https://www.lilux.lu//mediawiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=158.64.72.230&feedformat=atomLiluxWiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T08:25:24ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.6https://www.lilux.lu//mediawiki/?title=MembershipManagement&diff=454MembershipManagement2010-08-17T12:53:02Z<p>158.64.72.230: spelling</p>
<hr />
<div>= Membership Management =<br />
<br />
== Kick off Meeting ==<br />
<br />
Wednesday 27/01/2010<br />
<br />
Points discussed:<br />
* Separate members for each club (a club should not know if a user is in a different club)<br />
* Use a pseudo will be used as key for the user.<br />
* API to member list to include other tools like libraries ...<br />
* Integration with mediawiki/joomla ...<br />
<br />
== Task List ==<br />
<br />
* setup cvs - ThierryCoutelier<br />
* prepare initial design on wiki<br />
* setup test web page<br />
* Add project to TRAC: (https://www.hackerspace.lu/trac) - David Raison<br />
<br />
== definitions == <br />
=== association ===<br />
an organisation who will use the application: LiLux, HackerSpace, Scouts, …<br />
<br />
=== member ===<br />
a member is a person listed in the membership software<br />
<br />
=== group ===<br />
a group is an combination of diffrent members from the membership software<br />
a group can be made of a parent-group and/or can be in a child-group<br />
<br />
parent-group --- group --- child-group --- child2-group<br />
<br />
=== activity ===<br />
an activity can be e meeting / camp / ....<br />
The activity is created by an operator but the registered members can subscribe to the activity by answering a mail or completing a web form<br />
<br />
<br />
== Analysis ==<br />
=== what do we have as software? ===<br />
* a php script<br />
<br />
=== what are the functions in the software? ===<br />
<br />
=== what is the need for the new software? ===<br />
<br />
=== which are the functions needed? ===<br />
* list printing of groups / activities / ...<br />
* printing of membership cards<br />
* use mail adresses in mailman<br />
* unlimited creation for groups / activities<br />
<br />
== Requirements ==<br />
=== general requirements ===<br />
* manage membership easily<br />
* assigne members to a group / to a activity<br />
* <br />
<br />
=== Requirements from Hackerspace ===<br />
https://www.hackerspace.lu/wiki/Membership_Management_Tool#Requirements<br />
=== Requirements from LiLux ===<br />
<br />
== Existing software/tools ==<br />
=== software ===<br />
* http://archreactor.org/wiki/index.php/AROS<br />
* [http://membership.scouthub.org/ MemberShip]<br />
* [http://code.labitat.dk/index.php/p/member-dev/ member-dev]<br />
* [http://webcomite.com/default_fr.htm webcomite]<br />
<br />
=== tools ===<br />
* [http://www.nubuilder.com nuBuilder]<br />
* [http://limbas.org Limbas]<br />
<br />
=== related sites ===<br />
* https://www.hackerspace.lu/wiki/Membership_Management_Tool<br />
<br />
<br />
== suggestions: ==<br />
=== LDAP ===<br />
* user data, can be standard schema + whatever we may additionally need<br />
* would facilitate SSO functionalities, incl. integration with misc tools such as CMS, Wiki, shell access, ...<br />
* not complicated to set up and get running<br />
* tutorial available for instance from LinuxDays 2003, server tutorial<br />
* LDAP can be frontend to SQL database<br />
=== .====</div>158.64.72.230https://www.lilux.lu//mediawiki/?title=Homebanking&diff=374Homebanking2009-01-09T14:30:48Z<p>158.64.72.230: Luxtrust details</p>
<hr />
<div>This page is to discuss about Linux & Homebanking.<br />
It may contain both technical workarounds (use specific browser, manipulate user agent, ...) and<br />
political actions (letter writing campaigns, ...)<br />
<br />
Please put the dates when you change the state of some information.<br />
<br />
* [[BglHomebanking]] : works with Firefox 1.0x on all platforms. Other browsers (such as Safari) are usable with minor tweak to remove a browser check. A pre-prepared login page with the browser check removed may be found [http://www.alain.knaff.lu/howto/bgl/uolp-bgl-web.html here]. Does not work with Firefox 1.5 (BGL is now called Fortis)<br />
* [https://webbanking.fortisbanque.lu/fr/Main.html Fortis] : works with Firefox on all platforms. Other browsers (such as Safari) are usable without any tweak. (Since the 2008 Krach, Fortis has be bought by BNP Paribas and should be renamed BNP-BGL / November 2008)<br />
* [[DexiaHomebanking|Dexia-Bil]] : On 1 March 2005, Dexia-Bil states in a private email that "la nouvelle sécurité de dexiaplus est compatible avec tous les systèmes d'exploitation (Windows, MacOS, Linux,...) et avec tous les navigateurs utilisant le SSL 128 bits ( pour exemple: Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Safari, Konqueror,....)."<br />
Update (30/03/2005): Their new system now works perfectly with other browsers than MSIE (tested with Firefox 1.0.1 and Safari so far).<br />
<br />
* [[CcpHomebanking|CCP]] : works flawlessly<br />
* [[BceeHomebanking|Spuerkees]] : works flawlessly<br />
* [[IngHomebanking|ING]] According to www.ing.lu on 2 March 2005, ING supports "Windows / Mac / Linux; Internet Explorer, Safari ou Mozilla" since october 2004.<br />
* [[AXA]] / banque Ippa june 2004 : officially supports only MSIE and refuses to acknowledge the existence of others such as Macintosh or Linux<br />
* [http://www.web-banking.lll.lu/fundmarket BL]] (Banque de Luxembourg): only supports MSIE, no MAC, no GNU/Linux (didn't do any further inquiries however). Question: can anybody who has an account with them check whether the [[workaround for Fundmarket] also work for BL (they are the same company).<br />
Update (20/09/2006): the technical support of Banque de Luxembourg stated in a telephone call that they are now supporting Firefox 1.5.x on all platforms with and without client certificate and Safari without client certificate. They left the browser check, so Opera is still not supported. (this should also be true for the [[FundMarket]] site - testing required..)<br />
* [[FundMarket]]: related to Banque de Luxembourg (a subsidiary of BL, use the same software?). Only accepts MSIE (and apparently Firefox on Macintosh?). They are willing to change though, '''if''' they get many calls: (+352) 26 20 26 30 (Monday to Friday from 7h30 to 18h00, or Saturday from 9h00 to 13h00). There is also an [http://www.fund-market.lu/Static_FMC/general/langue1/login_help.htm online form] available where you may request to be called back. Service may be tested even by those who don't have an account by just looking at the graphs for their "colored" mutual funds (left hand side of their [http://www.fund-market.lu/Static_FMC/001/langue1/accueil/content.htm main page], "Accès direct" selector). Symptoms are: java applet window comes up, but stays white, while a single 0 is printed to the Java Console. The [http://www.web-banking.lll.lu LLL Web Banking Site] has a [http://www.web-banking.lll.lu/fundmarket workaround].<br />
The workaround involves a special URL to bypass their MS JavaVM/VBScript check, and recommends changing the browser's HTTP_USER_AGENT string to bypass a second check based on that!<br />
* Raiffeisen : works flawlessly<br />
<br />
Starting from the 17th November 2008, [https://www.luxtrust.lu LuxTrust] is used by Dexia, Spuerkeess, CCP and Fortis to protect their web banking site. Linux is officially supported (theoretically) and packages are available (libgemsafe/libgclib.so) on their website. However, no sources are supplied, but only an i386 binary. Tough luck if you've got a different processor (amd64, powerpc, alpha, sparc ...).<br />
<br />
Moreover, many banks don't access the PKCS#11 through the browser interface, nor do they use [http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/security/p11guide.html Sun's PKCS#11 API]. Instead, they try to access it directly, sometimes by having a i386 binary embedded (SigningLibrary.so) in their applets that they drop into /tmp and then call via JNI. So even if Luxtrust supplied a 64 bit libgclib.so, most banks still wouldn't work due to this dodgy programming technique.<br />
<br />
The only bank known to work with Luxtrust so far is CCP<br />
* Dexia: doesn't work (details still need to be worked out)<br />
* Spuerkees: doesn't work, displays generic error message. Attempts to load libgclib.so , but only looks for it in the system library path. This issue may be fixed by adding /usr/lib/pkcs11 to /etc/ld.so.conf.d , then loading succeeds, but connection still fails with same message.<br />
* CCP: works on an i386 processor (or on an amd64 running in 32 bit compatibility mode). Maps /usr/lib/pkcs11/libgclib.so module via SigningLibrary.so that it drops into /tmp as interface12345.so .<br />
* BGL: application not yet ready<br />
* ING: according to unconfirmed rumors, ING withdrew their Luxtrust support over security concerns<br />
<br />
-----<br />
* sous [[Presse]], nouveau CP : [[CPBanquesJuin2004]]</div>158.64.72.230https://www.lilux.lu//mediawiki/?title=LettreMinistre20041130&diff=241LettreMinistre200411302007-11-28T10:21:11Z<p>158.64.72.230: Fixed references</p>
<hr />
<div>DRAFT: a faire:<br />
- traduire en français<br />
- ajouter de plus de details sur quels amendementsmettre le poids (2, 6a, 5 ..) ??<br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
<br />
Concerne: Projet de directive européenne sur la brevetabilité des inventions mises en oeuvre par ordinateur<br />
<br />
<br />
Luxembourg, le ...<br />
<br />
<br />
Monsieur le Ministre, Jeannot Krecké<br />
<br />
<br />
Nous sommes très inquiets par le projet de directive européenne sur la brevetabilité des "inventions mises en oeuvre par ordinateur" (2002/0047 COM (COD)) - néologisme qui prétend camoufler les logiciels, les algorithmes et certaines méthodes commerciales.<br />
<br />
Le texte du projet tel que proposé par la présidence irlandaise au Conseil de l'union européenne lors de la session du 18 mai 2004 sur la compétitivité permettrait une brevetabilité illimité des logiciels et serait un danger pour tout société européenne travaillant dans le monde du logiciel.<br />
<br />
Ce fait a été prouvé récemment par une étude commanditée par le gouvernement polonnais. La déclaration officielle du gouvernement polonais à ce sujet se trouve sur le site du gouvernement polonais (<ref>http://www.kprm.gov.pl/441_12649.htm (en polonais), une traduction en français se trouve sur le site: http://www.ffii.fr/article.php3?id_article=77</ref>).<br />
''SMA : le site de la FFII n'est pas '''neutre''' et peut être remis en question quant à son objectivité. Si on peut trouver une traduction plus neutre, je préfèrerais!!!''<br />
<br />
Dans un rapport intitulé "Rethinking the European ICT Agenda: Ten ICT-breakthroughs for reaching Lisbon goals" à la présidence néerlandaise de l'UE, la société de consultance Price, Waterhouse & Coopers a clairement pointé du doigt les dangers posés par les brevets logiciels. Voir l'item 342, page 50 du rapport que l'on peut trouver sur le site du ministère néerlandais de l'économie (<ref>http://www.ez.nl/content.jsp?objectid=24583</ref>)<br />
<br />
Dans un rapport daté du 22 juillet, la Deutsche Bank, via son magasine Deutsche Bank Research montre les mêmes dangers. C'est indiqué dans l'introduction ainsi qu'aux pages 6 et 7 (le paragraphe "Let Ideas Flow / Opportunity 3". (<ref>http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000175949.pdf </ref>).<br />
<br />
Le 21 octobre les quatres groupes parlementaires au Bundestag s'élevaient contre les brevets logiciels et contre la proposition législative en question et introduisaient différentes motions à cet effet. On peut en trouver le rapport officiel du Bundestag ici : (''Deutscher Bundestag "hib-Meldung" <Patentierung von Computerprogrammen "effektiv begrenzen">'') (<ref>http://www.bundestag.de/bic/hib/2004/2004_299/07.html</ref>)<br />
<br />
Le Luxembourg est-il prêt à réviser la position exprimée lors de la session du Conseil de l'union européenne du 18 mai dernier. Le Gouvernement du Luxembourg est-il prêt à remettre en question le texte de la directive au sein du Conseil, à soutenir les amendements permettant une limitation adéquate des brevets sur les logiciels et à soutenir les amendement proposés et votés par le Parlement européen.<br />
<br />
Nous aurions aimé vous rencontrer pour discuter de ce sujet et nous nous tenons à votre disposition pour une entrevue.<br />
<br />
Dans l'attente de votre réponse, nous vous prions de bien vouloir agréer, Monsieur le Ministre, l'expression de notre très haute considération.<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
Alain Louge<br />
...<br />
<br />
<br />
Pour [[LiLux]] asbl,<br />
le président Coutelier Thierry le secrétaire Steichen Pascal</div>158.64.72.230https://www.lilux.lu//mediawiki/?title=LettreChambreDeputes20040918&diff=240LettreChambreDeputes200409182007-11-28T10:11:26Z<p>158.64.72.230: Fixed second reference to 5</p>
<hr />
<div>Back : [[Epatent]]<br />
<br />
Lettre pour la chambre des députés, sur le modèle de la lettre COSAC des hollandais. Pour le moment, je commence par une copie et traduction au fil de l'eau.<br />
<br />
Au fur et à mesure, on changera les paragraphes...<br />
<br />
l'idée est de demande à la CHD et au gouvernement de revenir sur le vote et d'adopter une position ferme<br />
<br />
SMA : OK?<br />
<br />
<br />
SMA : on peut aussi s'inspirer du [http://www.ffii.se/kwiki/index.cgi?WPFR welcomepack FFII]<br />
-----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
A l'attention de<br />
la Chambre des Députés, Luxembourg<br />
le Gouvernement du Luxembourg<br />
<br />
<br />
De la part de : LiLux a.s.b.l.<br />
<br />
Concernant : le comportement du précédent Gouvernement luxembourgeois et en particulier du Ministre de l'Industrie M. Grethen, et le rôle des chambres nationales dans l'Union Européenne<br />
<br />
<br />
Luxembourg, le......<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
We write to inform you of our concerns regarding the way the Dutch EU<br />
Presidency is conducting itself with respect to European procedures and the<br />
Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments in the European Union. The road<br />
taken by the Dutch government negates the Protocol on the Role of National<br />
Parliaments and weakens European democracy.<br />
<br />
On May10th Minister Brinkhorst misinformed the Dutch Parliament about the<br />
Directive on Computer-Implemented Inventions, and voted for the Council's<br />
proposal on May 18th based on that misrepresentation. As a result, the Dutch<br />
Parliament has adopted a motion by MP Van Dam calling the government to<br />
withdraw its vote.<br />
<br />
The Dutch Parliament required two sessions of the Committee on Economic<br />
Affairs to come to realize the issues with the Council's text, and how<br />
detrimental it would be for SMEs and innovation. The Directive's text is<br />
overcomplicated, with double negations, duplicitous qualifications<br />
("exceptions" that are always true) and undefined exclusions. The Parliament<br />
fears "excesses" with regards to the patentability of software. Empirical<br />
evidence shows patents on software impede innovation.<br />
<br />
The Dutch Parliament concluded that since there was ongoing discussion of the<br />
Directive, the government should abstain from the Council's vote for<br />
political agreement.<br />
<br />
Minister Brinkhorst stated in a debate on the matter that for constitutional<br />
reasons the Council's vote cannot be reversed. The State Secretary also<br />
misrepresented the facts in the debate on the Van Dam motion, by calling the<br />
political agreement a "common position," thereby presenting the non-binding<br />
agreement as a binding one. Furthermore, a Brussels Permanent Representative<br />
said the vote cannot be changed <ref>Detailed analysis (Dutch): Octrooien op software werpen hun schaduw vooruit http //www.vrijschrift.nl/Members/awessels/vrijschrift.nl_misleiding-kamer.pdf</ref> . In these actions, the Dutch government has spread critical incorrect information about European Union democratic procedures three times <ref name="voting">Lopez report<br />
http://fajardolopez.com/informes/Fajardolopez.com_18th-May-EU-Council-voting.pdf. This opinion was confirmed by the Council itself: "PUBLIC<br />
INFORMATION" <public.info@consilium.eu.int></ref>.<br />
<br />
The Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments in the European Union assures<br />
Parliaments early access to legislative proposals. The Parliaments of the 10<br />
new members of the Union have not had early access, since the translations of<br />
the EU Council's political agreement have only very recently become<br />
available.<br />
<br />
Since the translations became available during the Parliaments' recess<br />
periods, it would be appropriate to add a short extension to the six weeks<br />
period provided under the Protocol, within which national Parliaments may<br />
render their conclusions regarding the Council's political agreement. No<br />
shortening of the six weeks period can be allowed.<br />
<br />
Without the six weeks review period, the Parliaments of the new members are<br />
denied the rights the Protocol provides for. There is no ground to deny the<br />
new members these rights, since, so far as we know, there is no jurisprudence<br />
on the Protocol, and no mention of this situation in the Treaty of Accession.<br />
The new members of the European Union must enjoy their full rights to address<br />
the Directive.<br />
<br />
Eastern Europe would bear the hardest burden in the outcome of this decision.<br />
SMEs in Europe can little afford to compete in a context that would include<br />
the kinds of patents this Directive will validate. The new Eastern European<br />
members of the Union are hardly in a better position than the rest of Europe.<br />
Eastern Europe will never own its software industry under the Council's text.<br />
<br />
Europe needs a sensible patent system. The Council's misleading text is no<br />
contribution to that. Critical amendments contributed by the European<br />
Parliament, including a key definition clarifying the term 'technical,' were<br />
discarded by the Council for the dissembling language that they favor <ref>http://swpat.ffii.org/news/04/cons0507/</ref>.<br />
<br />
The Council worked entirely on the basis of text developed in the JURI<br />
committee <ref>See Kauppi comment at:<br />
http://swpat.ffii.org/news/04/cons0507/, and Tauss on the Danish<br />
Parliament's level of participation at:<br />
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/tauss040602/</ref>. They simply discarded clear language such as 'programs are not<br />
inventions' of the European Patent Convention and clarifications like 'data<br />
processing is not a field of technology' and 'publication and distribution of<br />
software is never a patent infringement' of the Parliament.<br />
<br />
We believe the Directive must be discussed as a B-item in the Council, not<br />
allowed to pass as a mere formality under the A-item agenda points. The<br />
Netherlands has adopted a motion showing a lack of faith in the vote. There<br />
has been discussion all over Europe regarding the misleading nature of the<br />
Directive and the problematic conduct of the vote. A large group of Ministers<br />
joined in supporting Germany in including a critical text that was dropped at<br />
the very moment of the vote, putting those Ministers, including a substitute<br />
Danish Minister, in a difficult position. The Directive should not be handled<br />
by non-involved ministers <ref name="cpar">See for this the Council Political Agreement Reversal HowTo:<br />
http://www.vrijschrift.nl/Members/awessels/vrijschrift.nl_change-the-vote-howto.pdf</ref>.<br />
<br />
Every Parliament in the European Union has the right to debate the Directive<br />
on Computer-Implemented Inventions, and to render their opinions. Any Council<br />
member may unilaterally act to transfer an A-item decision indicating a mere<br />
formality to the list of B-item agenda points <ref name="cpar"/>. Every member of the<br />
Council has the right to change their present vote <ref name="voting"/>. Any Council member<br />
may unilaterally block any proposed shortening of the six weeks review<br />
period. All of the national members of the European Union have the freedom<br />
and the right to engage in any decision that determines their future.<br />
<br />
The proceedings surrounding the Directive on Computer-Implemented Inventions<br />
are a particularly transparent instance representing democratic deficits in<br />
the European Union. The misrepresentations of the procedure and of the status<br />
of the Council's political agreement, and the failure to apply the Protocol<br />
on the Role of National Parliaments to the new members of the Union in the<br />
deliberations, are not only signals of a failure to conduct the deliberations<br />
on the Directive in an open and accountable manner. They also represent a<br />
necessary and worthy occasion to set the right precedent for democratic<br />
process.<br />
<br />
Please require the Council and the Dutch Presidency to make clear that<br />
democracy is here to stay in Europe.<br />
<br />
Voorzitter vaste Kamercommissie Europese Zaken, we hope you will forward this<br />
letter to the COSAC members as well.<br />
<br />
On behalf of Vrijschrift/FFII,<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
Ante Wessels<br />
Arend Lammertink, Ir<br />
Harmen van der Wal, Mr.<br />
<br />
cc: Voorzitter vaste kamercommissie Europese Samenwerkingsorganisaties<br />
ANP<br />
<br />
<references/></div>158.64.72.230https://www.lilux.lu//mediawiki/?title=LettreChambreDeputes20040918&diff=239LettreChambreDeputes200409182007-11-28T10:09:32Z<p>158.64.72.230: Added missing <references/> tag</p>
<hr />
<div>Back : [[Epatent]]<br />
<br />
Lettre pour la chambre des députés, sur le modèle de la lettre COSAC des hollandais. Pour le moment, je commence par une copie et traduction au fil de l'eau.<br />
<br />
Au fur et à mesure, on changera les paragraphes...<br />
<br />
l'idée est de demande à la CHD et au gouvernement de revenir sur le vote et d'adopter une position ferme<br />
<br />
SMA : OK?<br />
<br />
<br />
SMA : on peut aussi s'inspirer du [http://www.ffii.se/kwiki/index.cgi?WPFR welcomepack FFII]<br />
-----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
A l'attention de<br />
la Chambre des Députés, Luxembourg<br />
le Gouvernement du Luxembourg<br />
<br />
<br />
De la part de : LiLux a.s.b.l.<br />
<br />
Concernant : le comportement du précédent Gouvernement luxembourgeois et en particulier du Ministre de l'Industrie M. Grethen, et le rôle des chambres nationales dans l'Union Européenne<br />
<br />
<br />
Luxembourg, le......<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
We write to inform you of our concerns regarding the way the Dutch EU<br />
Presidency is conducting itself with respect to European procedures and the<br />
Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments in the European Union. The road<br />
taken by the Dutch government negates the Protocol on the Role of National<br />
Parliaments and weakens European democracy.<br />
<br />
On May10th Minister Brinkhorst misinformed the Dutch Parliament about the<br />
Directive on Computer-Implemented Inventions, and voted for the Council's<br />
proposal on May 18th based on that misrepresentation. As a result, the Dutch<br />
Parliament has adopted a motion by MP Van Dam calling the government to<br />
withdraw its vote.<br />
<br />
The Dutch Parliament required two sessions of the Committee on Economic<br />
Affairs to come to realize the issues with the Council's text, and how<br />
detrimental it would be for SMEs and innovation. The Directive's text is<br />
overcomplicated, with double negations, duplicitous qualifications<br />
("exceptions" that are always true) and undefined exclusions. The Parliament<br />
fears "excesses" with regards to the patentability of software. Empirical<br />
evidence shows patents on software impede innovation.<br />
<br />
The Dutch Parliament concluded that since there was ongoing discussion of the<br />
Directive, the government should abstain from the Council's vote for<br />
political agreement.<br />
<br />
Minister Brinkhorst stated in a debate on the matter that for constitutional<br />
reasons the Council's vote cannot be reversed. The State Secretary also<br />
misrepresented the facts in the debate on the Van Dam motion, by calling the<br />
political agreement a "common position," thereby presenting the non-binding<br />
agreement as a binding one. Furthermore, a Brussels Permanent Representative<br />
said the vote cannot be changed <ref>Detailed analysis (Dutch): Octrooien op software werpen hun schaduw vooruit http //www.vrijschrift.nl/Members/awessels/vrijschrift.nl_misleiding-kamer.pdf</ref> . In these actions, the Dutch government has spread critical incorrect information about European Union democratic procedures three times <ref name="voting">Lopez report<br />
http://fajardolopez.com/informes/Fajardolopez.com_18th-May-EU-Council-voting.pdf. This opinion was confirmed by the Council itself: "PUBLIC<br />
INFORMATION" <public.info@consilium.eu.int></ref>.<br />
<br />
The Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments in the European Union assures<br />
Parliaments early access to legislative proposals. The Parliaments of the 10<br />
new members of the Union have not had early access, since the translations of<br />
the EU Council's political agreement have only very recently become<br />
available.<br />
<br />
Since the translations became available during the Parliaments' recess<br />
periods, it would be appropriate to add a short extension to the six weeks<br />
period provided under the Protocol, within which national Parliaments may<br />
render their conclusions regarding the Council's political agreement. No<br />
shortening of the six weeks period can be allowed.<br />
<br />
Without the six weeks review period, the Parliaments of the new members are<br />
denied the rights the Protocol provides for. There is no ground to deny the<br />
new members these rights, since, so far as we know, there is no jurisprudence<br />
on the Protocol, and no mention of this situation in the Treaty of Accession.<br />
The new members of the European Union must enjoy their full rights to address<br />
the Directive.<br />
<br />
Eastern Europe would bear the hardest burden in the outcome of this decision.<br />
SMEs in Europe can little afford to compete in a context that would include<br />
the kinds of patents this Directive will validate. The new Eastern European<br />
members of the Union are hardly in a better position than the rest of Europe.<br />
Eastern Europe will never own its software industry under the Council's text.<br />
<br />
Europe needs a sensible patent system. The Council's misleading text is no<br />
contribution to that. Critical amendments contributed by the European<br />
Parliament, including a key definition clarifying the term 'technical,' were<br />
discarded by the Council for the dissembling language that they favor <ref>http://swpat.ffii.org/news/04/cons0507/</ref>.<br />
<br />
The Council worked entirely on the basis of text developed in the JURI<br />
committee <ref>See Kauppi comment at:<br />
http://swpat.ffii.org/news/04/cons0507/, and Tauss on the Danish<br />
Parliament's level of participation at:<br />
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/tauss040602/</ref>. They simply discarded clear language such as 'programs are not<br />
inventions' of the European Patent Convention and clarifications like 'data<br />
processing is not a field of technology' and 'publication and distribution of<br />
software is never a patent infringement' of the Parliament.<br />
<br />
We believe the Directive must be discussed as a B-item in the Council, not<br />
allowed to pass as a mere formality under the A-item agenda points. The<br />
Netherlands has adopted a motion showing a lack of faith in the vote. There<br />
has been discussion all over Europe regarding the misleading nature of the<br />
Directive and the problematic conduct of the vote. A large group of Ministers<br />
joined in supporting Germany in including a critical text that was dropped at<br />
the very moment of the vote, putting those Ministers, including a substitute<br />
Danish Minister, in a difficult position. The Directive should not be handled<br />
by non-involved ministers <ref>See for this the Council Political Agreement Reversal HowTo:<br />
http://www.vrijschrift.nl/Members/awessels/vrijschrift.nl_change-the-vote-howto.pdf</ref>.<br />
<br />
Every Parliament in the European Union has the right to debate the Directive<br />
on Computer-Implemented Inventions, and to render their opinions. Any Council<br />
member may unilaterally act to transfer an A-item decision indicating a mere<br />
formality to the list of B-item agenda points [[5]]. Every member of the<br />
Council has the right to change their present vote <ref name="voting"/>. Any Council member<br />
may unilaterally block any proposed shortening of the six weeks review<br />
period. All of the national members of the European Union have the freedom<br />
and the right to engage in any decision that determines their future.<br />
<br />
The proceedings surrounding the Directive on Computer-Implemented Inventions<br />
are a particularly transparent instance representing democratic deficits in<br />
the European Union. The misrepresentations of the procedure and of the status<br />
of the Council's political agreement, and the failure to apply the Protocol<br />
on the Role of National Parliaments to the new members of the Union in the<br />
deliberations, are not only signals of a failure to conduct the deliberations<br />
on the Directive in an open and accountable manner. They also represent a<br />
necessary and worthy occasion to set the right precedent for democratic<br />
process.<br />
<br />
Please require the Council and the Dutch Presidency to make clear that<br />
democracy is here to stay in Europe.<br />
<br />
Voorzitter vaste Kamercommissie Europese Zaken, we hope you will forward this<br />
letter to the COSAC members as well.<br />
<br />
On behalf of Vrijschrift/FFII,<br />
Sincerely,<br />
<br />
Ante Wessels<br />
Arend Lammertink, Ir<br />
Harmen van der Wal, Mr.<br />
<br />
cc: Voorzitter vaste kamercommissie Europese Samenwerkingsorganisaties<br />
ANP<br />
<br />
<references/></div>158.64.72.230