Browse Source

Delete un and policy folders (#1531)

Co-authored-by: max.mehl <max.mehl@fsfe.org>
Reviewed-on: https://git.fsfe.org/FSFE/fsfe-website/pulls/1531
pull/1535/head
Max Mehl 7 months ago
parent
commit
0953fd2e13
249 changed files with 260 additions and 9041 deletions
  1. +3
    -1
      .htaccess
  2. +2
    -2
      about/people/gerloff/gerloff.en.xhtml
  3. +1
    -1
      about/people/gerloff/gerloff.nl.xhtml
  4. +2
    -2
      about/people/roy/roy.el.xhtml
  5. +2
    -2
      about/people/roy/roy.en.xhtml
  6. +2
    -2
      about/people/roy/roy.fr.xhtml
  7. +2
    -2
      about/people/roy/roy.nl.xhtml
  8. BIN
      activities/policy/eu/20071219-opera-antitrust.pdf
  9. +0
    -14
      activities/policy/eu/20071219-opera-antitrust.xml
  10. BIN
      activities/policy/eu/20100930-NetNeutrality.Consultation.pdf
  11. BIN
      activities/policy/eu/20110418.ProcurementConsultation.FSFE.response.pdf
  12. +0
    -183
      activities/policy/eu/20110418.ProcurementConsultation.FSFEresponse.en.xhtml
  13. BIN
      activities/policy/eu/20110429.CollectiveRedress.Response.FSFE.pdf
  14. BIN
      activities/policy/eu/20110707-intergroup-FSFE-APRIL-slides.pdf
  15. BIN
      activities/policy/eu/20140305-copyright-rules.en.pdf
  16. +0
    -144
      activities/policy/eu/20140305-copyright-rules.en.xhtml
  17. BIN
      activities/policy/eu/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy-input.pdf
  18. +0
    -867
      activities/policy/eu/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy.en.xhtml
  19. +0
    -338
      activities/policy/eu/20150918-Assessment-Of-The-Report-On-InfoSoc.it.xhtml
  20. BIN
      activities/policy/eu/20151029-fsfe-dsm-comments.pdf
  21. BIN
      activities/policy/eu/20170105-horizon2020-position-paper.pdf
  22. BIN
      activities/policy/eu/ECletter.20101210.en.pdf
  23. BIN
      activities/policy/eu/EIF-Brochure_corrected-web.pdf
  24. BIN
      activities/policy/eu/FSFE-Tallinn-Declaration.pdf
  25. +0
    -832
      activities/policy/eu/Horizon2020-Position-Paper.en.xhtml
  26. +0
    -659
      activities/policy/eu/digital-single-market-comments.en.xhtml
  27. +0
    -141
      activities/policy/eu/eu.de.xhtml
  28. +0
    -170
      activities/policy/eu/eu.el.xhtml
  29. +0
    -146
      activities/policy/eu/eu.en.xhtml
  30. +0
    -105
      activities/policy/eu/eu.fr.xhtml
  31. +0
    -147
      activities/policy/eu/eu.nl.xhtml
  32. +0
    -146
      activities/policy/eu/eu.pt.xhtml
  33. +0
    -180
      activities/policy/eu/eu.ru.xhtml
  34. +0
    -482
      activities/policy/eu/freedomtocompete.el.xhtml
  35. +0
    -451
      activities/policy/eu/freedomtocompete.en.xhtml
  36. +0
    -213
      activities/policy/eu/fspolicies.en.xhtml
  37. +0
    -448
      activities/policy/eu/fspolicies.it.xhtml
  38. +0
    -56
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.de.xhtml
  39. +0
    -48
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.el.xhtml
  40. +0
    -47
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.en.xhtml
  41. +0
    -36
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.fr.xhtml
  42. +0
    -50
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.it.xhtml
  43. +0
    -44
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.nl.xhtml
  44. +0
    -47
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.pt.xhtml
  45. +0
    -89
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.de.xhtml
  46. +0
    -75
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.el.xhtml
  47. +0
    -74
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.en.xhtml
  48. +0
    -64
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.nl.xhtml
  49. +0
    -73
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.pt.xhtml
  50. +0
    -70
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.el.xhtml
  51. +0
    -65
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.en.xhtml
  52. +0
    -51
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.nl.xhtml
  53. +0
    -64
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.pt.xhtml
  54. +0
    -72
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.de.xhtml
  55. +0
    -72
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.el.xhtml
  56. +0
    -67
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.en.xhtml
  57. +0
    -62
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.nl.xhtml
  58. +0
    -66
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.pt.xhtml
  59. +0
    -100
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.el.xhtml
  60. +0
    -85
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.en.xhtml
  61. +0
    -86
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.it.xhtml
  62. +0
    -69
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.nl.xhtml
  63. +0
    -84
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.pt.xhtml
  64. +0
    -94
      activities/policy/policy.en.xhtml
  65. +0
    -94
      activities/policy/policy.sq.xhtml
  66. +0
    -634
      activities/un/peru.en.txt
  67. +0
    -98
      activities/un/un.de.xhtml
  68. +0
    -89
      activities/un/un.el.xhtml
  69. +0
    -89
      activities/un/un.en.xhtml
  70. +0
    -72
      activities/un/un.es.xhtml
  71. +0
    -73
      activities/un/un.fr.xhtml
  72. +0
    -88
      activities/un/un.nl.xhtml
  73. +0
    -89
      activities/un/un.ru.xhtml
  74. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20050413.en.xhtml
  75. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20050415.en.xhtml
  76. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20050620.en.xhtml
  77. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20050721.en.xhtml
  78. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20050930.en.xhtml
  79. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20050930.fr.xhtml
  80. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20050930.nl.xhtml
  81. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20060223.el.xhtml
  82. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20060223.en.xhtml
  83. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20060628.el.xhtml
  84. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20060628.en.xhtml
  85. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20060628.fr.xhtml
  86. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20060628.nl.xhtml
  87. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20070928.de.xhtml
  88. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20070928.el.xhtml
  89. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20070928.en.xhtml
  90. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20070928.it.xhtml
  91. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20070928.nl.xhtml
  92. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20090324.en.xhtml
  93. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20090325.en.xhtml
  94. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20090327.en.xhtml
  95. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20090430-01.el.xhtml
  96. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20090430-01.en.xhtml
  97. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20090430-02.el.xhtml
  98. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20090430-02.en.xhtml
  99. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20090501.el.xhtml
  100. +1
    -1
      activities/wipo/statement-20090501.en.xhtml

+ 3
- 1
.htaccess 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]


+ 2
- 2
about/people/gerloff/gerloff.en.xhtml 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


+ 1
- 1
about/people/gerloff/gerloff.nl.xhtml 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


+ 2
- 2
about/people/roy/roy.el.xhtml 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>


+ 2
- 2
about/people/roy/roy.en.xhtml 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>,


+ 2
- 2
about/people/roy/roy.fr.xhtml 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>


+ 2
- 2
about/people/roy/roy.nl.xhtml 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>


BIN
activities/policy/eu/20071219-opera-antitrust.pdf View File


+ 0
- 14
activities/policy/eu/20071219-opera-antitrust.xml 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>

BIN
activities/policy/eu/20100930-NetNeutrality.Consultation.pdf View File


BIN
activities/policy/eu/20110418.ProcurementConsultation.FSFE.response.pdf View File


+ 0
- 183
activities/policy/eu/20110418.ProcurementConsultation.FSFEresponse.en.xhtml 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: ***
-->

BIN
activities/policy/eu/20110429.CollectiveRedress.Response.FSFE.pdf View File


BIN
activities/policy/eu/20110707-intergroup-FSFE-APRIL-slides.pdf View File


BIN
activities/policy/eu/20140305-copyright-rules.en.pdf View File


+ 0
- 144
activities/policy/eu/20140305-copyright-rules.en.xhtml View File

@ -1,144 +0,0 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>FSFE’s 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">FSFE’s 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 rightholder’s 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>

BIN
activities/policy/eu/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy-input.pdf View File


+ 0
- 867
activities/policy/eu/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy.en.xhtml
File diff suppressed because it is too large
View File


+ 0
- 338
activities/policy/eu/20150918-Assessment-Of-The-Report-On-InfoSoc.it.xhtml
File diff suppressed because it is too large
View File


BIN
activities/policy/eu/20151029-fsfe-dsm-comments.pdf View File


BIN
activities/policy/eu/20170105-horizon2020-position-paper.pdf View File


BIN
activities/policy/eu/ECletter.20101210.en.pdf View File


BIN
activities/policy/eu/EIF-Brochure_corrected-web.pdf View File


BIN
activities/policy/eu/FSFE-Tallinn-Declaration.pdf View File


+ 0
- 832
activities/policy/eu/Horizon2020-Position-Paper.en.xhtml
File diff suppressed because it is too large
View File


+ 0
- 659
activities/policy/eu/digital-single-market-comments.en.xhtml
File diff suppressed because it is too large
View File


+ 0
- 141
activities/policy/eu/eu.de.xhtml 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: ***
-->

+ 0
- 170
activities/policy/eu/eu.el.xhtml 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: ***
-->

+ 0
- 146
activities/policy/eu/eu.en.xhtml 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: ***
-->

+ 0
- 105
activities/policy/eu/eu.fr.xhtml 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: ***
-->

+ 0
- 147
activities/policy/eu/eu.nl.xhtml 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: ***
-->

+ 0
- 146
activities/policy/eu/eu.pt.xhtml 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: ***
-->

+ 0
- 180
activities/policy/eu/eu.ru.xhtml 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>