diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-antitrust.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-antitrust.html | 177 |
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—to restrict contracts between Microsoft and +computer manufacturers, or to break up the company—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 +“Halloween documents”) 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—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—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 & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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"><webmasters@gnu.org></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"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></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 © 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> |