1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
|
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays cultural evils" -->
<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
<title>The Microsoft Antitrust Trial and Free Software
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/microsoft-antitrust.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
<div class="article reduced-width">
<h2>The Microsoft Antitrust Trial and Free Software</h2>
<div class="thin"></div>
<p>
With the Microsoft antitrust trial moving toward a conclusion, the
question of what to demand of Microsoft if it loses is coming to the
fore. Ralph Nader is even [when this was written, in March 1999]
organizing a conference about the question (see
<a href="http://www.appraising-microsoft.org/">appraising-microsoft.org</a>).</p>
<p>
The obvious answers—to restrict contracts between Microsoft and
computer manufacturers, or to break up the company—will not make
a crucial difference. The former might encourage the availability of
computers with the GNU/Linux system preinstalled, but that is
happening anyway. The latter would mainly help other proprietary
application developers compete, which would only offer users
alternative ways to let go of their freedom.</p>
<p>
So I propose three remedies that would help enable
<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a> operating systems
such as GNU/Linux compete technically while respecting users' freedom.
These three remedies directly address the three biggest obstacles to
development of free operating systems, and to giving them the
capability of running programs written for Windows. They also
directly address the methods Microsoft has said (in the
“Halloween documents”) it will use to obstruct free
software. It would be most effective to use all three of these
remedies together.</p>
<ol>
<li>Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all
interfaces between software components, all communications
protocols, and all file formats. This would block one of
Microsoft's favorite tactics: secret and incompatible interfaces.
<p>
To make this requirement really stick, Microsoft should not be
allowed to use a nondisclosure agreement with some other
organization to excuse implementing a secret interface. The rule
must be: if they cannot publish the interface, they cannot release
an implementation of it.</p>
<p>
It would, however, be acceptable to permit Microsoft to begin
implementation of an interface before the publication of the
interface specifications, provided that they release the
specifications simultaneously with the implementation.</p>
<p>
Enforcement of this requirement would not be difficult. If other
software developers complain that the published documentation fails
to describe some aspect of the interface, or how to do a certain
job, the court would direct Microsoft to answer questions about it.
Any questions about interfaces (as distinguished from
implementation techniques) would have to be answered.</p>
<p>
Similar terms were included in an agreement between IBM and the
European Community in 1984, settling another antitrust dispute.
See <a href="http://www.cptech.org/at/ibm/ibm1984ec.html">
www.cptech.org</a>.</p>
</li>
<li>Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the field
of software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to other
fields, those other fields could be included in this requirement,
or they could be exempt.) This would block the other tactic
Microsoft mentioned in the Halloween documents: using patents to
block development of free software.
<p>
We should give Microsoft the option of using either self-defense or
mutual defense. Self defense means offering to cross-license all
patents at no charge with anyone who wishes to do so. Mutual
defense means licensing all patents to a pool which anyone can
join—even people who have no patents of their own. The pool
would license all members' patents to all members.</p>
<p>
It is crucial to address the issue of patents, because it does no
good to have Microsoft publish an interface, if they have managed
to work some patented wrinkle into it (or into the functionality it
gives access to), such that the rest of us are not allowed to
implement it.</p>
</li>
<li>Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with
Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications
have been published, so that any programmer can implement software
to support the same hardware.
<p>
Secret hardware specifications are not in general Microsoft's
doing, but they are a significant obstacle for the development of
the free operating systems that can provide competition for
Windows. To remove this obstacle would be a great help. If a
settlement is negotiated with Microsoft, including this sort of
provision in it is not impossible—it would be a matter of
negotiation.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>
This April, Microsoft's Ballmer announced a possible plan to release
source code for some part of Windows. It is not clear whether that
would imply making it free software, or which part of Windows it might
be. But if Microsoft does make some important part of Windows free
software, it could solve these problems as regards that part. (It
could also be a contribution to the free software community, if the
software in question could be useful for purposes other than running
other proprietary Microsoft software.)</p>
<p>
However, having the use as free software of a part of Windows is less
crucial than being <em>permitted</em> to implement all parts. The remedies
proposed above are what we really need. They will clear the way for
us to develop a truly superior alternative to Microsoft Windows,
in whatever area Microsoft does not make Windows free software.</p>
</div>
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
<div class="unprintable">
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>
<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
replace it with the translation of these two:
We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
<p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of
our web pages, see <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations
of this article.</p>
</div>
<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
document was modified, or published.
If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
<p>Copyright © 1999, 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
$Date: 2021/09/10 10:58:36 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
</body>
</html>
|
