilizzano Software Libero, sebbene esso sia in buona parte installato su server. </p>
<h2 class="country">Portogallo</h2>
<p>
Il governo portoghese <a href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0"> raccomanda l'uso del Software Libero nelle pubbliche amministrazioni,
ma queste raccomandazioni non sono obbligatorie</a>. </p>
<h2 class="country">Romania</h2>
<p> Assenza di riferimenti al software libero nelle politiche. </p>
<h2 class="country">Repubblica Slovacca</h2>
<p> Assenza di riferimenti al software libero nelle politiche. </p>
<h2 class="country">Slovenia</h2>
<p> Dal 2003 il Software Libero ed il software proprietario sono <a href="http://csis.org/publication/government-open-source-policies-0">
sullo stesso piano per quanto riguarda le forniture pubbliche</a>.</p>
<p>Oggi solo i tribunali sloveni adottano il Software Libero come standard per l'utilizzo quotidiano. Tuttavia, il governo sloveno, ha recentemente deciso che
<a href="http://www.osor.eu/news/si-slovenian-public-administrations-moving-to-open-source-desktops"> entro il 2015 l'80% degli uffici pubblici dovranno
utilizzare Software Libero sui loro computer </a>. </p>
<h2 class="country">Spagna</h2>
<p> Le autorità spagnole promuovono il Software Libero e ne incoraggiano l'uso nelle pubbliche istituzioni.
Nel 2010 il governo spagnolo ha adottato il <a href="http://www.csae.mpr.es/csi/pdf/ENI_INTEROPERABILITY_ENGLISH_final.pdf"> Quadro Nazionale di Interoperabilità </a>,
per il quale è vietato alle pubbliche amministrazioni un utilizzo esclusivo di standard non aperti senza la fornitura di un'alternativa basata su Standard Aperti, a meno
che una simile alternativa non esista. </p>
<h2 class="country">Svezia</h2>
<p> Swedish government <a
href="http://www.campussource.de/org/opensource/docs/schwed.studie.pdf">
recommends public institutions to judge Free Software and proprietary
software on an even basis in the public procurement processes </a>. </p>
<p> Il Governo Svedese <a href="http://www.campussource.de/org/opensource/docs/schwed.studie.pdf">
raccomanda alle istituzioni pubbliche una valutazione obiettiva tra Software Libero e Software proprietario, nel corso della procedura di fornitura pubblica.</a>. </p>
<h2 class="country">UK</h2>
<p> Nel 2010 il governo britannico ha rivisto la propria <a href="http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/open_source.pdf">Strategia sul Software Libero </a>
rimanendo un utente proattivo del Software Libero. Il documento afferma che il governo britannico considererà attivamente e lealmente le soluzioni basate sul Software Libero accanto
a quelle basate su software proprietario nella scelta degli strumenti da utilizzare, tenendo conto del costo totale di ognuna delle soluzioni, includendo i costi di uscita e di transizione,
dopo essersi assicurati che quella soluzione risponda ai requisiti minimi di capacità, sicurezza, scalabilità, trasferibilità, assistenza e maneggevolezza.
In ogni caso, una preferenza viene accordata al Software Libero, quando non ci sono significanti differenze di costo tra i prodotti liberi e proprietari.</p>
<p>
Il governo britannico richiede ai propri fornitori di provare che essi prendano in considerazione le soluzioni basate sul Software Libero durante le campagne di approvvigionamento - se questa
dimostrazione non viene data, gli offerenti sono con ogni probabilità esclusi dalla gara.
Il governo britannico richiede agli sviluppatori di considerare sempre un mix adeguato di Software Libero e proprietario per assicurare che sia trovata la migliore soluzione possibile. </p>
<p> Il governo adotta gli Standard Aperti e li utilizza per comunicare con i cittadini e con le aziende che hanno adottato soluzioni basate su Software Libero.</p>
<p> In una <a href="http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/PPN%203_11%20Open%20Standards.pdf"> nota del 2011 </a> sulla politica delle gare d'appalto il governo britannico
raccomanda ai ministeri di utilizzare, quando possibile, gli Standard Aperti nelle loro gare d'appalto.</p>
<p>
In <a
href="http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/uk-
government-ict-strategy-2011_0.odt">
Government ICT Strategy</a>, published on 30.03.2011, the UK Government impose
compulsory Open Standards for the Government ICT infrastructure for
interoperability
and security reasons. It expressly states that government agencies should
procure Free Software
solutions, where appropriate - to help with this, a special toolkit for
procurers
on the use of Free Software will be published within next 6 months. Also, the UK
Cabinet
will promote more active participation of small and medium-size
enterprises as well as voluntary and social sector, social enterprise
organizations in bidding for government ICT contracts.
</p>
<p> Nella <a href="http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/uk-government-ict-strategy-2011_0.odt"> Strategia per le tecnologie dell'informazione e della comunicazione</a>
pubblicata il 30 marzo 2011, il governo britannico stabilisce l'obbligatorietà degli Standard Aperti per l'infrastruttura informativa governativa, per ragioni di interoperabilità e sicurezza.
Viene espressamente stabilito che le agenzie governative dovranno ottenere soluzioni basate su Software Libero, quando appropriato. A questo fine, uno speciale kit per procuratori sull'utilizzo
del software libero verrà prestabilito nei successivi sei mesi. Inoltre, il governo britannico promuoverà una partecipazione più attiva delle piccole e medie imprese, nonché del settore
del volontariato e dell'economia sociale, imprese sociali, organizzazioni, nella fase delle gare d'appalto per i contratti pubblici nel settore della comunicazione e del'informazione.</p>
</body>
<translator>Alessandro Polvani</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,56 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Politische Ziele 2014 - 2019 - Übersicht - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Unsere Arbeit</a></p>
<h1>Politische Ziele 2014 - 2019</h1>
<p>
Freie Software - also Computerprogramme, die jeder Mensch
benutzen, untersuchen, verbreiten und verbessern kann -
ist elementar wichtig, um eine freie Informationsgesellschaft
zu schaffen. Freie Software macht das Internet erst möglich
und bildet die Grundlage für die meisten erfolgreichen
Unternehmen in der IT-Industrie. Nur mit Freier Software
können Anwender vollständig verstehen, was ein Computerprogramm
tatsächlich macht, welche Daten es wohin sendet und wie dessen
Resultate erzeugt werden.
</p>
<h2 id="subpages">Navigation</h2>
<ul>
<li><h3><a
href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Öffentliche Einrichtungen</a></h3></li>
<li><h3><a
href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Verbraucherschutz und Gerätehoheit</a></h3></li>
<li><h3><a
href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Privatsphäre, Überwachung und
Verschlüsselung</a></h3></li>
<li><h3><a
href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Dezentrale Systeme</a></h3></li>
</ul>
<!-- <h2>Links</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
</body>
<translator>Max Mehl</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,48 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>0</version>
<head>
<title>Πολιτικοί στόχοι 2014 - 2019 - Επισκόπηση - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Η εργασία μας</a></p>
<h1>Πολιτικοί στόχοι 2014 - 2019</h1>
<p>
Το Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό (ή "λογισμικό ανοικτού κώδικα") - προγράμματα
υπολογιστή που οποιοσδήποτε μπορεί να χρησιμοποιεί, να μελετά,
να μοιράζεται, και να βελτιώνει - είναι ζωτικής σημασίας για
την επίτευξη αυτών των στόχων. Το Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό κάνει το Διαδίκτυο
να λειτουργεί και παρέχει τις βάσεις για τις πιο επιτυχημένες
επιχειρήσεις στη βιομηχανία της τεχνολογίας πληροφοριών.
Μόνο με Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό μπορούν οι χρήστες να κατανοήσουν πλήρως
τι πραγματικά κάνει ένα πρόγραμμα υπολογιστή, ποια δεδομένα αποστέλλει
πού, και πώς παράγει τα αποτελέσματά του.</p>
<h2 id="subpages">Πλοήγηση</h2>
<ul>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Δημόσιες υπηρεσίες</a></h3></li>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Δικαιώματα καταναλωτών και κυριότητα συσκευών</a></h3></li>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Ιδιωτικό απόρρητο, επιτήρηση και κρυπτογραφία</a></h3></li>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Κατανεμημένα συστήματα</a></h3></li>
</ul>
<!-- <h2>Links</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
</body>
<translator>Constantine Mousafiris</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,47 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Policy goals 2014 - 2019 - Overview - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Our Work</a></p>
<h1>Policy goals 2014 - 2019</h1>
<p>
Free Software - computer programs which anyone can use,
study, share, and improve - is crucial for building a free
information society. Free Software powers the Internet and
provides the foundation for most successful businesses in
the information technology industry. Only with Free
Software can users fully understand what a computer
program actually does, which data it sends where, and how
it generates its results.</p>
<h2 id="subpages">Navigation</h2>
<ul>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Public bodies</a></h3></li>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Consumer rights and device sovereignty</a></h3></li>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Privacy, surveillance and cryptography</a></h3></li>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Distributed systems</a></h3></li>
</ul>
<!-- <h2>Links</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
</body>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,36 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Objectifs de politique publique 2014 - 2019 - Aperçu - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body> <p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Notre action</a></p>
<h1>Objectifs politiques 2014 - 2019</h1>
<p>Les Logiciels Libres (ou «&#160;logiciels open source&#160;») - les programmes d'ordinateur que quiconque peut exécuter, étudier, redistribuer et améliorer - sont cruciaux pour atteindre ces objectifs.
Le Logiciel Libre fait fonctionner Internet et constitue les fondations de la plupart des entreprises qui réussissent dans l'industrie des Technologies de l'Information et de la Communication (TIC). Seul le Logiciel Libre permet aux utilisateurs de comprendre entièrement ce que fait véritablement un programme d'ordinateur, quelles données il envoie, où, et comment il génère ses résultats.
</p>
<h2 id="subpages">Navigation</h2>
<ul>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Organismes publics</a></h3></li>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Droits des consommateurs et propriété des appareils</a></h3></li>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Vie privée, surveillance et cryptographie</a></h3></li>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Systémes distribués</a></h3></li>
</ul>
<!-- <h2>Links</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
</body>
<translator>Cryptie et Thibault</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,50 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Obbiettivi 2014 - 2019 - Panoramica - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Il nostro lavoro</a></p>
<h1>Obbiettivi 2014 - 2019</h1>
<p>
Il Software Libero - programmi per computer che chiunque può usare,
studiare, condividere e migliorare - è cruciale per l'edificazione di
una società dell'informazione libera. Il Software Libero potenzia Internet e
fornisce le fondamenta per le imprese di maggior successo
nell'industria delle tecnologie dell'informazione. Solo con il
Software Libero gli utenti possono comprendere pienamente cosa faccia effettivamente
un programma per computer, quali dati siano inviati dove, e come
questi generino i loro risultati.</p>
<h2 id="subpages">Navigazione</h2>
<ul>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Enti pubblici</a></h3></li>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Diritti del consumatore e sovranità sui dispositivi</a></h3></li>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Privacy, sorveglianza e crittografia</a></h3></li>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Sistemi distribuiti</a></h3></li>
</ul>
<!-- <h2>Links</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
</body>
<translator>Emanuele Croce, 18.09.2015</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,44 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Beleidsdoelen 2014 - 2019 - Overzicht - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Ons werk</a></p>
<h1>Beleidsdoelen 2014 - 2019</h1>
<p>
Vrije Software - computerprogramma's die iedereen kan gebruiken, bestuderen, delen en
verbeteren - is cruciaal voor het bouwen van een vrije informatiesamenleving. Vrije Software
maakt het internet mogelijk en biedt de fundering voor de meest succesvole bedrijven in de
informatietechnologie-industrie. Alleen met Vrije Software kunnen gebruikers volledig begrijpen wat een
computerprogramma echt doet, welke data het waarheen stuurt, en hoe het resultaten genereert.</p>
<h2 id="subpages">Navigatie</h2>
<ul>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Publieke lichamen</a></h3></li>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Consumentenrechten en soevereiniteit over apparaten</a></h3></li>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Privacy, surveillance en cryptografie</a></h3></li>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Gedistribueerde systemen</a></h3></li>
</ul>
<!-- <h2>Links</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
</body>
<translator>André Ockers</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,47 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Objectivos para 2014 - 2019 - Visão geral - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">O que fazemos</a></p>
<h1>Objectivos para 2014 - 2019</h1>
<p>
O Software Livre - programas de computador que qualquer um pode usar,
estudar, partilhar e melhorar - é crucial para a construção duma
sociedade de informação livre. O Software Livre serve de base à Internet e
providencia as bases para a maior parte das empresas de sucesso na
área das tecnologias de informação. Só com Software Livre é possível aos
utilizadores compreenderem completamente o que realmente faz um programa de
computador, que dados envia para onde, e como
gera os resultados que mostra.</p>
<h2 id="subpages">Navegação</h2>
<ul>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Organismos públicos</a></h3></li>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Direitos dos consumidores e soberania sobre os dispositivos</a></h3></li>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Privacidade, vigilância e criptografia</a></h3></li>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Sistemas distribuídos</a></h3></li>
</ul>
<!-- <h2>Ligações</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
</body>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,89 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Politische Ziele 2014 - 2019 - Verbraucherschutz - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.html">Politische Ziele 2014 - 2019</a></p>
<h1>Verbraucherschutz und Gerätehoheit</h1>
<!-- <h2>Links</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
<!-- Verbraucherschutz und Gerätehoheit -->
<p>Wir verlassen uns zunehmend auf Computer für die meisten Aufgaben
in unserem Leben, seien es Smartphones, Autos oder Thermostate.
Bürger müssen die volle Kontrolle darüber haben, wie diese
Geräte arbeiten.</p>
<p>Im Einzelnen benötigen Bürger die Freiheit, die Software auf
diesen Geräten anzupassen und auszutauschen, die auf diesen
Geräten läuft. Sie müssen ebenfalls in der Lage sein, zu
kontrollieren, welche Daten diese Geräte sammeln und wem diese
Daten zur Verfügung gestellt werden.</p>
<p>Die Gesetzgeber müssen sicherstellen, dass die Verbraucher
die Möglichkeit haben, die Software auf allen Rechengeräten zu
modifizieren und auszutauschen, deren Eigentümer sie sind. Sie
müssen Verbraucherrechte dadurch stärken, dass sie Bürgern
einen einfachen Regressanspruch gegenüber Herstellern und
Händlern ermöglichen, die sie vom Anpassen der Software auf
ihren Geräten abhalten wollen.</p>
<p>Bei Produkten wie elektronischen Büchern, Filmen und
Computerspielen legen Verkäufer den Verbrauchern häufig
willkürliche Einschränkungen auf. Diese verbieten es
beispielsweise Endkunden, die von ihnen gekauften Produkte zu
verkaufen oder zu verleihen. Verkäufer erreichen dies oftmals
damit, indem sie behaupten, dass sie lediglich eine Lizenz für
die Benutzung des Produkts verkaufen anstatt das Produkt an
sich. Solche Einschränkungen sind grob unlauter gegenüber den
Kunden und die Gesetzgeber müssen diesem Treiben ein Ende
setzen.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>Wir fordern von der EU und ihren Mitgliedsstaaten, dass:</b></p>
<p>
- sie die Kommission dazu auffordern, einen Vorschlag für die
gesetzliche Stärkung von Verbraucherrechten zu machen, indem sie
voraussetzen, dass Verbraucher in der Lage sein müssen, die Software
auf jedem Computergerät zu verändern oder auszutauschen, welches sie
kaufen oder anderweitig permanent besitzen
</p>
<p>
- sie die Kommission dazu auffordern, gesetzlich zu sichern, dass
Verbraucher digitale Güter, die sie erworben haben, in der vollen
Bandbreite der Urheberrechtsausnahmen und -begrenzungen nutzen
können
</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Unsere politischen Ziele</h2>
<ul>
<li><a
href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Öffentliche Einrichtungen</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Privatsphäre, Überwachung und Verschlüsselung</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Dezentrale Systeme</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
<translator>Max Mehl</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,75 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Πολιτικοί στόχοι 2014 - 2019 - Δικαιώματα καταναλωτών - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.html">Πολιτικοί στόχοι 2014 - 2019</a></p>
<h1>Δικαιώματα καταναλωτών και κυριότητα συσκευών</h1>
<!-- <h2>Links</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
<!-- Δικαιώματα καταναλωτών και κυριότητα συσκευής -->
<p>Βασιζόμαστε ολοένα και περισσότερο σε υπολογιστές για τις περισσότερες λειτουργίες στην
καθημερινή μας ζωή, είτε πρόκειται για έξυπνα τηλέφωνα, αυτοκίνητα, ή θερμοστάτες. Οι πολίτες
πρέπει να έχουν τον πλήρη έλεγχο πάνω στον τρόπο λειτουργίας αυτών των συσκευών.</p>
<p>Ειδικότερα, οι πολίτες πρέπει να έχουν την ελευθερία να τροποποιούν και να
ανταλάσσουν το λογισμικό που τρέχει σε αυτές τις συσκευές. Πρέπει, επίσης, να έχουν
τη δυνατότητα να ελέγχουν ποια δεδομένα συλλέγουν αυτές οι συσκευές, και με ποιον διαμοιράζονται
αυτά τα δεδομένα.</p>
<p>Ο νομοθέτης πρέπει να διασφαλίσει ότι οι καταναλωτές θα έχουν τη δυνατότητα να τροποποιούν
και να ανταλάσσουν το λογισμικό σε όλες τις υπολογιστικές συσκευές που έχουν στην κατοχή τους. Χρειάζεται
η ενδυνάμωση των δικαιωμάτων του καταναλωτή, δίνοντας στους πολίτες τη δυνατότητα να προσφεύγουν εύκολα κατά
των κατασκευαστών και των μεταπωλητών που τους εμποδίζουν να τροποποιούν το
λογισμικό των συσκευών τους.</p>
<p>Με προϊόντα όπως ηλεκτρονικά βιβλία, ταινίες και παιγνίδια υπολογιστών,
οι προμηθευτές εύκολα επιβάλλουν αυθαίρετους περιορισμούς στους καταναλωτές. Αυτοί,
για παράδειγμα, εμποδίζουν τους καταναλωτές να πωλούν ή να δανείζουν τα προϊόντα
που αγόρασαν. Αυτό το πετυχαίνουν συχνά οι προμηθευτές, υποστηρίζοντας ότι αυτοί απλώς
πωλούν μια άδεια χρήσης του προϊόντος, και όχι το ίδιο το προϊόν.
Αυτοί οι περιορισμοί είναι χοντροκομμένα άδικοι για τους καταναλωτές, και ο
νομοθέτης πρέπει να τους σταματήσει.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>Θέλουμε από την ΕΕ και τα κράτη μέλη της να:</b></p>
<p>
- ζητήσουν από την Επιτροπή να προτείνει νομοθεσία που να ενδυναμώνει τα δικαιώματα
των καταναλωτών, απαιτώντας να έχουν τη δυνατότητα οι καταναλωτές να μπορούν να τροποποιούν και
να ανταλάσσουν το λογισμικό σε οποιαδήποτε υπολογιστική συσκευή που αγοράζουν, ή
διαφορετικά, που έχουν μόνιμα στην κατοχή τους</p>
<p>
- ζητήσουν από την Επιτροπή να προτείνει νομοθεσία που να εξασφαλίζει ότι
οι καταναλωτές μπορούν να χρησιμοποιούν ψηφιακά αγαθά τα οποία αγόρασαν,
με την πλήρη έκταση των εξαιρέσεων και των περιορισμών της νομοθεσίας περί copyright</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Οι πολιτικοί στόχοι μας</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Δημόσιες υπηρεσίες</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Ιδιωτικό απόρρητο, επιτήρηση και κρυπτογραφία</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Κατανεμημένα συστήματα</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
<translator>Constantine Mousafiris</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,74 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Policy goals 2014 - 2019 - Consumer rights - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.html">Policy goals 2014 - 2019</a></p>
<h1>Consumer rights and device sovereignty</h1>
<!-- <h2>Links</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
<!-- Consumer rights and device sovereignty -->
<p>We increasingly rely on computers for most functions of our daily
lives, whether they are smartphones, cars, or thermostats. Citizens
need to be in full control of how these devices operate.</p>
<p>In particular, citizens need to have the freedom to modify and
exchange the software running on these devices. They must also be
able to control which data these devices gather, and with whom this
data is shared.</p>
<p>Lawmakers must ensure that consumers have the possibility to modify
and exchange the software on all computing devices they own. They need
to strengthen consumer rights by giving citizens easy recourse against
manufacturers and distributors preventing them from modifying the
software on their devices.</p>
<p>With products such as electronic books, movies and computer games,
vendors frequently impose arbitrary restrictions on consumers. These,
for example, prevent consumers from selling or lending the products
they have bought. Vendors often achieve this by claiming that they are
merely selling a license to use the product, rather than the product
itself. Such restrictions are grossly unfair to consumers, and
lawmakers must put a stop to them.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>We want the EU and its member states to:</b></p>
<p>
- ask the Commission to propose legislation strengthening consumers
rights, by requiring that consumers must be enabled to modify and
exchange the software on any computing device they buy or
otherwise have permanent possession of</p>
<p>
- ask the Commission to propose legislation to ensure that
consumers can make use of digital goods which they have acquired
within the full scope of copyright exceptions and limitations</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Our policy goals</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Public bodies</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Privacy, surveillance and cryptography</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Distributed systems</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,64 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Beleidsdoelen 2014 - 2019 - Consumentenrechten - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.html">Beleidsdoelen 2014 - 2019</a></p>
<h1>Consumentenrechten en soevereiniteit over apparaten</h1>
<!-- <h2>Links</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
<!-- Consumer rights and device sovereignty -->
<p>We vertrouwen steeds meer op computers voor de meeste functies van onze dagelijkse levens,
of het nu om smartphones, auto's of thermostaten gaat. Burgers moeten de volledige controle hebben over
de werking van deze apparaten.</p>
<p>Burgers hebben in het bijzonder de vrijheid nodig om de software van deze apparaten aan te
kunnen passen en te kunnen uitwisselen. Ze moeten ook in staat zijn om de controle te hebben over welke data
deze apparaten verzamelen, en met wie deze data worden gedeeld.</p>
<p>Makers van wetten moeten zekerstellen dat consumenten de mogelijkheid hebben om de software
op alle apparaten met computers kunnen aanpassen en uitwisselen. Ze moeten de rechten van de consument
versterken door burgers gemakkelijk ondersteunende hulp te bieden tegen fabrikanten en distributeurs die voorkomen
dat zij de software op hun apparaten aanpassen.</p>
<p>Met producten zoals elektronische boeken, films en computerspellen leggen verkopers regelmatig
willekeurige beperkingen op aan consumenten. Voorkomen wordt bijvoorbeeld dat consumenten de producten die zij hebben gekocht verkopen of uitlenen. Verkopers bereiken dit vaak door te beweren dat ze slechts een licentie verkopen om het produkt te gebruiken, in plaats van het produkt zelf. Zulke beperkingen zijn enorm oneerlijk voor consumenten en zij die de wetten maken moeten hen stoppen.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>We willen dat de EU en haar lidstaten:</b></p>
<p>
- aan de Commissie vragen om wetgeving voor te stellen die consumentenrechten versterkt, door te eisen dat
consumenten in staat moeten zijn om de software op ieder apparaat met een computer dat zij kopen of waar zij anderszinds het eigendom over hebben, moeten kunnen aanpassen en uitwisselen.</p>
<p>
- de Commissie vragen om wetgeving voor te stellen om zeker te stellen dat consumenten gebruik kunnen maken van digitale goederen die zij hebben aangeschaft binnen het gehele bereik aan uitzonderingen en beperkingen van het auteursrecht.</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Onze beleidsdoelen</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Publieke lichamen</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Privacy, surveillance en cryptografie</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Gedistribueerde systemen</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
<translator>André Ockers</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,73 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Objectivos para 2014 - 2019 - Direitos dos consumidores - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.html">Objectivos para 2014 - 2019</a></p>
<h1>Direitos dos consumidores e soberania sobre os dispositivos</h1>
<!-- <h2>Ligações</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
<!-- Consumer rights and device sovereignty -->
<p>Dependemos cada vez mais dos computadores para a maior parte das funções
das nossas vidas diárias, como por exemplo em telemóveis, carros ou termostatos. Os
cidadãos precisam, por isso, de ter total controlo sobre como estes aparelhos operam.</p>
<p>Em concreto, os cidadãos precisam de ter a liberdade de alterar e
substituir o software que corre nos aparelhos. Também têm que ter a
capacidade de controlar os dados que os dispositivos recolhem e com quem
são partilhados.</p>
<p>Os legisladores têm que assegurar que os consumidores tenham a possibilidade
de alterar e substituir o software em todos os dispositivos informáticos que possuam.
Devem reforçar os direitos dos consumidores dando aos cidadãos facilidade de recurso
contra fabricantes e distribuidores que os impedem de alterar o
software nos seus dispositivos.</p>
<p>Com produtos como livros electrónicos, filmes e jogos de computador, com frequência
os distribuidores impõem restrições arbitrárias aos consumidores.
Por exemplo, impedem os consumidores de vender ou emprestar os produtos que
compraram. Frequentemente, conseguem-no alegando que vendem apenas
uma licença para uso do produto, e não o próprio produto.
Tais restrições são extremamente injustas para os consumidores, pelo que
os legisladores as devem impedir.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>Pretendemos que a UE e os seus estados membros:</b></p>
<p>
- solicitem à Comissão Europeia que proponha legislação que reforce os direitos dos
consumidores, impondo que seja permitido aos consumidores alterar e
substituir o software em qualquer dispositivo informático que comprem ou
sobre o qual tenham qualquer outro direito de posse</p>
<p>
- solicitem à Comissão Europeia que proponha legislação que assegure aos
consumidores o poder de fazerem uso dos bens digitais que tenham adquirido,
dentro do máximo alcance das excepções e das limitações aos direitos de autor</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Os nossos objectivos</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Organismos públicos</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Privacidade, vigilância e criptografia</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Sistemas distribuídos</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,70 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Πολιτικοί στόχοι 2014 - 2019 - Κατανεμημένα συστήματα - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.html">Πολιτικοί στόχοι 2014 - 2019</a></p>
<h1>Κατανεμημένα συστήματα</h1>
<!-- <h2>Links</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
<!-- Κατανεμημένα συστήματα -->
<p>Το διαδίκτυο έφερε καινοτομία και δημοκρατική συμμετοχή,
ακριβώς διότι δεν έχει κανένα κεντρικό σημείο ελέγχου. Η τάση
προς συγκεντρωτικές υπηρεσίες θέτει σε κίνδυνο αυτό το βασικό
πλεονέκτημα.</p>
<p>Για να προστατευτεί η ελευθερία των πολιτών της κοινωνίας
των πληροφοριών,
χρειαζόμαστε να χτίσουμε κατανεμημένα συστήματα για όλες τις σημαντικές
λειτουργίες, με βάση το διαδίκτυο.</p>
<p>Οι διαμορφωτές πολιτικής πρέπει να προωθήσουν την ανάπτυξη και χρήση
κατανεμημένων συστημάτων για την αντικατάσταση υπηρεσιών που είναι
προς το παρόν συγκεντροποιημένες σε μεγάλο βαθμό, όπως η κοινωνική
δικτύωση. Θα πρέπει να εξασφαλίσουν ότι διατίθενται οι
κατάλληλες δημόσιες χρηματοδοτήσεις για την εργασία αυτή.</p>
<p>Οι διαμορφωτές πολιτικής πρέπει να προωθήσουν την ανάπτυξη Ανοικτών
Προτύπων μέσω των οποίων αυτά τα συστήματα να μπορούν να αλληλεπιδρούν.
Οι διαμορφωτές πολιτικής πρέπει να προωθούν τη χρήση αυτών των
εργαλείων, χρησιμοποιώντας τα για τη δική τους αλληλεπίδραση με το
κοινό και αποφεύγοντας τις συγκεντρωτικές υπηρεσίες όπου αυτό είναι
εφικτό.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>Θέλουμε από την ΕΕ και τα κράτη μέλη της να:</b></p>
<p> - ζητήσουν από τις Ευρωπαϊκές υπηρεσίες χρηματοδότησης, και ειδικότερα από την Ευρωπαϊκή
Επιτροπή, να κατευθύνει τη χρηματοδότηση στην ανάπτυξη κατανεμημένων
πλατφορμών για επικοινωνίες, που να βασίζονται σε Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό
και σε Ανοικτά Πρότυπα.</p>
<p> - ζητήσουν από τη διοίκηση του Κοινοβουλίου να υποστηρίξει τους
Ευρωβουλευτές στο να χρησιμοποιούν συστηματικά τις κατανεμημένες πλατφόρμες,
ειδικά στα μέσα κοινωνικής δικτύωσης.</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Οι πολιτικοί στόχοι μας</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Δημόσιες υπηρεσίες</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Δικαιώματα καταναλωτών και κυριότητα συσκευών</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Ιδιωτικό απόρρητο, επιτήρηση και κρυπτογραφία</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
<translator>Constantine Mousafiris</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,65 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Policy goals 2014 - 2019 - Distributed systems - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.html">Policy goals 2014 - 2019</a></p>
<h1>Distributed systems</h1>
<!-- <h2>Links</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
<!-- Distributed systems -->
<p>The internet has driven innovation and democratic participation
precisely because it has no central point of control. The trend
towards centralised services is endangering this fundamental
advantage.</p>
<p>In order to safeguard the freedom of the citizens of the information
society, we need to build distributed systems for all important
functions on top of the internet.</p>
<p>Policy makers should promote the development and use of distributed
systems to replace services which are currently centralised to a high
degree, such as social networking. They should ensure that appropriate
public funds are allocated to this task.</p>
<p>Policy makers should promote the development of Open Standards through
which such systems can interact with each other. Policy makers should
promote the use of these tools by using them for their own
interactions with the public, and avoid centralised services wherever
possible.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>We want the EU and its member states to:</b></p>
<p> - ask European funding agencies, and in particular the European
Commission, to focus funding on the development of distributed
communication platforms based on Free Software and Open Standards.</p>
<p> - ask the Parliament's administration to support MEPs in routinely
making use of distributed platforms, especially in social media.</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Our policy goals</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Public bodies</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Consumer rights and device sovereignty</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Privacy, surveillance and cryptography</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,51 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Beleidsdoelen 2014 - 2019 - Gedistribueerde systemen - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.html">Beleidsdoelen 2014 - 2019</a></p>
<h1>Gedistribueerde systemen</h1>
<!-- <h2>Links</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
<!-- Distributed systems -->
<p>Het internet heeft innovatie en democratische participatie versterkt juist omdat zij geen centraal controlepunt kent. De trend naar meer gecentraliseerde diensten brengt dit fundamentele voordeel in gevaar.</p>
<p>Om de vrijheid van de burgers in de informatiesamenleving in veiligheid te brengen, is het nodig om
gedistribueerde systemen voor alle functies te bouwen bovenop het internet.</p>
<p>Beleidsmakers zouden de ontwikkeling en het gebruik van gedistribueerde systemen moeten promoten zodat deze de op dit moment hooggecentraliseerde diensten zoals sociale netwerken kunnen vervangen. Zij zouden moeten zekerstellen dat juiste publieke middelen aan deze taken worden toegewezen.</p>
<p>Beleidsmakers zouden de ontwikkeling van Open Standaarden moeten promoten, omdat daardoor zulke systemen met elkaar tot interactie kunnen komen. Beleidsmakers zouden het gebruik van dit 'gereedschap' moeten promoten door ze zelf te gebruiken bij hun interactie met het publiek, en gecentraliseerde diensten moeten vermijden als dat mogelijk is.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>We willen dat de EU en haar lidstaten:</b></p>
<p> - aan Europese financierende instellingen, in het bijzonder de Europese Commissie, vragen om de focus te leggen op het financieren van de ontwikkeling van gedistribueerde communicatieplatformen gebaseerd op Vrije Software en Open Standaarden.</p>
<p> - aan de leiding van het Parlement te vragen om leden van het Europees Parlement te ondersteunen bij het routinematig gebruikmaken van gedistribueerde platvormen, speciaal in het geval van sociale media.</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Onze beleidsdoelen</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Publieke lichamen</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Consumentenrechten en souverein apparaatbeheer</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Privacy, surveillance en cryptografie</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
<translator>André Ockers</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,64 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Objectivos para 2014 - 2019 - Sistemas distribuídos - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.html">Objectivos para 2014 - 2019</a></p>
<h1>Sistemas distribuídos</h1>
<!-- <h2>Ligações</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
<!-- Distributed systems -->
<p>A Internet impulsionou a inovação e a participação democrática
precisamente por não ter nenhum centro de controlo. A tendência
para os serviços centralizados está a pôr em perigo esta vantagem
fundamental.</p>
<p>Para salvaguardar a liberdade dos cidadãos da sociedade de
informação, precisamos de construir sistemas distribuídos com base na
Internet para todas as funções importantes.</p>
<p>Os governantes deveriam promover o desenvolvimento e o uso de sistemas
distribuídos em substituição de serviços que presentemente estão altamente
centralizados, como por exemplo a interacção pelas redes sociais. Deveriam assegurar
que fossem atribuídos a este ensejo fundos públicos adequados.</p>
<p>Os governantes deveriam promover o desenvolvimento de Padrões Abertos através
dos quais tais sistemas possam interagir uns com os outros. Os governantes deveriam
promover o uso destas ferramentas usando-as na sua própria interacção
com o público e evitando serviços centralizados tanto quanto
possível.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>Pretendemos que a UE e os seus estados membros:</b></p>
<p> - solicitem às agências financiadoras europeias, em particular a Comissão
Europeia, para centrar o financiamento no desenvolvimento de plataformas
distribuídas de comunicação baseadas em Software Livre e Padrões Abertos.</p>
<p> - solicitem à administração do Parlamento Europeu que incentive os deputados europeus
a fazerem uso rotineiro de plataformas distribuídas, em particular nos contactos sociais.</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Os nossos objectivos</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Organismos públicos</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Direitos dos consumidores e soberania sobre os dispositivos</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Privacidade, vigilância e criptografia</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,72 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Politische Ziele 2014 - 2019 Privatsphäre FSFE</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.html">Politische Ziele 2014 - 2019</a></p>
<h1>Privatsphäre, Überwachung und Kryptografie</h1>
<!-- <h2>Links</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
<!-- Privatsphäre, Überwachung und Kryptografie -->
<p>Ohne Privatsphäre und Anonymität kann es keinen demokratischen
Diskurs geben. In einem freien Land muss es Bürgern möglich sein,
miteinander zu sprechen, ohne Angst haben zu müssen, dass sie
überwacht werden.</p>
<p>Dazu verlassen sich Bürger auf die Rechtsprechung sowie auf
Technologie. Entscheidungsträger müssen ihre Bürger vor Überwachung
schützen, die Entwicklung von Werkzeugen, die die Privatsphäre
der Bürger schützt fördern, und die Nutzung dieser Werkzeuge
anpreisen.</p>
<p>Angesichts der allgegenwärtigen Internetüberwachung sollten
die Gesetzgeber Verschlüsselung in allen Ebenen der Kommunikation
fordern und fördern. Alle öffentlichen Stellen müssen den Bürgern
denen sie dienen die Möglichkeit anbieten, über verschlüsselte
und sichere Kanäle zu kommunizieren.</p>
<p>Die Politik sollte die Entwicklung von Verschlüsselungswerkzeugen,
die Freie Software sind, für den alltäglichen Gebrauch priorisieren
und sicher stellen, dass öffentliche Fördergelder für diesen Zweck
zur Verfügung gestellt werden.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>Wir fordern von der EU und ihren Mitgliedsstaaten, dass: </b></p>
<p>- sie sicherstellen, dass Verschlüsselungstechnologien, die auf Freier
Software basieren, im Parlament, der Kommission sowie im Rat
als Standard verwendet werden.</p>
<p>- sie die Kommission darum bitten, eine Gesetzgebung vorzuschlagen, die
von allen öffentlichen Körperschaften fordert, den Bürgern die
Möglichkeit anzubieten, mit ihnen über Kanäle zu kommunizieren,
die von Verschlüsselungstechnologie abgesichert wurden.</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Unsere politischen Ziele</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Öffentliche Einrichtungen</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Verbraucherschutz und Gerätehoheit</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Verteile Systeme</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,72 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Πολιτικοί στόχοι 2014 - 2019 - Ιδιωτικό απόρρητο - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.html">Πολιτικοί στόχοι 2014 - 2019</a></p>
<h1>Ιδιωτικό απόρρητο, επιτήρηση και κρυπτογραφία</h1>
<!-- <h2>Links</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
<!-- Ιδιωτικότητα, παρακολούθηση και κρυπτογράφηση -->
<p>Χωρίς ιδιωτικό απόρρητο και ανωνυμία δεν μπορεί να υπάρξει
δημοκρατική συζήτηση. Σε μια ελεύθερη χώρα, οι πολίτες πρέπει
να είναι σε θέση να συνομιλούν μεταξύ τους χωρίς φόβο μήπως
κατασκοπεύονται.</p>
<p>Για τον λόγο αυτό, οι πολίτες βασίζονται τόσο στους κανόνες
του νόμου, όσο και στην τεχνολογία. Οι διαμορφωτές πολιτικής
πρέπει να προστατεύον τους πολίτες τους από την επιτήρηση,
να διευκολύνουν την ανάπτυξη εργαλείων που προστατεύουν το ιδιωτικό
απόρρητο των πολιτών, και να προωθούν τη χρήση τέτοιων εργαλείων.</p>
<p>Παρά τη διάχυτη επιτήρηση στο διαδίκτυο, οι διαμορφωτές πολιτικής
πρέπει να προωθούν τη χρήση κρυπτογράφησης σε όλους τους τομείς της
επικοινωνίας. Όλες οι δημόσιες υπηρεσίες πρέπει να προσφέρουν
στους πολίτες που υπηρετούν, τα μέσα για να επικοινωνούν μέσω
κρυπτογραφημένων και ασφαλών διαύλων.</p>
<p>Οι διαμορφωτές πολιτικής πρέπει να δίνουν προτεραιότητα στην
ανάπτυξη εργαλείων κρυπτογράφησης Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού για γενική
χρήση και να εξασφαλίζουν ότι το δημόσιο χρήμα είναι διαθέσιμο
για το σκοπό αυτό.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>Θέλουμε από την ΕΕ και τα κράτη μέλη της να:</b></p>
<p> - εξασφαλίσουν ότι οι τεχνολογίες κρυπτογράφησης με βάση το Ελεύθερο
Λογισμικό θα χρησιμοποιούνται σε συστηματική βάση στο Ευρωκοινοβούλιο,
καθώς και στην Επιτροπή και στο Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο.</p>
<p> - ζητήσουν από την Επιτροπή να προτείνει νομοθεσία που να απαιτεί
από όλες τις δημόσιες υπηρεσίες να προσφέρουν στους πολίτες την ευκαιρία
να επικοινωνούν μαζί τους μέσω διαύλων που είναι ασφαλισμένοι
με τεχνολογίες κρυπτογράφησης</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Οι πολιτικοί στόχοι μας</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Δημόσιες υπηρεσίες</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Δικαιώματα καταναλωτών και κυριότητα συσκευών</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Κατανεμημένα συστήματα</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
<translator>Constantine Mousafiris</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,67 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Policy goals 2014 - 2019 - Privacy - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.html">Policy goals 2014 - 2019</a></p>
<h1>Privacy, surveillance and cryptography</h1>
<!-- <h2>Links</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
<!-- Privacy, surveillance and cryptography -->
<p>Without privacy and anonymity there can be no democratic
discourse. In a free country, citizens need to be able to talk to
each other without fear of being spied upon.</p>
<p>To this end, citizens rely both on the rule of law and on
technology. Policy makers need to protect their citizens against
surveillance, foster the development of tools that protect citizens'
privacy, and promote the use of such tools.</p>
<p>In the face of pervasive internet surveillance, policy makers should
promote the use of encryption in all spheres of communication. All
public bodies must offer the citizens they serve the means to
communicate through encrypted and secured channels.</p>
<p>Policy makers should prioritise the development of Free Software
encryption tools for general use, and ensure that public funds are
made available for this purpose.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>We want the EU and its member states to:</b></p>
<p>- ensure that Free Software-based encryption technologies come into
standard usage within the Parliament, as well as the Commission and
the Council.</p>
<p> - ask the Commission to propose legislation requiring all public
bodies to offer citizens the opportunity to communicate with them
through channels secured by encryption technologies</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Our policy goals</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Public bodies</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Consumer rights and device sovereignty</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Distributed systems</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,62 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Beleidsdoelen 2014 - 2019 - Privacy - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.html">Beleidsdoelen 2014 - 2019</a></p>
<h1>Privacy, surveillance en cryptografie</h1>
<!-- <h2>Links</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
<!-- Privacy, surveillance and cryptography -->
<p>Zonder privacy en anonimiteit kan er geen democratische uitwisseling van gedachten plaatsvinden.
In een vrij land moeten burgers in staat zijn om met elkaar te kunnen praten zonder de angst te hebben dat ze
bespioneerd worden.</p>
<p>Voor dit doel vertrouwen burgers zowel op het recht als op technologie.
Beleidsmakers moeten hun burgers beschermen tegen surveillance, de ontwikkeling aanmoedigen van
gereedschap dat de privacy van burgers beschermt, en het gebruik van zulk gereedschap promoot.</p>
<p>Geconfronteerd met hardnekkige internetsurveillance zouden beleidsmakers het gebruik van
versleuteling in alle sferen van communicatie moeten promoten. Alle publieke lichamen zouden de burgers de middelen
moeten bieden om via versleutelde en beveiligde kanalen te communiceren.</p>
<p>Beleidsmakers zouden een prioriteit moeten maken van de ontwikkeling van Vrije Software-versleutelgereedschap voor algemeen gebruik, en zich ervan moeten verzekeren dat publieke middelen voor dit
doel beschikbaar worden gemaakt.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>We willen dat de EU en haar deelnemende landen:</b></p>
<p>- zich ervan verzekeren dat op Vrije Software gebaseerde versleutelingstechnologieën standaard worden gebruikt
in het Parlement, in de Commissie en in de Raad.</p>
<p> - de Commissie vragen om wetgeving voor te stellen die van alle publieke lichamen eist dat zij burgers de
mogelijkheid bieden om met hen te communiceren via kanalen die beveiligd zijn door versleutelingstechnologieën</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Onze beleidsdoelen</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Publieke lichamen</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Consumentenrechten en soeverein beheer van apparaten</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Gedistribueerde systemen</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
<translator>André Ockers</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,66 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Objectivos para 2014 - 2019 - Privacidade - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.html">Objectivos para 2014 - 2019</a></p>
<h1>Privacidade, vigilância e criptografia</h1>
<!-- <h2>Ligações</h2>
<alllinks/> -->
<!-- Privacy, surveillance and cryptography -->
<p>Sem privacidade e anonimato não pode haver discurso
democrático. Num país livre, os cidadãos têm que poder falar uns
com os outros sem temerem serem espiados.</p>
<p>Para isso, os cidadãos dependem quer do primado da lei quer da
tecnologia. Os governantes têm que proteger os seus cidadãos contra a
vigilância, impulsionar o desenvolvimento de ferramentas que protejam
a privacidade dos cidadãos e promover o uso das mesmas.</p>
<p>Em face da omnipresente vigilância na Internet, os governantes deveriam
promover o uso da encriptação em todas as esferas da comunicação. Todos
os organismos públicos devem proporcionar aos cidadãos que servem os meios de
comunicarem através de canais encriptados e seguros.</p>
<p>Os governantes deveriam dar prioridade ao desenvolvimento de ferramentas
de encriptação de uso geral em Software Livre e assegurar a
disponibilização de fundos públicos para este fim.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>Pretendemos que a UE e os seus estados membros:</b></p>
<p>- assegurem que tecnologias de encriptação baseadas em Software Livre passem a ser
o padrão em uso no Parlamento Europeu, assim como na Comissão Europeia e
no Conselho Europeu.</p>
<p> - solicitem à Comissão Europeia que proponha legislação impondo a todos os organismos
públicos que possibilitem aos cidadãos comunicarem com eles através de
canais seguros por tecnologias de encriptação</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Os nossos objectivos</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Organismos públicos</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Direitos dos consumidores e soberania sobre os dispositivos</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Sistemas distribuídos</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,100 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Πολιτικοί στόχοι 2014 - 2019 - Δημόσιες υπηρεσίες - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.html">Πολιτικοί στόχοι 2014 - 2019</a></p>
<h1>Δημόσιες υπηρεσίες</h1>
<!-- Public bodies -->
<p>Οι Δημόσιες υπηρεσίες αποτελούν μια κρίσιμη υποδομή των δημοκρατικών
κρατών. Τα Κοινοβούλια, οι κρατικοί οργανισμοί και τα διοικητικά σώματα
πρέπει να βρίσκονται υπό τον πλήρη ελεγχο του κράτους, το οποίο, με τη
σειρά του, κυβερνάται από τους πολίτες του, μέσω δημοκρατικών
διαδικασιών.</p>
<p>Για να επιτευχθούν αυτοί οι στόχοι, οι δημόσιες υπηρεσίες πρέπει να
έχουν υπό πλήρη έλεγχο το λογισμικό και τα υπολογιστικά συστήματα που
χρησιμοποιούν, καθώς και τα δεδομένα που συλλέγουν, αποθηκεύουν, και
επεξεργάζονται. Για να ανταποκριθούν στις υποχρεώσεις τους προς τους
πολίτες που υπηρετούν, οι δημόσιες υπηρεσίες πρέπει να χρησιμοποιούν
μόνο
<a href="/freesoftware/basics/summary.html">Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό</a>
και να αποθηκεύουν τα δεδομένα τους σε τύπους αρχείων που
συμμορφώνονται με τα
<a href="/freesoftware/standards/def.en.html">Ανοικτά Πρότυπα</a>.</p>
<p>Όπου οι δημόσιες υπηρεσίες χρησιμοποιούν Λογισμικό ως Υπηρεσία
(Software as a Service, SaaS) ή λύσεις στο «νέφος» ("cloud"), πρέπει
επιπλέον να αποφεύγουν τον εγκλωβισμό τους σε έναν μόνο προμηθευτή
και να εξασφαλίσουν ότι θα μπορούν εύκολα να αλλάζουν ανάμεσα σε
διαφορετικούς προμηθευτές τέτοιων υπηρεσιών.
Πρέπει να εξασφαλίσουν ότι τα δεδομένα τους θα μπορούν να μεταφέρονται
μεταξύ διαφορετικών προμηθευτών, ότι θα αποθηκεύονται σε τύπους αρχείων
συμβατούς με τα Ανοικτά Πρότυπα, και ότι η λύση δεν θα απαιτεί
μη-ελεύθερο λογισμικό εφαρμογών.
Οι δημόσιες υπηρεσίες χρηματοδοτούνται μέσω των φόρων. Πρέπει να
εξασφαλίζουν ότι δαπανούν αυτά τα χρήματα με σύνεση. Αν οι οργανισμοί
εγκλωβιστούν σε οποιαδήποτε προσφορά συγκεκριμένου προμηθευτή,
θα καταλήξουν να πληρώνουν μονοπωλιακές τιμές για το λογισμικό και τις
σχετικές υπηρεσίες.</p>
<p>Αντίθετα, οι δημόσιες υπηρεσίες πρέπει να προμηθεύονται το λογισμικό
τους και τις σχετικές με υπολογιστές υπηρεσίες, μόνον μέσω
ανταγωνιστικών προκηρύξεων διαγωνισμού προμηθειών, ανοικτών σε όλους
όσους καταθέτουν προσφορά.
Οι δημόσιες υπηρεσίες πρέπει να προϋπολγίζουν και τα μελλοντικό κόστος
εξόδου, μέσα στην τιμή της κάθε προσφοράς, καθώς και το κόστος των
οποιωνδήποτε αδειών χρήσης που θα χρειαστεί να αγοράσουν, επιπλέον της
προσφερόμενης λύσης. Θα πρέπει να αγοράζουν μόνο συσκευές στις οποίες
θα μπορούν να τροποποιούν το λογισμικό ελεύθερα και να εγκαθιστούν
λειτουργικά συστήματα και άλλα προγράμματα της επιλογής τους.</p>
<p>Όταν οι δημόσιες υπηρεσίες αναπτύσσουν λογισμικό, ή πληρώνουν
για την ανάπτυξη λογισμικού, τα προγράμματα που προκύπτουν πρέπει
να αποδίδονται στο ευρύ κοινό υπό μια άδεια Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού.
Οι πολίτες και οι επιχειρήσεις έχουν πληρώσει για το λογισμικό αυτό
με τους φόρους τους, οποτε θα πρέπει να έχουν και πρόσβαση σε αυτό.
Αυτό περιλαμβάνει εφαρμογές για έξυπνα κινητά ("apps") που διαθέτουν
οι δημόσιες υπηρεσίες.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>Θέλουμε από την ΕΕ και τα κράτη μέλη της να:</b></p>
<p>
- ζητήσουν από την Επιτροπή να προτείνει νομοθεσία που να απαιτεί ότι κάθε
δημόσια χρηματοδοτημένο λογισμικό, περιλαμβανομένων των εφαρμογών για κινητές
συσκευές, θα διατίθεται δημόσια υπό άδειες χρήσης Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού</p>
<p> - σχετικά με τις προκηρύξεις προμηθειών, να ζητήσουν από την Επιτροπή
να προτείνει νομοθεσία που να ζητά από τους δημόσιες υπηρεσίες να
περιλαμβάνουν και το κόστος εξόδου στο συνολικό κόστος
οποιουδήποτε λογισμικού ή λύσης φιλοξενίας που αποκτούν</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Οι στόχοι των πολιτικών μας</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Δικαιώματα καταναλωτών και κυριότητα συσκευών</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Ιδιωτικό απόρρητο, επιτήρηση και κρυπτογραφία</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Κατανεμημένα συστήματα</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
<translator>Constantine Mousafiris</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,85 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Policy goals 2014 - 2019 - Public Bodies - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.html">Policy goals 2014 - 2019</a></p>
<h1>Public Bodies</h1>
<p>Public bodies form a crucial infrastructure of democratic
states. Parliaments, government organizations and administrative
bodies must be fully under the control of the state, which in turn is
governed by its citizens through democratic processes.</p>
<p>In order to achieve these goals, public bodies must be in full control
of the software and the computer systems which they use, and of the
data which they gather, store, and process. In order to fulfill their
obligations towards the citizens they serve, public bodies must use
only <a href ="/freesoftware/basics/summary.en.html">Free Software</a>, and store
their data in file formats that are compliant with <a href = "/freesoftware/standards/def.en.html">Open
Standards</a>.</p>
<p>Where public bodies make use of software as a service (SaaS or "cloud"
solutions), they must additionally avoid vendor lock-in and ensure
that they can easily switch between different providers of such
services. They must ensure that data is portable between providers,
that it is stored in file formats compliant with Open Standards, and
that the solution does not require non-free (client) software.
Public bodies are financed through taxes. They must make sure to spend
these funds wisely. If organizations are locked into any particular
vendor's offerings, they will end up paying monopoly prices for
software and related services.</p>
<p>Instead, public bodies must procure their software and
computer-related services only through open, competitive calls for
tender which are open to all bidders. Public bodies must figure future
exit costs into the price of each bid, as well as the cost of any
licenses they would need to acquire in addition to the solution being
offered. They should purchase only devices on which they can freely
modify the software, and install operating systems and other programs
of their choice.</p>
<p>When public bodies develop software, or pay for software to be
developed, the resulting programs must be released to the public under
a Free Software license. Citizens and businesses have paid for this
software with their taxes, so they should have access to it. This
includes smartphone applications ("apps") released by public
bodies.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>We want the EU and its member states to:</b></p>
<p>
- ask the Commission to propose legislation requiring that all
publicly financed software, including applications for mobile
devices, be made publicly available under Free Software licenses</p>
<p> - regarding procurement, ask the Commission to propose legislation
requiring public bodies to include exit costs into the total cost
of any software or hosting solution they acquire</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Our policy goals</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Consumer rights and device sovereignty</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Privacy, surveillance and cryptography</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Distributed systems</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,86 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Obiettivi politici 2014 - 2019 - Enti Pubblici - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.html">Obiettivi Politici 2014 - 2019</a></p>
<h1>Enti Pubblici</h1>
<p>Gli enti pubblici sono una parte fondamentale degli Stati
democratici. I parlamenti, le organizzazioni governative e gli enti
pubblici devono essere sotto il controllo completo dello Stato, che a sua volta è
governato dai suoi cittadini attraverso processi democratici.</p>
<p>Gli enti pubblici, per raggiungere questi obiettivi, devono avere il pieno controllo
sia del software e dei sistemi informatici che essi usano, sia dei
dati che essi raccolgono, memorizzano, e trattano. Gli enti pubblici, per soddisfare i loro
obblighi nei confronti dei cittadini che servono, devono usare
solo <a href ="/freesoftware/basics/summary.html">Software Libero</a>, e memorizzare
i propri dati in file il cui formato sia conforme con agli <a href = "/freesoftware/standards/def.html">Standard
Aperti</a>.</p>
<p>Laddove gli enti pubblici ricorrano a software as a service (SaaS o soluzioni
"cloud") devono, inoltre, evitare il vendor lock-in (blocco da fornitore) e garantire
che sia possibile passare facilmente fra i vari fornitori di tali
servizi. Essi devono garantire che i dati siano portabili fra i fornitori,
che i dati siano memorizzati in file il cui formato sia conforme agli Standard Aperti, e
che le soluzioni non necessitino di software (client) non libero.
Gli enti pubblici sono finanziati attraverso le tasse. Essi devono essere sicuri di spendere
saggiamente questi fondi. Se le organizzazione sono bloccate (locked-in) in una qualsiasi
offerta di un fornitore, essi finiranno col pagare prezzi di monopolio per
il software ed i servizi correlati.</p>
<p>Invece, gli enti pubblici devono procurarsi il proprio software ed i
servizi informatici solo attraverso procedure di gara libera
che siano aperte a tutti gli offerenti. Gli enti pubblici devono preventivare nel prezzo di ogni offerta i costi
futuri di uscita, e devono altresì preventivare i costi di qualsiasi
altra licenza che essi dovranno necessariamente acquistare in aggiunta alla soluzione che viene
offerta. Gli enti pubblici dovrebbero procurarsi solo dispositivi sui quali possano
modificare liberamente il software, ed installare sistemi operativi ed altri programmi
di loro scelta.</p>
<p>Quando gli enti pubblici sviluppano software, o pagano per lo sviluppo di
software, il programma risultante deve essere rilasciato al pubblico sotto
una licenza di Software Libero. I cittadini e le aziende hanno pagato per questo
software con le proprie tasse, pertanto essi dovrebbero averne accesso. Ciò
include le applicazioni per gli smartphone ("app") rilasciate dagli enti
pubblici.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>Vogliamo che la UE e i suoi membri dichiarino di:</b></p>
<p>
- chiedere alla Commissione di proporre leggi che richiedano che tutto
il software finanziato pubblicamente, incluse le applicazioni per i dispositivi
mobili, sia reso pubblicamente disponibile sotto una licenza di Software Libero</p>
<p> - chiedere alla Commissione di proporre leggi, in relazione ai bandi di gara,
che richiedano agli enti pubblici di includere i costi di uscita nel costo totale
di qualunque software o soluzione di hosting che essi acquisiscano</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Our policy goals</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Diritti dei consumatori e sovranità sui dispositivi</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Privacy, sorveglianza e crittografia</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Sistemi distribuiti</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
<translator>Tarin Gamberini</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,69 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Beleidsdoelen 2014 - 2019 - Publieke lichamen - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.html">Beleidsdoelen 2014 - 2019</a></p>
<h1>Publieke lichamen</h1>
<!-- Public bodies -->
<p>Publieke lichamen vormen een cruciale infrastructuur van democratische landen.
Parlementen, overheidsorganisaties en administratieve lichamen moeten volledig onder de controle
van de staat staan, die op haar beurt geregeerd wordt door haar burgers via democratische processen.</p>
<p>Om deze doelen te bereiken moeten publieke lichamen volledige controle hebben over de
software en de computersystemen die zij gebruiken, en over de data die zij verzamelen, opslaan en
verwerken. Om hun verplichtingen naar de burgers die zij dienen na te komen, moeten publieke lichamen
alleen <a href="/freesoftware/basics/summary.en.html">Vrije Software</a> gebruiken, en hun data opslaan
in bestandsformaten die overeenkomen met <a href="/freesoftware/standards/def.en.html">Open
Standaarden</a>.</p>
<p>Waar publieke lichamen gebruik maken van software als een dienst (Saas of "cloud" oplossingen),
moeten zij daarbij verkoper lock-in voorkomen en zich ervan verzekeren dat zij gemakkelijk kunnen overstappen
tussen verschillende aanbieders van zulke diensten. Zij moeten zekerstellen dat data overdraagbaar is tussen
aanbieders, dat het is opgeslagen in bestandsformaten die overeenkomen met Open Standaarden, en dat de
oplossing geen niet-vrije (client)software vereist.
Publieke lichamen worden gefinancierd door belastingen. Zij moeten zekerstellen dat deze fondsen met wijsheid worden besteed. Als organisaties zijn gevangen in welk aanbod van enige particuliere verkoper dan ook, zullen zij uiteindelijk monopolieprijzen betalen voor software en verwante diensten.</p>
<p>In plaats daarvan moeten publieke lichamen hun software en computer-gerelateerde diensten alleen
inkopen via open, competitieve open aanbestedingen die openstaan voor alle aanbieders. Publieke lichamen
moeten toekomstige exit-kosten meeberekenen in de prijs van elk aanbod, alswel de kosten van welke licentie dan ook die zij zouden moeten aanschaffen bij de oplossing die wordt aangeboden. Zij zouden alleen apparaten moeten kopen waarvan zij in vrijheid de software kunnen aanpassen, en waarop zij de besturingssystemen en andere programma's van hun keuze kunnen installeren.</p>
<p>Als publieke lichamen software ontwikkelen, of betalen voor de ontwikkeling van software, dan moeten de
programma's die daarvan het resultaat zijn met een Vrije Software-licentie worden vrijgegeven aan het publiek. Burgers en bedrijven hebben met hun belasting betaald voor deze software, dus zij zouden toegang moeten hebben. Dit geldt ook voor smartphone-applicaties ("apps") die door publieke lichamen worden vrijgegeven.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>We willen dat de EU en haar lidstaten:</b></p>
<p> - de Commissie vragen om wetgeving voor te stellen die vereist dat alle publiek gefinancierde software,
inclusief applicaties voor mobiele apparaten, publiek beschikbaar worden gemaakt met Vrije Software licenties</p>
<p> - aangaande inkoop, de Commissie te vragen om wetgeving voor te stellen die van publieke lichamen eist dat zij exitkosten verrekenen in de totale kosten van welke software of hostingoplossing dan ook die zij inkopen</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Onze beleidsdoelen</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Consumentenrechten en soeverein beheer over apparaten</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Privacy, surveillance en cryptografie</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Gedistribueerde systemen</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
<translator>André Ockers</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,84 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Objectivos para 2014 - 2019 - Organismos Públicos - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.html">Objectivos para 2014 - 2019</a></p>
<h1>Organismos Públicos</h1>
<p>Os organismos públicos formam uma infraestrutura crucial dos estados
democráticos. Parlamentos, organizações governamentais e organismos
administrativos têm que estar sob total controlo do Estado, o qual, por sua vez,
é governado pelos seus cidadãos através de processos democráticos.</p>
<p>Para alcançar estes objectivos, os organismos públicos têm que ter o controlo
total sobre o software e sobre os sistemas informáticos que usam, assim como sobre os
dados que recolhem, guardam e processam. Para cumprir com as suas obrigações
perante os cidadãos que servem, os organismos públicos devem usar apenas
<a href="/freesoftware/basics/summary.en.html">Software Livre</a> e guardar
os seus dados em ficheiros de formatos conformes com <a href="/freesoftware/standards/def.en.html">Padrões
Abertos</a>.</p>
<p>Quando os organismos públicos usam serviços de software (serviços de "nuvem"),
devem evitar o aprisionamento pelo prestador do serviço contratado e assegurar
que podem alternar facilmente entre diferentes prestadores desses
serviços. Devem garantir a portabilidade dos dados entre fornecedores,
garantir a guarda dos dados em formatos conformes com os Padrões Abertos e
garantir que essa solução não exige software (cliente) não-livre.
Os organismos públicos são financiados através dos impostos. Devem, portanto,
dispender os fundos criteriosamente. Se as organizações ficarem aprisionadas
às soluções de quaisquer prestadores de serviços, acabarão por pagar preços
monopolistas pelo software e serviços relacionados.</p>
<p>Em sentido inverso, os organismos públicos devem adquirir o seu software e
serviços informáticos apenas através de concursos públicos competitivos abertos
a qualquer licitante. Os organismos públicos devem fazer os licitantes preverem e
incluirem os custos futuros da transferência entre prestadores nas licitações, assim
como os custos de quaisquer licenças que os mesmos tenham que adquirir para além
da solução oferecida. E apenas devem adquirir dispositivos cujo software possam
alterar livremente e nos quais possam instalar sistemas operativos e outros programas
da sua escolha.</p>
<p>Quando os organismos públicos desenvolvem software ou pagam o desenvolvimento
de software, os programas resultantes devem ser tornados públicos
sob uma licença de Software Livre. Os cidadãos e as empresas pagaram o
software com os seus impostos, pelo que devem ter acesso ao mesmo. Isto
inclui aplicações ("apps") para smartphones lançadas por organismos
públicos.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><b>Pretendemos que a UE e os seus estados membros:</b></p>
<p>
- solicitem à Comissão Europeia que proponha legislação que requeira que todo o
software financiado por fundos públicos, incluindo aplicações para dispositivos
móveis, sejam tornados públicos sob licenças de Software Livre</p>
<p> - no que respeita a aquisições, solicitem à Comissão Europeia que proponha legislação que
requeira que os organismos públicos incluam os custos da transferência entre
prestadores no custo total de qualquer software ou solução hospedeira que adquiram.</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
<sidebar promo="our-work">
<h2>Os nossos objectivos</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Direitos dos consumidores e soberania sobre os dispositivos</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Privacidade, vigilância e criptografia</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Sistemas distribuídos</a></li>
</ul>
</sidebar>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,94 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Policy overview - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Our work</a></p>
<h1>Policy overview - FSFE</h1>
<div id="introduction">
<p>
Free Software - computer programs which anyone can use, study, share, and improve - is crucial for building a free information society. Free Software powers the Internet and provides the foundation for most successful businesses in the information technology industry. Only with Free Software can users fully understand what a computer program actually does, which data it sends where, and how it generates its results. Only with Free Software we can build a society where principles such as privacy, transparency and freedom of speech are respected. That is why FSFE fights to promote Free Software at the political level.
</p>
</div>
<h2>Our Demands</h2>
<p>FSFE works with policy makers and public bodies in Europe to enhance the rights of Free Software users and developers and to abolish barriers to Free Software. To be efficient, we defined precise policy goals on which we are going to focus until 2019:</p>
<h2 id="subpages">Navigation</h2>
<ul>
<li>
<h3 class="center">
<a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Public bodies</a>
</h3>
</li>
<li>
<h3 class="center">
<a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Distributed systems</a>
</h3>
</li>
<li>
<h3 class="center">
<a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Consumer rights and device sovereignty</a>
</h3>
</li>
<li>
<h3 class="center">
<a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Privacy, surveillance and cryptography</a>
</h3>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Our Actions</h2>
<div class="grid-50-50">
<div class="box first">
<h3>Some thematics...</h3>
<h4>Procurement</h4>
<p>Free Software is a perfect fit for the public sector. It brings efficiency to government, transparency to citizens, and competition to business. FSFE works with public bodies throughout Europe to improve public IT procurement and open up opportunities for Free Software. </p>
<h4>Open Standards</h4>
<p>Open Standards allow people to share all kinds of data freely and with perfect fidelity. They prevent lock-in and other artificial barriers to interoperability, and promote choice between vendors and technology solutions. FSFE's work on Open Standards has the goal of making sure that people find it easy to migrate to Free Software or between Free Software solutions. </p>
<h4>Software Patents</h4>
<p>Software patents are a menace to society and economy. They restrict innovation, damage businesses and put collaborative creativity in great danger. FSFE fights to keep Europe free of software patents, and works at the UN level to abolish software patents around the world. </p>
</div>
<div class="box">
<h3>...for many activities</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>European Commission's Open Source Strategy</strong></li>
<p>In 2014, the European Commission asked for proposals to help it to define its new Open Source Strategy. FSFE provided an input and welcomed cautiously the final result.</p>
<li><strong>Horizon 2020</strong></li>
<p>In 2011, FSFE participated in a European Commission's public consultation aiming to define the 2014-2020 European funding program for research in Europe. We asked for promoting research on and about Free Software and making mandatory the release of Software result as Free Software.</p>
<li><strong>European Commission vs Microsoft: Interoperability Case</strong></li>
<p>Between 2001 and 2012 the FSFE took part as a third-party in the European Commission's investigations towards Microsoft. The company was suspected of abuse of dominant position in relation with interoperability.</p>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,94 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Përmbledhje e politikave - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Puna jonë</a></p>
<h1>Përmbledhje e politikave - FSFE</h1>
<div id="introduction">
<p>
Software i Lirë - programe kompjuterike që mund ti përdorë, studiojë, ndajë me të tjerë, dhe përmirësojë kushdo - ka një rëndësi kyçe në ndërtimin e një shoqërie të lirë informacioni. Software-i i Lirë është në themel të Internetit dhe shërben si bazë për shumicën e bizneseve më të suksesshëm në industrinë e teknologjive të informacionit. Vetëm me Software të Lirë përdoruesit kanë mundësi të kuptojnë plotësisht se çrealizon faktikisht një program kompjuterik, çtë dhëna dërgon dhe ku i dërgon, dhe se si i prodhon përfundimet e veta. Vetëm me Software të Lirë mund të ndërtojmë një shoqëri ku respektohen parime të tilla si privatësia, transparenca dhe liria e fjalës. Këto janë arsyet pse FSFE-ja lufton të promovojë Software-in e Lirë në nivel politik.
</p>
</div>
<h2>Kërkesat Tona</h2>
<p>FSFE-ja punon me ligjbërës dhe organizma publikë në Europë që të thellojë të drejtat e përdoruesve dhe zhvilluesve të Software-it të Lirë dhe për të rrëzuar pengesat ndaj Software-it të Lirë. Për të qenë të efektshëm, kemi përcaktuar synime të përpikta politike me të cilat do të merremi deri në 2019-n:</p>
<h2 id="subpages">Lëvizje</h2>
<ul>
<li>
<h3 class="center">
<a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.html">Organizma publikë</a>
</h3>
</li>
<li>
<h3 class="center">
<a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Sisteme të shpërndarë</a>
</h3>
</li>
<li>
<h3 class="center">
<a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Të drejta konsumatori dhe sovranitet pajisjesh</a>
</h3>
</li>
<li>
<h3 class="center">
<a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Privatësi, survejim dhe kriptografi</a>
</h3>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Veprimet Tona</h2>
<div class="grid-50-50">
<div class="box first">
<h3>Disa tematika...</h3>
<h4>Prokurimet</h4>
<p>Software i Lirë i shkon përsosmërisht për shtat sektorit publik. Sjell efikasitet në qeverisje, transparencë për qytetarët, dhe bizneseve konkurrencë. FSFE-ja punon me ente publikë kudo në Europë që të përmirësojë procesin e prokurimeve publike TI dhe për të hapur mundësi për Software-in e Lirë. </p>
<h4>Standarde të Hapëta</h4>
<p>Standardet e Hapëta u lejojnë njerëzve të ndajnë me njëri-tjetrin lirisht çfarëdo lloj të dhënash dhe në besim të plotë. Ata parandalojnë kyçje formatesh dhe të tjera pengesa artificiale ndaj ndërveprueshmërisë, dhe nxisin mundësinë e zgjedhjes mes tregtuesve dhe zgjidhjeve teknologjike. Puna e FSFE-së për Standardet e Hapura synon garantimin e mundësisë që njerëzit ta kenë të lehtë të migrojnë drejt Software-it të Lirë ose nga një zgjidhje Software i Lirë në një tjetër. </p>
<h4>Patenta Software-i</h4>
<p>Patentat e software-it janë një kërcënim për shoqërinë dhe ekonominë. Ato kufizojnë risitë, dëmtojnë bizneset dhe e vendosin në rrezik të madh frymën krijuese në bashkëpunim. FSFE-ja lufton për ta mbajtur Europën të lirë nga patenta software-i, dhe punon në nivel OKB-je të që të mos ketë patenta mbi software-in në botë. </p>
</div>
<div class="box">
<h3>...për shumë veprimtari</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Strategjia e Komisionit Europian Mbi Burimin e Hapur</strong></li>
<p>Në 2014-n, Komisioni Europian ftoi të jepeshin propozime për ta ndihmuar në përcaktimin e një strategjie të re të saj të Burimit të Hapur. FSFE-ja dha të veta dhe mirëpriti me kujdes rezultatin përfundimtar.</p>
<li><strong>Horizon 2020</strong></li>
<p>Në 2011-n, FSFE-ja mori pjesë në konsultimet publike të Komisionit Europian që synonin përcaktimin e programit europian të financimeve të kërkimit në Europë për periudhën 2014-2020. Ne kërkuam nxitjen e kërkimin në dhe mbi Software-in e Lirë dhe që hedhja në qarkullim e tij të bëhet detyrimisht si Software i Lirë.</p>
<li><strong>Komisioni Europian vs Microsoft-it: Çështje Ndërveprueshmërie</strong></li>
<p>Mes viteve 2001 dhe 2012 FSFE-ja mori pjesë si palë e tretë në hetime e Komisionit Europian të Microsoft-it. Kompania dyshohej për abuzim të pozicionit mbizotërues në fushën e ndërveprueshmërisë.</p>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

View File

@ -1,98 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>FSFE - Unsere Arbeit bei den Vereinten Nationen</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Unsere Arbeit</a></p>
<h1>Vereinte Nationen</h1>
<!--div id="introduction">
<p>
</p>
</div-->
<ul>
<li>
<h3><a href="/activities/wipo/wipo.html">Weltorganisation für geistiges
Eigentum (WIPO)</a></h3>
<p>
Die Weltorganisation für geistiges Eigentum (WIPO) ist eines der 16
spezialisierten Ämter innerhalb der Organisationsstruktur der
Vereinten Nationen. Seiner Rolle entsprechend überwacht es 23
internationale Abkommen, die verschiedene Aspekte eingeschränkter
Monopole auf Wissen behandeln. Als Beobachter der WIPO und zusammen
in einer globalen Koalition mit anderen Interessengruppen, die
ähnliche Ziele verfolgen, arbeitet die FSFE daran, sie ihn eine
"Weltorganisation für geistigen Reichtum" umzuwandeln.
</p>
</li>
<li>
<h3><a href="/activities/igf/igf.html">Internet Governance Forum</a></h3>
<p>
Das Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ist ein Diskussionsforum der
Vereinen Nationen zu globaler Politik, das als Ergebnis der UN
Weltgipfels zur Informationsgesellschaft (WSIS) entstand. Die FSFE
beobachtete das IGF um sicherzustellen, dass die politischen
Diskussionen nicht digitale Freiheit im Allgemeinen oder Freie
Software im Besonderen gefährden.
</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Abgeschlossene Projekte</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/mankind/mankind.html">Klassifikation der Freien
Software als immaterielles Weltkulturerbe</a>
</li>
<li><a href="/activities/wsis/wsis.html">Weltgipfel zur
Informationsgesellschaft (WSIS)</a>
</li>
</ul>
<h2><a href="/activities/wipo/wiwo.html">Auf dem Weg zur Weltorganisation für
geistigen Reichtum </a></h2>
<p>
Wir befürworten und unterstützen die Genfer Deklaration und laden ihre
Entwickler, Unterzeichner und die Vereinten Nationen dazu ein, zum
jetzigen Zeitpunkt nicht nur darüber nachzudenken, welche Rolle der WIPO
zukommen sollte, sondern stattdessen darüber nachzudenken, welche
Organisation wir an ihrer Stelle benötigen.
</p>
<h2 style="clear:both">Dokumente und Publikationen</h2>
<ul>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/igf/sovsoft.de.html">Souveräne Software -
Offene Standards, Freie Software und das Internet</a></b>
(2006-10-30)<br /> Softwarefragen sind Machtfragen und sie beeinflussen
die Gesellschaften, in der wir leben, grundlegend. Auch denjenigen, die
bislang nicht Themen zu digitaler Politik verfolgten, wurde das durch
den <a href="/activities/wsis/index.de.html">Weltgipfel der Vereinten
Nationen zur Informationsgesellschaft (WSIS)</a> zunehmend klar. Zwei
Grundfragen charakterisieren die Hauptstreitpunkte hierbei: Wer
kontrolliert Ihre Daten? Wer kontrolliert Ihren Computer?
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/wsis/wsis-and-software.de.html">WSIS und die Herausforderung durch Software</a></b> (2005-11-15)<br />
Ein Artikel von <a href="/about/people/greve/index.de.html">Georg Greve</a> zur Rolle der Freien Software
in der digitalen Welt und der Beteiligung der FSFE am
<a href="/activities/wsis/index.en.html">Weltgipfel zur Informationsgesellschaft</a>
(WSIS).
</p></li>
</ul>
</body>
<translator>Andreas Aubele</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,89 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Η εργασία μας στα Ηνωμένα Έθνη - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Η εργασία μας</a></p>
<h1>Ηνωμένα Έθνη</h1>
<!--div id="introduction">
<p>
</p>
</div-->
<ul>
<li>
<h3><a href="/activities/wipo/wipo.html">World Intellectual Property Organization</a></h3>
<p>
Ο Παγκόσμιος Οργανισμός Πνευματικής Ιδιοκτησίας (WIPO) είναι μία από τις
16 εξειδικευμένες υπηρεσίες του συστήματος των οργανισμών των Ηνωμένων Εθνών.
Ο ρόλος του είναι να διαχειρίζεται 23 διεθνείς συνθήκες που αντιμετωπίζουν διάφορες
πτυχές των περιοριστικών μονοπωλίων στη γνώση.. Ως παρατηρητής στον WIPO και με
έναν διεθνή συνασπισμό άλλων συμμετεχόντων με παρόμοιους στόχους, το FSFE
εργάζεται για τον μετασχηματισμό του σε έναν "Παγκόσμιο Οργανισμό Διανοητικού Πλούτου"
("World Intellectual Wealth Organisation").
</p>
</li>
<li>
<h3><a href="/activities/igf/igf.html">Internet Governance Forum</a></h3>
<p>
Το Forum Διακυβέρνησης Διαδικτύου (IGF) είναι ένα forum διαλόγου για τη διεθνή πολιτική
του ΟΗΕ, που έχει συσταθεί ως το αποτέλεσμα της Παγκόσμιας Συνόδου Κορυφής των Ηνωμένων Εθνών
για την Κοινωνία της Πληροφορίας (UN World Summit on the Information Society, WSIS).
Το FSFE παρακολουθεί το IGF για να διασφαλίσει ότι οι διάλογοι για πολιτικές δεν θα
απειλήσουν την ψηφιακή ελευθερία γενικά και το Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό ειδικότερα.
</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Ολοκληρωμένα Προγράμματα</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/mankind/mankind.html">Ταξινόμηση του Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού ως άυλη παγκόσμια
πολιτιστική κληρονομιά</a>
</li>
<li><a href="/activities/wsis/wsis.html">Παγκόσμια Σύνοδος Κορυφής για την Κοινωνία της Πληροφορίας (WSIS)</a>
</li>
</ul>
<h2><a href="/activities/wipo/wiwo.html">Προς έναν Παγκόσμιο Οργανισμό Διανοητικού Πλούτου</a></h2>
<p>
Επιδοκιμάζουμε και υποστηρίζουμε τη Διακήρυξη της Γενεύης, και καλούμε τους συντάκτες των σχεδίων,
τους συνυπογράφοντες και τον ΟΗΕ να αρχίσουν να σκέπτονται τώρα όχι μόνο ποιος θα πρέπει να είναι ο
ρόλος του WIPO, αλλά με τι είδους οργανισμό απαιτείται να τον αντικαταστήσουμε.
</p>
<h2 style="clear:both">Έγγραφα και Δημοσιεύσεις</h2>
<ul>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/igf/sovsoft.html">Λογισμικό Κυριαρχικών Δικαιωμάτων -
Ανοιχτά Πρότυπα, Ελεύθερο Λογισμικό και το Διαδίκτυο</a></b> (2006-10-30)<br />
Τα ζητήματα του Λογισμικού είναι ζητήματα ισχύος και διαμορφώνουν σε θεμελιακή βάση
τις κοινωνίες στις οποίες ζούμε. Ακόμα και για όσους δεν είχαν παρακολουθήσει
τα ζητήματα ψηφιακής πολιτικής στο παρελθόν, αυτή η παρατήρηση αναδύθηκε ως προφανής στην
<a href="/activities/wsis/index.html">Παγκόσμια Σύνοδο Κορυφής των Ηνωμένων Εθνών
για την Κοινωνία της Πληροφορίας (WSIS)</a>. Δύο θεμελιακά ερωτήματα χαρακτηρίζουν
αυτό το πεδίο μάχης: Ποιος ελέγχει τα δεδομένα σας; Ποιος ελέγχει τον ηλεκτρονικό υπολογιστή σας;
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/wsis/wsis-and-software.html">Η WSIS και η Πρόκληση του Λογισμικού</a></b>
(2005-11-15)<br />
Άρθρο από τον <a href="/about/people/greve/index.html">Georg Greve</a> για το ρόλο του Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού
στον ψηφιακό κόσμο και την ανάμειξη του FSFE στην
<a href="/activities/wsis/index.html">Παγκόσμια Σύνοδο Κορυφής για την Κοινωνία της Πληροφορίας</a> (WSIS).
</p></li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,89 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Our Work at the United Nations - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Our Work</a></p>
<h1>United Nations</h1>
<!--div id="introduction">
<p>
</p>
</div-->
<ul>
<li>
<h3><a href="/activities/wipo/wipo.html">World Intellectual Property Organization</a></h3>
<p>
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is one of the 16
specialized agencies of the United Nations system of organisations.
Its role is administrating 23 international treaties dealing with
different aspects of limited monopolies on knowledge. As an observer
to WIPO and together with a global coalition of other players with
similar goals, FSFE is working towards reshaping it as a "World
Intellectual Wealth Organisation."
</p>
</li>
<li>
<h3><a href="/activities/igf/igf.html">Internet Governance Forum</a></h3>
<p>
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a global policy discussion
forum of the United Nations, established as an outcome of the UN World
Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). FSFE is following the IGF to
ensure that policy discussions will not endanger digital freedom in
general and Free Software in particular.
</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Finished Projects</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/mankind/mankind.html">Classification of Free Software as an intangible world cultural heritage</a>
</li>
<li><a href="/activities/wsis/wsis.html">World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)</a>
</li>
</ul>
<h2><a href="/activities/wipo/wiwo.html">Towards a World Intellectual Wealth Organization</a></h2>
<p>
We endorse and support the Geneva Declaration, and invite its drafters,
signatories, and the United Nations to start thinking now not only about
what the role of WIPO should be, but rather what kind of organisation we
need in its place.
</p>
<h2 style="clear:both">Documents and Publications</h2>
<ul>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/igf/sovsoft.en.html">Sovereign Software -
Open Standards, Free Software, and the Internet</a></b> (2006-10-30)<br />
Software issues are issues of power and fundamentally shape the societies
we are living in. Even to those who had not followed digital policy issues
before this became increasingly evident throughout the <a
href="/activities/wsis/index.en.html">United Nations World Summit on the
Information Society (WSIS)</a>. Two fundamental questions characterise
this battlefield: Who controls your data? Who controls your computer?
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/wsis/wsis-and-software.en.html">WSIS and the Software Challenge</a></b> (2005-11-15)<br />
Article by <a href="/about/people/greve/index.en.html">Georg Greve</a> about the role of Free
Software in the digital world and FSFE's involvement in the
<a href="/activities/wsis/index.en.html">World Summit on the Information Society</a>
(WSIS).
</p></li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,72 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Nuestra acción en las Naciones Unidas - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Nuestra acción</a></p>
<h1>Naciones Unidas </h1>
<!--div id="introduction">
<p>
</p>
</div-->
<ul>
<li>
<h3><a href="/activities/wipo/wipo.html">Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual</a></h3>
<p>
La Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI) es una de las 16 agencias especializadas del sistema de organizaciones de las Naciones Unidas. Su papel consiste en administrar 23 tratados internacionales respeto a varios aspectos de los monopolios limitadores sobre el saber. En calidad de observador en la OMPI, la FSFE trabaja conjuntamente con una coalición de otros actores que tienen objetivos similares para convertir esta organización en una "Organización Mundial de la Riqueza Intelectual&#160;"
</p>
</li>
<li>
<h3><a href="/activities/igf/igf.html">Forum del Gobierno Internet</a></h3>
<p>
El Forum del Gobierno Internet (IGF) es un foro global de discusión de las políticas de las Naciones Unidas, establecido despues de la Cumbre de las Naciones Unidas sobre la Sociedad de la Información (WSIS). La FSFE sigue este foro para asegurarse de que las discusiones políticas no amenacen las libertades en Internet en el caso general y en el Software Libre en particular.
</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Proyectos terminados</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/mankind/mankind.html">Clasificación del Software Libre como patrimonio cultural de la humanidad [en inglés]</a>
</li>
<li><a href="/activities/wsis/wsis.es.html">Cumbre de las Naciones Unidas sobre la Sociedad de la Información (CMSI)</a>
</li>
</ul>
<h2><a href="/activities/wipo/wiwo.es.html">"Hacia una
"Organización Mundial de la Riqueza Intelectual"</a></h2>
<p>
Apoyamos la Declaración de Génova e invitamos a sus redactores y firmantes, así como a las Naciones Unidas, a que no sólo intenten definir qué papel debiera cumplir la OMPI, sino también qué tipo de organización necesitamos en lugar de la OMPI.
</p>
<h2 style="clear:both">Documentos y Publicaciones</h2>
<ul>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/igf/sovsoft..html">Soberanía del software -
Estándares abiertos, Software Libre, e Internet</a></b> (2006-10-30) [en inglés]<br />
Las cuestiones del software son cuestiones de poder que determinan profundamente las sociedades en las cuales vivimos. Eso es ahora evidente incluso para aquellos que no seguían las politicas digitales antes de que la <a
href="/activities/wsis/index.es.html">Cumbre de las Naciones Unidas sobre la Sociedad de la Información (CMSI)</a> las revelase. Dos cuestiones caracterizan el campo de batalla : ¿Quién controla sus datos? ¿Quién controla su ordenador?
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/wsis/wsis-and-software.en.html">CMSI y el Challenge software</a></b> (2005-11-15) [en inglés]<br />
Artículo de <a href="/about/people/greve/index.en.html">Georg Greve</a> sobre el papel del Software Libre en el mundo digital y la dedicación de la FSFE en la <a href="/activities/wsis/index.en.html">Cumbre de las Naciones Unidas sobre la Sociedad de Información</a>
(CMSI).
</p></li>
</ul>
</body>
<translator>maelle</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,73 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Notre action auprès des Nations Unies - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Notre action</a></p>
<h1>Nations Unies </h1>
<!--div id="introduction">
<p>
</p>
</div-->
<ul>
<li>
<h3><a href="/activities/wipo/wipo.html">Organisation mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle</a></h3>
<p>
L'Organisation mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle (OMPI) est l'une des 16 agences spécialisées des Nations Unies. Son rôle est d'administrer 23 traités internationaux ayant trait à différents aspects des monopoles limités sur la connaissance. En tant qu'observateur à l'OMPI, la FSFE travaille conjointement avec une coalition globale d'acteurs ayant pour objectifs de remodeler l'OMPI en une «&#160;Organisation de la richesse intellectuelle&#160;».
</p>
</li>
<li>
<h3><a href="/activities/igf/igf.html">Forum de la Gouvernance Internet</a></h3>
<p>
Le Forum de la gouvernance Internet (IGF) est un forum global de discussion des politiques des Nations Unies, établi à la suite du sommet des Nations Unies sur la société d'informations (WSIS). La FSFE suit le Forum de la gouvernance Internet pour s'assurer que les discussions politiques ne mettent pas en danger les libertés numériques en général et les logiciels libres en particulier.
</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Projets terminés</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/mankind/mankind.html">Classement des logiciels libres comme patrimoine de l'humanité</a>
</li>
<li><a href="/activities/wsis/wsis.html">Sommet des Nations Unies sur la société d'informations (WSIS)</a>
</li>
</ul>
<h2><a href="/activities/wipo/wiwo.fr.html">Vers une
«&#160;Organisation Mondiale de la Richesse Intellectuelle&#160;»</a></h2>
<p>
Nous soutenons la déclaration de Genève et invitons ses rédacteurs et signataires ainsi que les Nations Unies à ne pas seulement tenter de définir quel rôle devrait être celui de l'OMPI, mais plutôt à penser à quel genre d'organisation nous avons besoin à la place.
</p>
<h2 style="clear:both">Documents et publications</h2>
<ul>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/igf/sovsoft.html">Souveraineté logicielle -
Standards ouverts, Logiciel Libre, et Internet</a></b> (2006-10-30)<br />
Les questions des logiciels sont des questions de pouvoir qui déterminent fondamentalement les sociétés dans lesquelles nous vivons. Cela est devenu évident, même pour ceux qui n'ont pas suivi les questions de politique numérique avant que le <a
href="/activities/wsis/">Sommet des Nations Unies sur la société d'informations (WSIS)</a> ne le mettent à jour. Deux questions fondaentales caractérisent le champ de bataille&#160;: qui contrôle vos données&#160;? Qui contrôle votre ordinateur&#160;?
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/wsis/wsis-and-software.html">WSIS et le Challenge logiciel</a></b> (2005-11-15)<br />
Article de <a href="/about/people/greve/index.html">Georg Greve</a> sur le rôle des logiciels libres dans le monde numérique et l'engagement de la FSFE dans le
<a href="/activities/wsis/index.html">Sommet des Nations Unies sur la société de l'information</a>
(WSIS).
</p></li>
</ul>
</body>
<translator>Maëlle Costa, Hugo Roy, Jil Larner (Mont Blanc, France)</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,88 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Ons werk bij de Verenigde Naties - FSFE</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Ons werk</a></p>
<h1>Verenigde Naties</h1>
<!--div id="introduction">
<p>
</p>
</div-->
<ul>
<li>
<h3><a href="/activities/wipo/wipo.html">Wereld Intellectueel Eigendom-organisatie ("World Intellectual Property Organization")</a></h3>
<p>
De Wereld Intellectueel Eigendom Organisatie ("World Intellectual Property Organization" of WIPO) is
een van de 16 gespecialiseerde agentschappen in het organisatiesysteem van de Verenigde Naties.
Haar rol is het om 23 internationale verdragen te beheren die te maken hebben met verschillende aspecten
van beperkte monopolies van kennis. FSFE is een observant bij WIPO en werkt mee in een wereldwijde
coalitie van andere spelers met vergelijkbare doelen aan het opnieuw vormgeven van WIPO als een
Wereldorganisatie voor de Intellectuele Rijkdom ("World Intellectual Wealth Organisation").
</p>
</li>
<li>
<h3><a href="/activities/igf/igf.html">Internet Governance Forum</a></h3>
<p>
Het Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is een wereldwijd beleidsdiscussieforum
van de Verenigde Naties, opgericht naar aanleiding van de Wereldtop van de Verenigde
Naties over de informatiesamenleving (WSIS). FSFE volgt het IGF om zeker te stellen dat
beleidsdiscussies geen bedreiging zullen vormen voor digitale vrijheid in het algemeen en
Vrije Software in het bijzonder.
</p>
</li>
</ul>
<h2>Beëindigde projecten</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/mankind/mankind.html">Classificatie van Vrije Software als een ontastbaar wereld cultureel erfgoed</a>
</li>
<li><a href="/activities/wsis/wsis.html">Wereldtop over de informatiesamenleving (WSIS)</a>
</li>
</ul>
<h2><a href="/activities/wipo/wiwo.html">Naar een Wereldorganisatie voor de Intellectuele
Rijkdom (WIPO)</a></h2>
<p>
We onderschrijven en steunen de Verklaring van Genève, en nodigen haar opstellers, ondertekenaren en
de Verenigde Naties uit om niet alleen na te denken over wat de rol van een WIPO zou moeten zijn, maar ook
over wat voor soort organisatie we in haar plaats nodig hebben.
</p>
<h2 style="clear:both">Documenten en publicaties</h2>
<ul>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/igf/sovsoft.en.html">Soevereine Software -
Open Standaarden, Vrije Software en het internet ("Sovereign Software -
Open Standards, Free Software, and the Internet")</a></b> (2006-10-30)<br/>
Software als onderwerp gaat over macht en vormt op fundamenteel niveau de samenlevingen waarin
we leven. Zelfs voor hen die voorheen de digitale beleidsonderwerpen niet hebben gevolgd is dit
in toenemende mate duidelijk geworden via de <a href="/activities/wsis/index.en.html">Wereldtop
van de Verenigde Naties over de informatiesamenleving (WSIS)</a>. Twee fundamentele vragen karakteriseren
dit slagveld: wie controleert uw data? wie controleert uw computer?
</p></li>
<li><p><b><a href="/activities/wsis/wsis-and-software.en.html">WSIS en de software-uitdaging</a></b> (2005-11-15)<br/>
Artikel door <a href="/about/people/greve/index.en.html">Georg Greve</a> over de rol van Vrije
Software in de digitale wereld en FSFE's betrokkenheid bij de
<a href="/activities/wsis/index.en.html">Wereldtop over de informatiesamenleving</a>
(WSIS).
</p></li>
</ul>
</body>
<translator>André Ockers</translator>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -1,89 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>Деятельность ЕФСПО на уровне ООН ЕФСПО</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/activities.html">Деятельность ЕФСПО</a></p>
<h1>ООН</h1>
<!--div id="introduction">
<p>
</p>
</div-->
<ul>
<li>
<h3><a href="/activities/wipo/wipo.html">Всемирная организация
интеллектуальной собственности</a></h3> <p>Всемирная Организация
Интеллектуальной Собственности (ВОИС) — одно из 16 специализированных
учреждений Организации Объединенных Наций. В функции ВОИС входит
администрирование 23 международных соглашений, касающихся различных
сторон ограниченной монополии на знания. Европейский фонд свободного
программного обеспечения присутствует на заседаниях ВОИС в качестве
наблюдателя и вместе с рядом других организаций стремится реформировать
ВОИС во «Всемирную организацию интеллектуального богатства».</p></li>
<li><h3><a href="/activities/igf/igf.html">Форум по вопросам
управления Интернетом</a></h3>
<p>Форум по вопросам управления Интернетом — международный форум
при ООН, в рамках которого ведется обсуждение различных вопросов
политики управления сетью Интернет всеми заинтересованными сторонами.
Форум создан как результат Всемирной встречи по вопросам информационного
общества. Европейский фонд свободного программного обеспечения наблюдает
за работой форума, чтобы не допустить негативных последствий для свободы
в сфере цифровой техники вообще и для свободного программного
обеспечения в частности.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Завершенные проекты</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="/activities/mankind/mankind.html">Присвоение свободным
программам статуса нематериального культурного наследия</a></li>
<li><a href="/activities/wsis/wsis.html">Всемирная встреча по
вопросам информационного общества</a></li>
</ul>
<h2><a href="/activities/wipo/wiwo.html">Навстречу Всемирной организации
интеллектуального богатства</a></h2>
<p>ЕФСПО поддерживает Женевскую декларацию и предлагает ее создателям,
подписавшимся сторонам и ООН начать не просто пересматривать роль
Всемирной организации интеллектуальной собственности, но и задуматься
над тем, какая организация должна прийти ей на смену.</p>
<h2 style="clear:both">Документы и публикации</h2>
<ul>
<li><p><strong><a href="/activities/igf/sovsoft.html">
Независимое программное обеспечение — открытые стандарты, свободные
программы и Интернет</a></strong> (2006-10-30)<br />
Вопросы, связанные с программным обеспечением — это вопросы власти,
от которых зависит облик обществ, в которых мы живем. После Всемирной
встречи ООН по вопросам информационного общества это стало очевидно даже
тем, кто не следил за спорами вокруг цифровых аспектов политики.
На повестке дня два фундаментальных вопроса: «кто управляет вашими
данными?» и «кто управляет вашим компьютером?»</p></li>
<li><p><strong><a href="/activities/wsis/wsis-and-software.en.html">
Всемирная встреча ООН по вопросам информационного общества и проблемы
программного обеспечения</a></strong> (2005-11-15)<br />
Статья <a href="/about/people/greve/index.html">Георга Греве</a> о роли
свободного программного обеспечения в цифровую эпоху и участии ЕФСПО
в работе <a href="/activities/wsis/index.html"> Всемирной встречи
по вопросам информационного общества</a>.
</p></li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>
<!--
Local Variables: ***
mode: xml ***
End: ***
-->

View File

@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
</p>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>Statement by Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) </h1>
<h4>Inter-sessional, inter-governmental meeting on a development agenda for WIPO (Geneva, 11-13 April 2005)</h4>

View File

@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
</p>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>Statement by Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) </h1>

View File

@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
</p>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>Statement by Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) </h1>
<h4>SECOND INTER-SESSIONAL, INTER-GOVERNMENTAL

View File

@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
</p>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>STATEMENT BY THE UNITED NATIONS WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY (WSIS)
PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS AND TRADEMARKS (PCT) WORKING GROUP OF CIVIL SOCIETY</h1>

View File

@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
<body>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>Statement of the Free Software Foundations towards the 2005 WIPO general assemblies</h1>
<h2 align="center">Free Software Foundation Europe</h2>

View File

@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
<body>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">Nations Unies</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>Rapport des Free Software Foundations au sujet de l'Assemblée Générale du WIPO 2005</h1>
<h2 align="center">Free Software Foundation Europe</h2>

View File

@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
<body>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>Verklaring van de Free Software Foundations voor de algemene vergadering van WIPO in 2005</h1>
<h2 align="center">Free Software Foundation Europe</h2>

View File

@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
</p>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">Ηνωμένα Έθνη</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>Δήλωση από το Ευρωπαϊκό Ίδρυμα Ελεύθερου Λογισμικού (FSFE) </h1>

View File

@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
[ <a href="statement-20060223.en.pdf">PDF Version (66k)</a> ]
</p>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>Statement by Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) </h1>
<h4>FIRST SESSION OF THE PROVISIONAL COMMITTEE ON PROPOSALS RELATED TO A WIPO DEVELOPMENT AGENDA (Geneva, 20-24 February 2006)</h4>

View File

@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>ΔΗΛΩΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΟ ΙΔΡΥΜΑ ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΟΥ ΛΟΓΙΣΜΙΚΟΥ (FSFE)</h1>

View File

@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>Statement by Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) </h1>
<h4>SECOND SESSION OF THE PROVISIONAL COMMITTEE ON PROPOSALS RELATED TO A WIPO DEVELOPMENT AGENDA (Geneva, 26-30 June 2006)</h4>

View File

@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
<body>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>

View File

@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
<body>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>

View File

@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
</p>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>Intervention der Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE)</h1>
<h4>Konferenzen der WIPO-Mitgliedstaaten 43. Generalversammlung, Genf, 24. September - 3. Oktober 2007</h4>

View File

@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
</p>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h4>Συνελεύσεις των Κρατών Μελών του WIPO Τεσσαρακοστή-Τρίτη Σειρά Συναντήσεων, Γενεύη, 24 Σεπτεμβρίου - 3 Οκτωβρίου 2007</h4>

View File

@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
</p>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>Intervention by Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE)</h1>
<h4>Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO Forty-Third Series of Meetings, Geneva, 24 September 3 October 2007</h4>

View File

@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
</p>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>Intervento della Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE)</h1>

View File

@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
</p>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>Vergadering van de lidstaten van WIPO</h1>
<h4>

View File

@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
<body>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>First statement of the FSFE to WIPO SCP/13</h1>

View File

@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
<body>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>Second statement of the FSFE to WIPO SCP/13</h1>

View File

@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
<body>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>Third statement of the FSFE to WIPO SCP/13</h1>

View File

@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
<body>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">Ηνωμένα Έθνη</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>Η προφορική παρέμβαση του FSFE στην CDIP/3

View File

@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
<body>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>FSFE's written submission to the CDIP/3 on ICTs and the Digital Divide</h1>

View File

@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
<body>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">Ηνωμένα Έθνη</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>Η γραπτή παρέμβαση του FSFE στην CDIP/3

View File

@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
<body>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>FSFE's written submission to the CDIP/3 on ICTs and the Digital Divide</h1>
<h4>Third Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP), Geneva, 27 April - 1 May 2009</h4>

View File

@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
<body>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">Ηνωμένα Έθνη</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>Γραπτή παρέμβαση του FSFE στην CDIP/3 για τις ICT και το Ψηφιακό Χάσμα</h1>

View File

@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
<body>
<p id="category">
<a href="/activities/un/">United Nations</a> / <a href="/activities/wipo/">WIPO</a>
<a href="/activities/policy.html">WIPO</a>
</p>
<h1>FSFE's written intervention to the CDIP/3 on ICTs and the Digital Divide</h1>
<h2>3rd Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP), Geneva, 27 April - 1 May 2009</h2>

Some files were not shown because too many files have changed in this diff Show More