[pp.int.general] copyright vs. "droit d'auteur"

[Richard M Stallman]

    1. It restricts the basic freedom of expression and information
    transfer - if you release a binary file without putting sources in
    escrow, you are suddenly guilty of a crime.  You should also have the
    right to sell the binary (if somebody wants to buy it).

Your point is valid, as regards the actions of individuals; but if
this requirement were limited to commercial release of software, I
see nothing wrong with that.

    2. Revealing the sources would make it easier to construct attacks
    towards the software and would eliminate any security by obscurity -
    of course, relying on security by obscurity is a bad practice, but
    it's common and the people who would take the damage from this would
    be ordinary users.

That would only occur for 5-year-old software, and it is not common
to go such a long time without upgrades.

    3. This removes 'keeping secrets' as a way for businesses to protect
    their algorithms and domain knowledge, increasing the pressure of them
    to use the faulty patent system for it instead.

5 years is a long time for a secret to last in the software field, so
I think this effect will be minimal.

    4. In general, all databases leak sooner or later - if companies
    started putting source code in escrow for all their programs, some of
    them would leak before the end of the copyright period (of course, the
    source can leak from the company too, but adding an enforced escrow
    procedure increases this chance)

Calling the escrowed source code a "database" is somewhat misleading.
This is not a database in the usual sense.  Real databases tend to
leak because people are accessing them.  The people who have access
can leak the data.

Here we are talking about source code that could be kept in various
ways.  It could be sent to a government agency, or kept by the company's
lawyers, or various other ways.

There are many government regulations that require companies to
provide data to the government which then does not publish it.
Governments seem to do a good job of protecting these secrets, better
than they do protecting citizens personal data ;-{.  So I think this
method would work ok.

Having the company's lawyers keep it would also work.
Lawyers are good at keeping secrets for their clients.

    5. This complicates software development - especially smaller
    companies would be at an disadvantage because of the added complexity
    and cost of releasing software.

I don't see much complexity involved.  The cost is minimal compared
with the cost of paying the programmers.  Also, a software company
nowadays tends to have lots of lawyers.

I think some smaller companies will choose to make source code
available to their clients under a free license.