summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-antitrust.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-antitrust.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-antitrust.html177
1 files changed, 177 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-antitrust.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-antitrust.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a03d3fb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-antitrust.html
@@ -0,0 +1,177 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>The Microsoft Antitrust Trial and Free Software
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/microsoft-antitrust.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>The Microsoft Antitrust Trial and Free Software</h2>
+
+<p>
+With the Microsoft antitrust trial moving toward a conclusion, the
+question of what to demand of Microsoft if it loses is coming to the
+fore. Ralph Nader is even [when this was written, in March 1999]
+organizing a conference about the question (see
+<a href="http://www.appraising-microsoft.org/">http://www.appraising-microsoft.org/</a>).</p>
+<p>
+The obvious answers&mdash;to restrict contracts between Microsoft and
+computer manufacturers, or to break up the company&mdash;will not make
+a crucial difference. The former might encourage the availability of
+computers with the GNU/Linux system preinstalled, but that is
+happening anyway. The latter would mainly help other proprietary
+application developers compete, which would only offer users
+alternative ways to let go of their freedom.</p>
+<p>
+So I propose three remedies that would help enable
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a> operating systems
+such as GNU/Linux compete technically while respecting users' freedom.
+These three remedies directly address the three biggest obstacles to
+development of free operating systems, and to giving them the
+capability of running programs written for Windows. They also
+directly address the methods Microsoft has said (in the
+&ldquo;Halloween documents&rdquo;) it will use to obstruct free
+software. It would be most effective to use all three of these
+remedies together.</p>
+
+<ol>
+ <li>Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all
+ interfaces between software components, all communications
+ protocols, and all file formats. This would block one of
+ Microsoft's favorite tactics: secret and incompatible interfaces.
+<p>
+ To make this requirement really stick, Microsoft should not be
+ allowed to use a nondisclosure agreement with some other
+ organization to excuse implementing a secret interface. The rule
+ must be: if they cannot publish the interface, they cannot release
+ an implementation of it.</p>
+<p>
+ It would, however, be acceptable to permit Microsoft to begin
+ implementation of an interface before the publication of the
+ interface specifications, provided that they release the
+ specifications simultaneously with the implementation.</p>
+<p>
+ Enforcement of this requirement would not be difficult. If other
+ software developers complain that the published documentation fails
+ to describe some aspect of the interface, or how to do a certain
+ job, the court would direct Microsoft to answer questions about it.
+ Any questions about interfaces (as distinguished from
+ implementation techniques) would have to be answered.</p>
+<p>
+ Similar terms were included in an agreement between IBM and the
+ European Community in 1984, settling another antitrust dispute.
+ See <a href="http://www.cptech.org/at/ibm/ibm1984ec.html">
+ http://www.cptech.org/at/ibm/ibm1984ec.html</a>.</p>
+</li>
+<li>Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the field
+ of software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to other
+ fields, those other fields could be included in this requirement,
+ or they could be exempt.) This would block the other tactic
+ Microsoft mentioned in the Halloween documents: using patents to
+ block development of free software.
+<p>
+ We should give Microsoft the option of using either self-defense or
+ mutual defense. Self defense means offering to cross-license all
+ patents at no charge with anyone who wishes to do so. Mutual
+ defense means licensing all patents to a pool which anyone can
+ join&mdash;even people who have no patents of their own. The pool
+ would license all members' patents to all members.</p>
+<p>
+ It is crucial to address the issue of patents, because it does no
+ good to have Microsoft publish an interface, if they have managed
+ to work some patented wrinkle into it (or into the functionality it
+ gives access to), such that the rest of us are not allowed to
+ implement it.</p>
+</li>
+<li>Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with
+ Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications
+ have been published, so that any programmer can implement software
+ to support the same hardware.
+<p>
+ Secret hardware specifications are not in general Microsoft's
+ doing, but they are a significant obstacle for the development of
+ the free operating systems that can provide competition for
+ Windows. To remove this obstacle would be a great help. If a
+ settlement is negotiated with Microsoft, including this sort of
+ provision in it is not impossible&mdash;it would be a matter of
+ negotiation.</p>
+</li>
+</ol>
+<p>
+This April, Microsoft's Ballmer announced a possible plan to release
+source code for some part of Windows. It is not clear whether that
+would imply making it free software, or which part of Windows it might
+be. But if Microsoft does make some important part of Windows free
+software, it could solve these problems as regards that part. (It
+could also be a contribution to the free software community, if the
+software in question could be useful for purposes other than running
+other proprietary Microsoft software.)</p>
+<p>
+However, having the use as free software of a part of Windows is less
+crucial than being <em>permitted</em> to implement all parts. The remedies
+proposed above are what we really need. They will clear the way for
+us to develop a truly superior alternative to Microsoft Windows,
+in whatever area Microsoft does not make Windows free software.</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright &copy; 1999, 2007, 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2014/04/12 12:40:14 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>