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, 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>
+