Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 11:20:16 -0800 From: Martin Minow Subject: Re: DeCSS Court Hearing Report 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. 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 programs, where 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."] 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 damages the copyright of the program. These paragraphs cannot be revoked by contract. ------------------------------------------------------------------------= -- Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 11:24:45 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund To: Martin Minow Cc: bram , Lucky Green , "cypherpunks@Algebra. COM" , "Cryptography@C2. Net" , John Gilmore Subject: 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 :-) Eivind.