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

[Richard M Stallman]

    My suggestion is to look at this as a consumer rights issue. Maybe it could
    be argued that a consumer would have the right get the source code of
    software that was bought (whith some specification of bought...) when the
    compiright term expires.

That is how I look at it.

    Software will recieve copyright protection for a term of five years, if and
    only if, a designated government agency recieves the source code to the
    software to be published at the date of term expirery.

This might do the job, but it might also fall short, depending on
details.  If the program does not recieve copyright, can it still be
restricted by an EULA?  If so, the developers would say, "Fine, we
don't need a copyright, we have the EULA."  If, however, they cannot
use the EULA in this way, then this approach starts to be effective.

It may still have a substantial loophole for programs such as the
Flash player.  Adobe might not care if the Flash player has no
copyright; Adobe might be happy to release it as a binary which is in
the public domain immediately but whose source would never become free
software.

Even despite this loophole, the change would still do a lot of good.
But the first change addresses the issue more completely, so it is
better.