Browse Source

Delete un and policy folders (#1531)

Co-authored-by: max.mehl <max.mehl@fsfe.org>
Reviewed-on: #1531
pull/1535/head
Max Mehl 2 years ago
parent
commit
0953fd2e13
  1. 4
      .htaccess
  2. 4
      about/people/gerloff/gerloff.en.xhtml
  3. 2
      about/people/gerloff/gerloff.nl.xhtml
  4. 4
      about/people/roy/roy.el.xhtml
  5. 4
      about/people/roy/roy.en.xhtml
  6. 4
      about/people/roy/roy.fr.xhtml
  7. 4
      about/people/roy/roy.nl.xhtml
  8. BIN
      activities/policy/eu/20071219-opera-antitrust.pdf
  9. 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. 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. 144
      activities/policy/eu/20140305-copyright-rules.en.xhtml
  17. BIN
      activities/policy/eu/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy-input.pdf
  18. 867
      activities/policy/eu/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy.en.xhtml
  19. 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. 832
      activities/policy/eu/Horizon2020-Position-Paper.en.xhtml
  26. 659
      activities/policy/eu/digital-single-market-comments.en.xhtml
  27. 141
      activities/policy/eu/eu.de.xhtml
  28. 170
      activities/policy/eu/eu.el.xhtml
  29. 146
      activities/policy/eu/eu.en.xhtml
  30. 105
      activities/policy/eu/eu.fr.xhtml
  31. 147
      activities/policy/eu/eu.nl.xhtml
  32. 146
      activities/policy/eu/eu.pt.xhtml
  33. 180
      activities/policy/eu/eu.ru.xhtml
  34. 482
      activities/policy/eu/freedomtocompete.el.xhtml
  35. 451
      activities/policy/eu/freedomtocompete.en.xhtml
  36. 213
      activities/policy/eu/fspolicies.en.xhtml
  37. 448
      activities/policy/eu/fspolicies.it.xhtml
  38. 56
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.de.xhtml
  39. 48
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.el.xhtml
  40. 47
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.en.xhtml
  41. 36
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.fr.xhtml
  42. 50
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.it.xhtml
  43. 44
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.nl.xhtml
  44. 47
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.pt.xhtml
  45. 89
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.de.xhtml
  46. 75
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.el.xhtml
  47. 74
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.en.xhtml
  48. 64
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.nl.xhtml
  49. 73
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.pt.xhtml
  50. 70
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.el.xhtml
  51. 65
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.en.xhtml
  52. 51
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.nl.xhtml
  53. 64
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.pt.xhtml
  54. 72
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.de.xhtml
  55. 72
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.el.xhtml
  56. 67
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.en.xhtml
  57. 62
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.nl.xhtml
  58. 66
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.pt.xhtml
  59. 100
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.el.xhtml
  60. 85
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.en.xhtml
  61. 86
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.it.xhtml
  62. 69
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.nl.xhtml
  63. 84
      activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/public-bodies.pt.xhtml
  64. 94
      activities/policy/policy.en.xhtml
  65. 94
      activities/policy/policy.sq.xhtml
  66. 634
      activities/un/peru.en.txt
  67. 98
      activities/un/un.de.xhtml
  68. 89
      activities/un/un.el.xhtml
  69. 89
      activities/un/un.en.xhtml
  70. 72
      activities/un/un.es.xhtml
  71. 73
      activities/un/un.fr.xhtml
  72. 88
      activities/un/un.nl.xhtml
  73. 89
      activities/un/un.ru.xhtml
  74. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20050413.en.xhtml
  75. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20050415.en.xhtml
  76. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20050620.en.xhtml
  77. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20050721.en.xhtml
  78. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20050930.en.xhtml
  79. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20050930.fr.xhtml
  80. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20050930.nl.xhtml
  81. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20060223.el.xhtml
  82. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20060223.en.xhtml
  83. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20060628.el.xhtml
  84. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20060628.en.xhtml
  85. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20060628.fr.xhtml
  86. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20060628.nl.xhtml
  87. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20070928.de.xhtml
  88. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20070928.el.xhtml
  89. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20070928.en.xhtml
  90. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20070928.it.xhtml
  91. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20070928.nl.xhtml
  92. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20090324.en.xhtml
  93. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20090325.en.xhtml
  94. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20090327.en.xhtml
  95. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20090430-01.el.xhtml
  96. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20090430-01.en.xhtml
  97. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20090430-02.el.xhtml
  98. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20090430-02.en.xhtml
  99. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20090501.el.xhtml
  100. 2
      activities/wipo/statement-20090501.en.xhtml
  101. Some files were not shown because too many files have changed in this diff Show More

4
.htaccess

@ -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]

4
about/people/gerloff/gerloff.en.xhtml

@ -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

2
about/people/gerloff/gerloff.nl.xhtml

@ -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

4
about/people/roy/roy.el.xhtml

@ -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>

4
about/people/roy/roy.en.xhtml

@ -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>,

4
about/people/roy/roy.fr.xhtml

@ -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>

4
about/people/roy/roy.nl.xhtml

@ -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

Binary file not shown.

14
activities/policy/eu/20071219-opera-antitrust.xml

@ -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

Binary file not shown.

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

Binary file not shown.

183
activities/policy/eu/20110418.ProcurementConsultation.FSFEresponse.en.xhtml

@ -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

Binary file not shown.

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

Binary file not shown.

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

Binary file not shown.

144
activities/policy/eu/20140305-copyright-rules.en.xhtml

@ -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

Binary file not shown.

867
activities/policy/eu/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy.en.xhtml

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

338
activities/policy/eu/20150918-Assessment-Of-The-Report-On-InfoSoc.it.xhtml

@ -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 l’accesso 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 nell’utilizzare, 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>

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

Binary file not shown.

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

Binary file not shown.

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

Binary file not shown.

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

Binary file not shown.

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

Binary file not shown.

832
activities/policy/eu/Horizon2020-Position-Paper.en.xhtml

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

659
activities/policy/eu/digital-single-market-comments.en.xhtml

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

141
activities/policy/eu/eu.de.xhtml

@ -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: ***
-->

170
activities/policy/eu/eu.el.xhtml

@ -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: ***
-->

146
activities/policy/eu/eu.en.xhtml

@ -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</