La commission européenne incite les organismes publics à se libérer de leur enfermement

Dans une communication publiée aujourd'hui, la Commission Européenne exhorte les organismes publics à libérer leur système informatique des verrous propriétaires. La commission souhaite que lorsqu'ils achètent des logiciels, les organismes publics se basent sur des standards plutôt que sur des noms de marques ou des technologies propriétaires.

Dans sa communication titrée "Against lock-in" (i.e. Contre le verrouillage), la Commission souligne que les organismes publics Européens dépensent chaque année inutilement 1.1 milliard d'euros en ne permettant pas plus de compétition entre leurs fournisseurs. La commission cite des études qui rapportent que 16% des marchés publics font référence à des noms de marques. D'après la Communication le coût des contrats informatique baisse de 9% quand les organismes publiques parviennent à doubler le nombre d'entreprises présentant une offre pour ces contrats.

« Les pouvoirs publics gaspillent plus d'un milliard d'euros chaque année sur des systèmes qui sont pour eux des boîtes noires , et empêchent ainsi des entreprises de Logiciels Libres d'offrir leurs services. Cela doit cesser, » a déclaré Karsten Gerloff, président de la Free Software Foundation Europe. « S'appuyer sur des standards ouverts signifie que l'argent du contribuable sera dépensé plus efficacement, et pour des solutions plus innovantes. »

Dans une étude de 2011 cité dans la Communication, 50% des pouvoirs publics déclarent manquer d'expertise pour décider quel standard demander. La Commission a l'intention de réagir en fournissant des conseils et en faisant la promotion des bonnes pratiques. Elle déclare également qu'elle prendra une approche similaire pour améliorer ses propres pratiques d'appels d'offre, qui ont été critiquées dans le passé par la FSFE.

« Nous avons hâte de voir la Commission européenne montrer le chemin et ouvrir ses propres systèmes de bureautique à la concurrence entre différents fournisseurs » a déclaré Gerloff.

Alors que plusieurs États membre ont déjà des politiques publiques progressives pour que l'acquisition de logiciels se fasse sur la base de standards, elles n'ont de valeur que si elles sont véritablement mises en œuvre. La FSFE se réjouit à l'idée de soutenir la Commission et les organismes publics dans toute l'Europe dans leur migration vers des pratiques de marché publics basés sur des standards.

Support FSFE, join the Fellowship
Make a one time donation

As Microsoft repeal some Xbox restrictions, more apply to other products

Faced with user protests, Microsoft has been forced to make the terms for its latest Xbox gaming console look a little less restrictive. However, the “new” terms which had caused such outrage were not in fact new at all: they were similar to most other proprietary software licences, including those covering other Microsoft software products and on-line services.

Restrictions on selling, sharing and gift-giving appear, for example, in the Windows 7 and Office 2013 licences. Similar restrictions will continue to apply to the Xbox one in that "downloaded titles cannot be shared or resold". Geographic restrictions can also apply to Office 2013, along a class action waiver. Gamers who were angered by the invasive, inadequate and mandatory 24 hour check-in and Kinect voice/motion sensor may be similarly angered by the clause demanding “you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not work around any technical limitations in the software” in the Windows 7 licence.

“Even after reversing course on some of the more egregious Xbox One terms, Microsoft still leaves its users wearing digital handcuffs,” says Karsten Gerloff, FSFE's president. “We encourage everyone to choose Free Software instead, and break free of these restrictions.”

“While proprietary licenses restrict your freedom, Free Software always guarantees that you can use the software for any purpose, to study how it works, to share it with others, and modify it to your needs” says Matthias Kirschner, FSFE's Head of Public Awareness. “Users should not have to beg for these rights.”

It is still unclear what exactly the full license will or will not contain, for example, mention of the Class Action Waiver has been removed, but no statement has been made to repeal it.

Support FSFE, join the Fellowship
Make a one time donation

Open Letter to Prime Minister Erdoğan: Invest your $5b in digital freedom

In recent weeks, political events in Istanbul have been the focus of international media. Important discussions are taking place about Turkey's government and her people. Several have lost their lives in the process

Days before the protests in Taksim Square erupted, President Erdoğan was in America. On behalf of an ambitious education investment project called FATIH, he toured Silicon Valley as the guest of America's largest technology companies, each of whom are hoping to land a contract for more than 10 million new tablet computers.

As the safety and freedom on the street of Turkey's activists is hotly debated in the press, the safety and freedom of her children to learn has understandably received much less attention. Whether it is publicly discussed or not however, $5 billion will soon be spent on education, and it's impact on the rights of the next generation of Turkey's students will be immense.

FSFE's Education Team is dedicated to empowering students via Free Software. If you think that humans deserve rights over the technology they use, you can add your name to our list of supporters.

The letter

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan,

Recently you visited America to discuss the acquisition of 10.6 million tablets from leading technology companies for students, on behalf of Turkey's project FATIH.

We urge you to take alternative products into consideration, and consider the impact of the software those tablets use.

Google, Apple, and Microsoft, who hosted you, all tie their tablets to software which would prevent Turkish children from studying and customising it. The companies you spoke to enforce strict proprietary licensing which would ensure that schools could only lease their ability to use applications, not own them or rights to them.

Free Software, contrastingly, protects students' rights to use, study, share, and improve it. In an educational context these rights can make the difference between consumers and creators. Without these freedoms, the 17 million students affected by your plan cannot experiment or develop the understanding necessary to lead digital economies in future.

Software support and maintenance is expensive, and proprietary software exacerbates these costs by restricting who can provide you with services. By using Free Software, Turkish schools would lose their dependency on a single vendor, and competition for service contracts could be more local, and more competitive.

Finally, for better security of both schools and students, Free Software makes its code available, providing evidence of how it functions. This week's revelations surrounding British Government spying on Turkish politicians at the G20 summit highlight the importance of software security and privacy. Educational computers should not provide back-doors for foreign Governments and companies.

Apple, Google and Microsoft all embrace Free Software themselves, and use it internally. Making the step towards Free Software tablets is important however, and several global manufacturers and distributors offer Free Software devices for sale. Will the freedom of Turkey's citizens be considered in your forthcoming decision to purchase tablets?

Please send us your answer, and do not hesitate to contact us should you have further questions about the contents of this letter.

Yours Sincerely,

Sam Tuke, Vicen Rodriguez, Filip Lobik

The Free Software Foundation Europe e.V.

Support FSFE, join the Fellowship
Make a one time donation

German Parliament tells government to strictly limit patents on software

On Friday the 7th of June the German Parliament decided upon a joint motion to limit software patents (see English translation by BIKT). The Parliament urges the German Government to take steps to limit the granting of patents on computer programs. Software should exclusively be covered by copyright, and the rights of the copyright holders should not be devalued by third parties' software patents.  The only exception where patents should be allowed are computer programs which replace a mechanical or electromagnetic component. In addition the Parliament made clear that governmental actions related to patents must never interfere with the legality of distributing Free Software.

"This  is an important step to fix the software patent insanity. The FSFE highly  welcomes this decision. It's great to see that all of Germany's major parties understand that software patents are a huge problem and that they are acting accordingly," says  Matthias Kirschner, FSFE's coordinator for Germany.

Tens of thousands of software patents in Germany and Europe present enormous cost and liability risks, especially for SMEs. Several German SME associations welcomed the Parliament's decision. However they warn against giving all the responsibility to Brussels, as the EU has been consistently incapable of providing software developers with legal certainty. "Germany now has to implement this decision in law, to send a strong signal towards Brussels," says Johannes Sommer of BIKT, one of the associations.

At an expert meeting in the Parliament on 13th May, in which FSFE also participated, industry associations BIKT and BITMi proposed changes to German copyright  and patent law. These proposals would also affect software patents which have already been granted. The first proposal is to add a  "protective shield" clause to German copyright law , introducing a blanket ban on the enforcement of patent claims with regard to software. The second proposal to be implemented in German patent law makes sure that the effect of patent claims shall not extend to works protected independently by copyright. Both proposals would prevent that patents on software can be enforced against software developers. The FSFE supports both proposals.

"Since the EU has decided to give away its power to make rules on the unitary patent, this step towards limiting patents on software is all the more important.", says Kirschner.

Background: The joint motion was introduced in German Parliament in April.  After a first hearing, the legal committee held an external expert meeting on May 13th for which FSFE published a written statement and Matthias Kirschner's notes of his oral presentation. During the hearing, a substantial majority of the external experts supported the join motion.  After recommendations from the Parliament's Legal Committee, backed up by the Committee for Economy and Technology, the Committee of Education, Research, and Engineering Results Assessment, as well as from the Committee for Culture and Media, the German Parliament in plenary session has approved unanimously the joint motion on the 7th June.

Support FSFE, join the Fellowship
Make a one time donation

Filing taxes without non-free software: Slovak company appeals fines

In a case of a Slovak company protesting against being forced to use non-free software to file taxes, a court has failed to rule on the substance of the case.

Slovak textile importer EURA Slovakia, s.r.o. is facing EUR 5600 in fines because it refused to use the Microsoft Windows operating system to submit its electronic tax reports. Since May 2012, EURA is appealing against the fines in court.

"We believe that the court failed to correctly interpret the procedural law when it refused to assess whether the tax authorities were right in imposing the fines", says Martin Husovec, a lawyer assisting EISi.

In total, the Slovak tax authorities have imposed eleven fines on the company, which submitted its tax reports on paper. As in other European countries, Slovak companies are required to file their tax reports electronically. The official software for doing so only works on the non-free Microsoft Windows platform. Along with FSFE and EISi, EURA demands that the state should stop forcing businesses to use a certain product, and calls for a platform neutral solution based on Open Standards instead.

"This kind of approach of any government should not be tolerated. We encourage everyone who might be damaged by this practice to follow EURA's example and seek for justice on courts." concluded Karsten Gerloff, president of the FSFE.

Executive summary of the EURA case

Support FSFE, join the Fellowship
Make a one time donation