microsoft-antitrust.html (8970B)
1 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> 2 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> 3 <!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> 4 <!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays cultural evils" --> 5 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> 6 <title>The Microsoft Antitrust Trial and Free Software 7 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> 8 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/microsoft-antitrust.translist" --> 9 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> 10 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --> 11 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--> 12 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --> 13 <div class="article reduced-width"> 14 <h2>The Microsoft Antitrust Trial and Free Software</h2> 15 <div class="thin"></div> 16 17 <p> 18 With the Microsoft antitrust trial moving toward a conclusion, the 19 question of what to demand of Microsoft if it loses is coming to the 20 fore. Ralph Nader is even [when this was written, in March 1999] 21 organizing a conference about the question (see 22 <a href="http://www.appraising-microsoft.org/">appraising-microsoft.org</a>).</p> 23 <p> 24 The obvious answers—to restrict contracts between Microsoft and 25 computer manufacturers, or to break up the company—will not make 26 a crucial difference. The former might encourage the availability of 27 computers with the GNU/Linux system preinstalled, but that is 28 happening anyway. The latter would mainly help other proprietary 29 application developers compete, which would only offer users 30 alternative ways to let go of their freedom.</p> 31 <p> 32 So I propose three remedies that would help enable 33 <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a> operating systems 34 such as GNU/Linux compete technically while respecting users' freedom. 35 These three remedies directly address the three biggest obstacles to 36 development of free operating systems, and to giving them the 37 capability of running programs written for Windows. They also 38 directly address the methods Microsoft has said (in the 39 “Halloween documents”) it will use to obstruct free 40 software. It would be most effective to use all three of these 41 remedies together.</p> 42 43 <ol> 44 <li>Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all 45 interfaces between software components, all communications 46 protocols, and all file formats. This would block one of 47 Microsoft's favorite tactics: secret and incompatible interfaces. 48 <p> 49 To make this requirement really stick, Microsoft should not be 50 allowed to use a nondisclosure agreement with some other 51 organization to excuse implementing a secret interface. The rule 52 must be: if they cannot publish the interface, they cannot release 53 an implementation of it.</p> 54 <p> 55 It would, however, be acceptable to permit Microsoft to begin 56 implementation of an interface before the publication of the 57 interface specifications, provided that they release the 58 specifications simultaneously with the implementation.</p> 59 <p> 60 Enforcement of this requirement would not be difficult. If other 61 software developers complain that the published documentation fails 62 to describe some aspect of the interface, or how to do a certain 63 job, the court would direct Microsoft to answer questions about it. 64 Any questions about interfaces (as distinguished from 65 implementation techniques) would have to be answered.</p> 66 <p> 67 Similar terms were included in an agreement between IBM and the 68 European Community in 1984, settling another antitrust dispute. 69 See <a href="http://www.cptech.org/at/ibm/ibm1984ec.html"> 70 www.cptech.org</a>.</p> 71 </li> 72 <li>Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the field 73 of software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to other 74 fields, those other fields could be included in this requirement, 75 or they could be exempt.) This would block the other tactic 76 Microsoft mentioned in the Halloween documents: using patents to 77 block development of free software. 78 <p> 79 We should give Microsoft the option of using either self-defense or 80 mutual defense. Self defense means offering to cross-license all 81 patents at no charge with anyone who wishes to do so. Mutual 82 defense means licensing all patents to a pool which anyone can 83 join—even people who have no patents of their own. The pool 84 would license all members' patents to all members.</p> 85 <p> 86 It is crucial to address the issue of patents, because it does no 87 good to have Microsoft publish an interface, if they have managed 88 to work some patented wrinkle into it (or into the functionality it 89 gives access to), such that the rest of us are not allowed to 90 implement it.</p> 91 </li> 92 <li>Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with 93 Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications 94 have been published, so that any programmer can implement software 95 to support the same hardware. 96 <p> 97 Secret hardware specifications are not in general Microsoft's 98 doing, but they are a significant obstacle for the development of 99 the free operating systems that can provide competition for 100 Windows. To remove this obstacle would be a great help. If a 101 settlement is negotiated with Microsoft, including this sort of 102 provision in it is not impossible—it would be a matter of 103 negotiation.</p> 104 </li> 105 </ol> 106 <p> 107 This April, Microsoft's Ballmer announced a possible plan to release 108 source code for some part of Windows. It is not clear whether that 109 would imply making it free software, or which part of Windows it might 110 be. But if Microsoft does make some important part of Windows free 111 software, it could solve these problems as regards that part. (It 112 could also be a contribution to the free software community, if the 113 software in question could be useful for purposes other than running 114 other proprietary Microsoft software.)</p> 115 <p> 116 However, having the use as free software of a part of Windows is less 117 crucial than being <em>permitted</em> to implement all parts. The remedies 118 proposed above are what we really need. They will clear the way for 119 us to develop a truly superior alternative to Microsoft Windows, 120 in whatever area Microsoft does not make Windows free software.</p> 121 </div> 122 123 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> 124 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> 125 <div id="footer" role="contentinfo"> 126 <div class="unprintable"> 127 128 <p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to 129 <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. 130 There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> 131 the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent 132 to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> 133 134 <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, 135 replace it with the translation of these two: 136 137 We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality 138 translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. 139 Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard 140 to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> 141 <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> 142 143 <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of 144 our web pages, see <a 145 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 146 README</a>. --> 147 Please see the <a 148 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 149 README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations 150 of this article.</p> 151 </div> 152 153 <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to 154 files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should 155 be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this 156 without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. 157 Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the 158 document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the 159 document was modified, or published. 160 161 If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. 162 Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying 163 years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable 164 year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including 165 being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). 166 167 There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers 168 Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> 169 170 <p>Copyright © 1999, 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p> 171 172 <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" 173 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative 174 Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> 175 176 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> 177 178 <p class="unprintable">Updated: 179 <!-- timestamp start --> 180 $Date: 2021/09/10 10:58:36 $ 181 <!-- timestamp end --> 182 </p> 183 </div> 184 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> 185 </body> 186 </html>