Browse thread
Impact of French DADVSI law on Free Software and OCaml (was: Re: [Caml-list] Slashdot)
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2005-12-07 (09:41) |
From: | Oliver Bandel <oliver@f...> |
Subject: | Re: Impact of French DADVSI law on Free Software and OCaml (was: Re: [Caml-list] Slashdot) |
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 08:54:45AM +0100, David MENTRE wrote: [...] > In English, it means that *any* software, *any* database and *any* > sound, image, etc. should be legally registred to the French State > (/dépôt légal/) as soon as it is made available to the public. I'm not > a lawyer so I might have missed something but, if this is true, (1) it > is utterly stupid and (2) it could impact the development of Free > Software in France. Should Xavier Leroy et al. registred OCaml each > time a new release is made? Should we declare all the images on the > OCaml web site? Should the OCaml bug database be registred? [...] If it is, how you write, then that's a good day for bureaucracy. Better would be, to register each such registering-operation too. ;-) That's recursive and self-referential and infinitve, and so the load will be much higher than to be expected by the lawyers. So: it will not be possible to use laws in genreal, even if they are meant general. But it can be used for certain things (here: THIS or THAT software (or anything else), at will. So... is it good to do that? well... Looks like self-disabling of the lawyers by trying to achieve anything. ;-) This will not work in general, but can be hinderance to certain projects, if people insist on this bureaucracy. :( Ciao, Oliver