TOOT Chalec

Alexandre Dulaunoy a@paperbay.org

I saw a lot of articles about “mandating open source in Switzerland.” This isn’t true. The actual requirement is that the source code must be available (with some exceptions) for software developed within the scope of administration. It's more akin to code escrow than true open source licensing.

Only the paragraph 2 opens the door to FOSS licensing but it also the open the door to non-free license. A list of FOSS licenses should have been mentioned clearly.

https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2023/682/fr

— [ Art. 9 Logiciels a code source ouvert ! Les autorités fédérales soumises a la présente loi publient le code source des logiciels qu’elles développent ou font développer pour I'exécution de leurs taches, sous réserve que les droits de tiers ou des raisons importantes en matiére de sécurité excluent ou limitent cette possibilité. 2 Elles autorisent toute personne a utiliser, & développer et a partager ces logiciels sans avoir a payer de redevances de licence. 3 Les droits visés a I'al. 2 sont octroyés sous la forme de licences de droit privé, sauf dispositions contraires d’autres actes. Les litiges entre donneurs et preneurs de licence sont tranchés selon le droit civil. 4 Lorsque cela est possible et judicieux, des textes de licence reconnus au niveau international seront utilisés. Toute prétention en responsabilité de la part des nranatire da lircanca cara aveliia Aane 12 maciira ot cala

avron avron
Why do you say the paragraph 2 opens the door to non-free licenses? Because the language does not exactly takes the wording of the definition of free software, even though it seems to say the same?

Alexandre Dulaunoy a@paperbay.org

@avron The 4 freedoms of free software is just an overall definition and a lot of non-free license can sometime fall into the description.

avron avron
Any example?

Alexandre Dulaunoy a@paperbay.org

@avron NASA Open Source Agreement, Open Public License, Reciprocal Public License and many more new license limit the commercial field in some ways.

avron avron
From my reading of https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html (I looked at details only briefly), these licenses look like "you have the 4 freedoms but with this and that restriction".

I don't see how the wording of the second paragraph would include the option of such restrictions. That said, the text of the law is perhaps too vague and a reference to a list of licenses, or to something endorsable by the FSF or OSI would have been much clearer.

From about 2h31 minutes after the start in https://media.fsfe.org/w/aQs7EbEUQGt4DP13SsqAJ7, there is a presentation on that law.
replies
1
announces
0
likes
1

Alexandre Dulaunoy a@paperbay.org

@avron They should have added a list of proper open source/free software licenses. Like what EUPL does for some of the EU project mentioning the requirement. Now it’s ambiguous and a vendor can play with it.

avron avron
I agree. However, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Public_Licence, I could not find any law that mandates administrations to release software they develop with free licenses (in the references, France: data, not software, Spain: licenses to use "when releasing as open source i.e., no obligation, did not manage to find Estonia, and to translate Slovakia).

Alexandre Dulaunoy a@paperbay.org

@avron There was an old one for the region Bruxelles in late nineties but not sure if it was really a success. Let’s the see the outcome in CH and how suppliers play with the rules or not ;-)