diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-new-monopoly.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-new-monopoly.html | 201 |
1 files changed, 201 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-new-monopoly.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-new-monopoly.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..158e893 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-new-monopoly.html @@ -0,0 +1,201 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 --> +<title>Microsoft's New Monopoly +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/microsoft-new-monopoly.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>Microsoft's New Monopoly</h2> + +<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></a></p> + +<blockquote> +<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: +<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120831070708/http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Patent_rights_to_implement_the_Ecma_376_specification_have_not_been_granted"> +Microsoft's cunningly worded new policy does not give anyone clear +permission to implement OOXML.</a> +</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 +mistaken.</p> + +<p>Leaked internal documents in 1998 said that Microsoft considered +the free software GNU/Linux operating system (referred to therein as +“Linux”) as the principal competitor to Windows, and spoke +of using patents and secret file formats to hold us back.</p> + +<p>Because Microsoft has so much market power, it can often impose +new standards at will. It need only patent some minor idea, design +a file format, programming language, or communication protocol +based on it, and then pressure users to adopt it. Then we in the +free software community will be forbidden to provide software that +does what these users want; they will be locked in to Microsoft, +and we will be locked out from serving them.</p> +<p>Previously Microsoft tried to get its patented scheme for +spam blocking adopted as an Internet standard, so as to exclude free +software from handling email. The standards committee in charge +rejected the proposal, but Microsoft said it would try to convince +large <abbr title="Internet service provider">ISP</abbr>s to use the +scheme anyway.</p> + +<p>Now Microsoft is planning to try something similar for Word +files.</p> + +<p>Several years ago, Microsoft abandoned its documented format for +saving documents, and switched to a new format which was secret. +However, the developers of free software word processors such as +AbiWord and 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.</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 +a royalty-free patent license for certain limited purposes, but it is +so limited that it does not allow free software. Here is <a +href="https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/gg463420(v=msdn.10)"> +the license</a>.</p> + +<p>Free software is defined as software that respects four +fundamental freedoms: (0) freedom to run the software as you wish, +(1) freedom to study the source code and modify it to do what you +wish, (2) freedom to make and redistribute copies, and (3) freedom +to publish modified versions. Only programmers can directly +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 +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 is not identical, and I cannot speak for the advocates of open +source.)</p> + +<p>The Microsoft license also requires inclusion of a specific +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, +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 +has been imposed on us by Microsoft; please be advised that it is +propaganda. See <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html"> +http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html</a> for more +explanation.”</p> + +<p>However, the requirement to include a fixed piece of text is +actually quite cunning, because anyone who does so has explicitly +accepted and applied the restrictions of the Microsoft patent +license. The resulting program is clearly not free software.</p> + +<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 +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.</p> + +<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. +</p> + +<p>All that will change if the European Parliament authorizes +software patents. Microsoft will be one of thousands of foreign +software patent holders that will bring their patents over to +Europe to sue the software developers and computer users there. Of +the 50,000-odd putatively invalid software patents issued by the +European Patent Office, around 80 percent do not belong to Europeans. The +European Parliament should vote to keep these patents invalid, and +keep Europeans safe.</p> + +<p> +[2009 note]: the EU directive to allow software patents was +rejected, but the European Patent Office has continued issuing them +and some countries treat them as valid. +See <a href="http://ffii.org"> ffii.org</a> for more information and +to participate in the campaign against software patents in Europe. +</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 4.0. 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 © 2005, 2009, 2015, 2016, 2020 Richard Stallman</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2020/07/17 18:55:12 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |