diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'examples/blog/articles/scrap1_26.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | examples/blog/articles/scrap1_26.html | 80 |
1 files changed, 30 insertions, 50 deletions
diff --git a/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_26.html b/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_26.html index dbaa5217..df7e90ac 100644 --- a/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_26.html +++ b/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_26.html @@ -1,6 +1,5 @@ <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/loose.dtd"> -<html> -<!-- This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. +<html><!-- This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. Free Software Foundation @@ -20,8 +19,7 @@ ISBN 978-0-9831592-0-9 Cover design by Rob Myers. Cover photograph by Peter Hinely. - --> -<!-- Created on February 18, 2016 by texi2html 1.82 + --><!-- Created on February 18, 2016 by texi2html 1.82 texi2html was written by: Lionel Cons <Lionel.Cons@cern.ch> (original author) Karl Berry <karl@freefriends.org> @@ -29,17 +27,7 @@ texi2html was written by: and many others. Maintained by: Many creative people. Send bugs and suggestions to <texi2html-bug@nongnu.org> ---> -<head> -<title>Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.: 26. Microsoft's New Monopoly</title> - -<meta name="description" content="This is the second edition of Richard Stallman's collection of essays."> -<meta name="keywords" content="Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.: 26. Microsoft's New Monopoly"> -<meta name="resource-type" content="document"> -<meta name="distribution" content="global"> -<meta name="Generator" content="texi2html 1.82"> -<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> -<style type="text/css"> +--><head><title>Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.: 26. Microsoft's New Monopoly</title><meta name="description" content="This is the second edition of Richard Stallman's collection of essays."><meta name="keywords" content="Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.: 26. Microsoft's New Monopoly"><meta name="resource-type" content="document"><meta name="distribution" content="global"><meta name="Generator" content="texi2html 1.82"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><style type="text/css"> <!-- a.summary-letter {text-decoration: none} blockquote.smallquotation {font-size: smaller} @@ -55,17 +43,11 @@ span.roman {font-family:serif; font-weight:normal;} span.sansserif {font-family:sans-serif; font-weight:normal;} ul.toc {list-style: none} --> -</style> -<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../style.css"> - - -</head> - -<body lang="en" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#800080" alink="#FF0000"> +</style><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../style.css"></head><body lang="en" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#800080" alink="#FF0000"> <a name="New-Monopoly"></a> -<header><div id="logo"><img src="../gnu.svg" height="100" width="100"></div><h1>Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.</h1></header><section id="main"><a name="Microsoft_0027s-New-Monopoly"></a> -<h1 class="chapter"> 26. Microsoft’s New Monopoly </h1> +<header><div id="logo"><a href="/"><img src="../gnu.svg" height="100" width="100"></a></div><h1>Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.</h1></header><section id="main"><a name="Microsoft_0027s-New-Monopoly"></a> +<h1 class="chapter"> 26. Microsoft’s New Monopoly </h1> <a name="index-patents_002c-historical-significance-of-OOXML-patent-problem-_0028see-also-Microsoft_0029"></a> <a name="index-patents_002c-Microsoft-monopoly"></a> @@ -75,22 +57,21 @@ ul.toc {list-style: none} <p>This article was written in July 2005. Microsoft adopted a different policy in 2006, so the specific policies described below and the specific criticisms of them are only of historical significance. The -overall problem remains, however: Microsoft’s cunningly worded new +overall problem remains, however: Microsoft’s cunningly worded new policy (see <a href="http://grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Patent_rights_to_implement_the_Ecma_376_specification_have_not_been_granted">http://grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Patent_rights_to_implement_the_Ecma_376_specification_have_not_been_granted</a>) -does not give anyone clear permission to implement OOXML.<br> -</p> +does not give anyone clear permission to implement OOXML.<br></p> </blockquote> <p>European legislators who endorse software patents frequently claim -that those wouldn’t affect free software (or “open -source”). Microsoft’s lawyers are determined to prove they are +that those wouldn’t affect free software (or “open +source”). Microsoft’s lawyers are determined to prove they are mistaken. </p> <p>Leaked internal documents in 1998 said that Microsoft considered the free software GNU/Linux operating system (referred to therein as <a name="index-_0060_0060Linux_002c_0027_0027-erroneous-use-of-term-_0028see-also-open-source_0029-4"></a> -“Linux”) as the principal competitor to +“Linux”) as the principal competitor to <a name="index-Windows-2"></a> Windows, and spoke of using patents and secret file formats to hold us back. @@ -125,7 +106,7 @@ AbiWord and <a name="index-OpenOffice_002eorg-1"></a> OpenOffice.org experimented assiduously for years to figure out the format, and now those programs can read most Word -files. But Microsoft isn’t licked yet. +files. But Microsoft isn’t licked yet. </p> <p>The next version of Microsoft Word will use formats that involve a technique that Microsoft claims to hold a patent on. Microsoft offers @@ -142,11 +123,11 @@ exercise freedoms 1 and 3, but all users can exercise freedoms 0 and 2, and all users benefit from the modifications that programmers write and publish. </p> -<p>Distributing an application under Microsoft’s patent license +<p>Distributing an application under Microsoft’s patent license imposes license terms that prohibit most possible modifications of the software. Lacking freedom 3, the freedom to publish modified versions, -it would not be free software. (I think it could not be “open -source” software either, since that definition is similar; but +it would not be free software. (I think it could not be “open +source” software either, since that definition is similar; but it is not identical, and I cannot speak for the advocates of open source.) </p> @@ -156,13 +137,13 @@ statement. That requirement would not in itself prevent the program from being free: it is normal for free software to carry license notices that cannot be changed, and this statement could be included in one of them. The statement is biased and confusing, since it uses -the term “intellectual property”; fortunately, +the term “intellectual property”; fortunately, one is not required to endorse the statement as true or even meaningful, only to include it. The software developer could cancel its misleading effect -with a disclaimer like this: “The following misleading statement +with a disclaimer like this: “The following misleading statement has been imposed on us by Microsoft; please be advised that it is propaganda. See <a href="http://gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html">http://gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html</a> for more -explanation.” +explanation.” </p> <p>However, the requirement to include a fixed piece of text is actually quite cunning, because anyone who does so has explicitly @@ -172,26 +153,26 @@ license. The resulting program is clearly not free software. <a name="index-Microsoft_002c-and-GPL"></a> <a name="index-GPL_002c-and-Microsoft-license"></a> <p>Some free software licenses, such as the most popular GNU General -Public License (GNU GPL), forbid publication of a modified version if it isn’t -free software in the same way. (We call that the “liberty or -death” clause, since it ensures the program will remain free or -die.) To apply Microsoft’s license to a program under the GNU GPL -would violate the program’s license; it would be illegal. Many other -free software licenses permit nonfree modified versions. It wouldn’t +Public License (GNU GPL), forbid publication of a modified version if it isn’t +free software in the same way. (We call that the “liberty or +death” clause, since it ensures the program will remain free or +die.) To apply Microsoft’s license to a program under the GNU GPL +would violate the program’s license; it would be illegal. Many other +free software licenses permit nonfree modified versions. It wouldn’t be illegal to modify such a program and publish the modified version -under Microsoft’s patent license. But that modified version, with its -modified license, wouldn’t be free software. +under Microsoft’s patent license. But that modified version, with its +modified license, wouldn’t be free software. </p> <a name="index-Word_002c-and-treacherous-computing-_0028see-also-treacherous-computing_0029-1"></a> -<p>Microsoft’s patent covering the new Word format is a US patent. -It doesn’t restrict anyone in Europe; Europeans are free to make +<p>Microsoft’s patent covering the new Word format is a US patent. +It doesn’t restrict anyone in Europe; Europeans are free to make and use software that can read this format. Europeans that develop or use software currently enjoy an advantage over Americans: Americans can be sued for patent infringement for their software activities in the US, but the Europeans cannot be sued for their activities in Europe. Europeans can already get US software patents and sue Americans, but Americans cannot get European software -patents if Europe doesn’t allow them. +patents if Europe doesn’t allow them. </p> <a name="index-European-Parliament-1"></a> <p>All that will change if the European Parliament authorizes @@ -217,5 +198,4 @@ to participate in the campaign against software patents in Europe. <a name="index-patents_002c-Microsoft-monopoly-1"></a> <a name="index-Microsoft_002c-monopoly-1"></a> </p> -</body> -</html> +</section></body></html> |