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 --- .../blog/articles/en/microsoft-new-monopoly.html | 201 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 201 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-new-monopoly.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-new-monopoly.html') 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 @@ + + +Microsoft's New Monopoly +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + +

Microsoft's New Monopoly

+ +

by Richard Stallman

+ +
+

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 does not give anyone clear +permission to implement OOXML. +

+
+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+

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 ISPs to use the +scheme anyway.

+ +

Now Microsoft is planning to try something similar for Word +files.

+ +

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.

+ +

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 +the license.

+ +

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.

+ +

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.)

+ +

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 +http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html for more +explanation.”

+ +

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.

+ +

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.

+ +

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. +

+ +

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.

+ +

+[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 ffii.org for more information and +to participate in the campaign against software patents in Europe. +

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