Subject: Sender-ID licensing issue and French law

From: Michel Bouissou <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:42:49 +0200

Hi there,

French law # 2004-575, June 21, 2004, that can be consulted online here :

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/texteconsolide/PCEBX.htm

Defines in "Titre Ier, Article 4" what a "standard ouvert" (an open standard) 
is, in the following terms:

<<<<<
> On entend par standard ouvert tout protocole de communication,
> d'interconnexion ou d'échange et tout format de données interopérable et
> dont les spécifications techniques sont publiques et sans restriction
> d'accès ni de mise en oeuvre.
>>>>>

Which would translate into english as follows :

<< "open standard" means any communication, interconnection or exchange 
protocol and any interoperable data format for which technical specifications 
are public and without access or usage restriction. >>

This definition excludes from being an "open standard" a standard which use 
would be restricted by a license such as MS Caller-ID license.

Coming regulations require that only open standards should be used in 
communications and data interchange for the French government, public 
administrations and para-public organisms.

Adopting as an IETF standard any protocol that would be encumbered with 
implementation licenses, and thus doesn't qualify as an "open standard" as 
defined by the French law would probably prohibit its use by the French 
governement and public administrations.

Still I'm not a lawyer, and don't have all the current and coming regulations 
in mind, but I believe that France is surely not the only country that is now 
taking this kind of issues quite seriously...

Regards.

-- 
Michel Bouissou <[email-masked]> OpenPGP ID 0xDDE8AC6E

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:17:37 +0200

On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 12:42:49PM +0200,
 Michel Bouissou <[email-masked]> wrote 

> French law # 2004-575, June 21, 2004, that can be consulted online

I'm French but I'm not a lawyer either.
 
> Defines in "Titre Ier, Article 4" what a "standard ouvert" (an open
> standard) is,

But never says (unfortunately, IMHO), that the government should use
only "open standards".

> This definition excludes from being an "open standard" a standard
> which use would be restricted by a license such as MS Caller-ID
> license.

Yes.
 
> Adopting as an IETF standard any protocol that would be encumbered
> with implementation licenses, and thus doesn't qualify as an "open
> standard" as defined by the French law would probably prohibit its
> use by the French governement and public administrations.

I agree that IETF should never endorse patent-encumbered technologies
(even with vague promises such as RAND licences), not because a French
law says so, but because it is bad for the Internet users, period.