[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: DeCSS Court Hearing Report
On Tue, Jan 04, 2000 at 11:20:16AM -0800, Martin Minow wrote:
> Here's my translation of the law Eivind Eklund describes. Note that,
> while I am a fluent speaker of Swedish, Norwegian is a similar, but
> not identical language. This is a really quick translation and should
> not be relied upon for judicial opinion. It's free, and worth what
> you paid for it.
Thanks! I had a translation done, but did not feel like doing it
again after I lost the copy while mishandling mail.
> S/S 39i It is permitted to create examples of a computer program's
> code and translate the code's form when this is a requirement for
> obtaining the information that is necessary to provide functional
> compatibilty between an independently developed computer program
> and other progrmms, where
'Copy' is what is meant where it says 'eksemplar' (what you've
translated to 'example').
> a) The operation is performed by a person who has the right to use an
> example of a computer program, or for the benefit of a person who
> has this right. [Sorry, sloppy: I think this means that an employee
> or consultant can do the work, not only the "person who has the right."]
This match my reading.
> b) The information that is necessary to achieve functional compatibility
> has not previously been readily available for those named in section a and,
> c) The operation is limited to those parts of the original program that
> are required to achive functional compatibility.
> The information obtained under the first paragraph may not
> a) Be used for other purposes than to provide functional compatibility
> with the independently developed computer program.
> b) Be given to others, except from when this is necessary to provide
> functional compatability with the independently developed
> computer program, or
> c) Be used for development, production, or marketing of a computer program
> that significantly duplicates the form, or in other fashion damanges
> the copyright of the program.
> These paragraphs cannot be revoked by contract.
One thing that is important in understanding norwegian law is that it
is the *intent* of the law that matters. The intent of the law is
that proprietary dorks should not be able to block other people from
making compatible software (e.g, DVD players under
FreeBSD/Linux/whatever). I do not believe anyone is going to be able
to argue around that in (norwegian) court; the politicians that
originally passed the law are available to be asked :-)