summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_26.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_26.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_26.html231
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 231 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_26.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_26.html
deleted file mode 100644
index 6df2a76..0000000
--- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_26.html
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,231 +0,0 @@
-<!-- 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>
-