From 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:29:45 +0200 Subject: add i18n FSFS --- .../en/bill-gates-and-other-communists.html | 176 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 176 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/bill-gates-and-other-communists.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/bill-gates-and-other-communists.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/bill-gates-and-other-communists.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/bill-gates-and-other-communists.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..df18cee --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/bill-gates-and-other-communists.html @@ -0,0 +1,176 @@ + + +Bill Gates and Other Communists +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + +

Bill Gates and Other Communists

+ +

by Richard Stallman

+ +
+

Originally published in 2005 in +CNET +News.com.

+
+ +

Bill Gates discussed patents with CNET under the heading of +“intellectual +property,” a term that covers many disparate +laws. He said anyone who won't give blanket support to all these laws +is a Communist. Since I'm not a Communist but I have criticized +software patents, I got to thinking this calumny might be aimed at +me.

+ +

The term “intellectual property” is too broad to have +one opinion about. It lumps together copyright law, patent law, and +various other laws, whose requirements and effects are entirely +different. So anyone using the term “intellectual +property” is typically either confused himself, or trying to +confuse you. Why does Mr. Gates lump these issues together? Let's +study the differences he sets aside.

+ +

Software developers are not up in arms against copyright law, +because the developer of a program holds the copyright on the program; +as long as the programmers wrote the code themselves, no one else has +a copyright on their code. There is no danger that strangers could +have a valid case of copyright infringement against them.

+ +

Patents are a different story. Software patents don't cover +programs or code; they cover ideas (methods, techniques, features, +algorithms, etc.). Developing a large program entails combining +thousands of ideas, and even if a few of them are new, the rest must +necessarily have come from other sources, such as programs the +developer has seen. If each of these ideas could be patented by +someone, every large program is likely to infringe hundreds of +patents. Developing a large program means laying oneself open to +hundreds of potential lawsuits. Software patents are a menace to +software developers, and to the users. Since patent law covers +execution of the program, the users can also be sued.

+ +

A few fortunate software developers avoid most of the danger. +These are the megacorporations, which typically have thousands of +patents each, and cross-license with each other. This gives them an +advantage over smaller rivals not in a position to do likewise. +That's why it is generally the megacorporations that lobby for +software patents.

+ +

Today's Microsoft is a megacorporation with thousands of patents. +Microsoft said in court that the main competition for MS Windows is +“Linux,” meaning the free software GNU/Linux operating +system. Leaked internal documents say that Microsoft aims to use +software patents to stop the development of GNU/Linux.

+ +

When Mr. Gates started hyping his solution to the problem of spam, +I suspected this was a plan to use patents to grab control of the net. +Sure enough, in 2004 Microsoft asked the IETF to approve a mail +protocol that Microsoft was trying to patent. The patent license +policy for this protocol was written to forbid free software entirely. +No program supporting this mail protocol could be released as free +software—not under the GNU GPL, or the MPL, or the Apache +license, or any other.

+ +

The IETF rejected Microsoft's protocol, but Microsoft said it would +try to convince major ISPs to use it anyway. Thanks to Mr. Gates, we +now know that an open Internet with protocols anyone can implement is +Communism; it was set up by that famous Communist agent, the US +Department of Defense.

+ +

With Microsoft's market clout, it can impose its choice of +programming system as a de-facto standard. Microsoft has already +patented some .NET implementation methods, raising the concern that +millions of users have been shifted to a government-issued Microsoft +monopoly.

+ +

But Capitalism means monopoly; at least, Gates-style Capitalism +does. People who think that everyone should be free to program, free +to write complex software, they are Communists, says Mr. Gates. But +these Communists have infiltrated even the Microsoft boardroom. +Here's what Bill Gates told Microsoft employees in 1991:

+ +
+

“If people had understood how patents would be granted when +most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the +industry would be at a complete stand-still today...A future start-up +with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the +giants choose to impose.”

+
+ +

Mr. Gates' secret is out now—he too was a +“Communist,” he too recognized that software patents were +harmful, until Microsoft became one of these giants. Now Microsoft +aims to use software patents to impose whatever price it chooses on +you and me. And if we object, Mr. Gates will call us +“Communists.”

+ +

If you're not afraid of name calling, visit the + Foundation for a Free Information +Infrastructure, and join the fight against software patents in +Europe. We persuaded the European Parliament once—we even got +support from right-wing MEPs—and with your help we will do it +again.

+ + + + + + + -- cgit v1.2.3