diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_26.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_26.html | 231 |
1 files changed, 231 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_26.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_26.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6df2a76 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_26.html @@ -0,0 +1,231 @@ +<!-- This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. + +Free Software Foundation + +51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor + +Boston, MA 02110-1335 +Copyright C 2002, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc. +Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire book are permitted +worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is +preserved. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations +of this book from the original English into another language provided +the translation has been approved by the Free Software Foundation and +the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all +copies. + +ISBN 978-0-9831592-0-9 +Cover design by Rob Myers. + +Cover photograph by Peter Hinely. + --> + + + <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> + <a name="index-Microsoft_002c-monopoly"> + </a> + <blockquote class="smallquotation"> + <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 +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> + </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 + <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 + <a name="index-Windows-2"> + </a> + 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 + <a name="index-ISP-_0028Internet-Service-Provider_0029-1"> + </a> + ISPs to use the scheme anyway. + </p> + <a name="index-Word_002c-and-treacherous-computing-_0028see-also-treacherous-computing_0029"> + </a> + <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 + <a name="index-processors"> + </a> + processors such as + <a name="index-AbiWord"> + </a> + 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. + </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. You can see the +license here: + <a href="http://microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpspatentlic.mspx"> + http://microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpspatentlic.mspx + </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> + <a name="index-Microsoft_002c-license"> + </a> + <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="http://gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html"> + http://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> + <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 +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> + <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 +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> + <a name="index-European-Parliament-1"> + </a> + <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 + <a name="index-European-Patent-Office-1"> + </a> + 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> + <a name="g_t2009-Note"> + </a> + <h3 class="subheading"> + 2009 Note + </h3> + <p> + 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"> + http://ffii.org + </a> + for more information and +to participate in the campaign against software patents in Europe. + <a name="index-patents-3"> + </a> + <a name="index-patents_002c-historical-significance-of-OOXML-patent-problem-_0028see-also-Microsoft_0029-1"> + </a> + <a name="index-patents_002c-Microsoft-monopoly-1"> + </a> + <a name="index-Microsoft_002c-monopoly-1"> + </a> + </p> + |