www/philosophy microsoft-new-monopoly.html

[Richard M. Stallman]

CVSROOT:        /webcvs/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Richard M. Stallman <rms>       09/12/15 15:10:57

Modified files:
        philosophy     : microsoft-new-monopoly.html 

Log message:
        Add note at end.  Minor cleanups.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/microsoft-new-monopoly.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.18&r2=1.19

Patches:
Index: microsoft-new-monopoly.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/philosophy/microsoft-new-monopoly.html,v
retrieving revision 1.18
retrieving revision 1.19
diff -u -b -r1.18 -r1.19
--- microsoft-new-monopoly.html 6 Mar 2009 16:42:15 -0000       1.18
+++ microsoft-new-monopoly.html 15 Dec 2009 15:10:50 -0000      1.19
@@ -10,9 +10,9 @@
 
 <i>Note: Microsoft adopted a different policy in 2006, so the
 details discussed on this page are now only of historical significance.
-That doesn't mean the patent problem for OOXML is gone.
+That doesn't mean, however, that the patent problem for OOXML is gone.
 <a 
href="http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Patent_rights_to_implement_the_Ecma_376_specification_have_not_been_granted";>
-Microsoft's cunningly-worded new policy does not give anyone clear
+Microsoft's cunningly worded new policy does not give anyone clear
 permission to implement OOXML.</a>
 </i>
 
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@
 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
+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 <abbr title="Internet service provider">ISP</abbr>s to use the
@@ -67,7 +67,7 @@
 programmers write and publish.</p>
 
 <p>Distributing an application under Microsoft's patent license
-applies license terms that prohibit most possible modifications of the
+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 &ldquo;open
 source&rdquo; software either, since that definition is similar; but
@@ -76,11 +76,11 @@
 
 <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
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;, but one is not required
-to endorse the statement as true or even meaningful&mdash;only to
+the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;; 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: &ldquo;The following misleading statement
 has been imposed on us by Microsoft; please be advised that it is
@@ -94,12 +94,12 @@
 license. The resulting program is clearly not free software.</p>
 
 <p>Some free software licenses, such as the most popular GNU General
-Public License, forbid publication of a modified version if it isn't
+Public License (GNU GPL), forbid publication of a modified version if it isn't
 free software in the same way. (We call that the &ldquo;liberty or
 death&rdquo; 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 non-free modified versions. It wouldn't
+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>
@@ -107,22 +107,31 @@
 <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: the
+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>
+patents if Europe doesn't allow them.
+</p>
 
 <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
-European Patent Office, around 80% do not belong to Europeans. 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.</p>
 
+<p>
+[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 <a href="http://ffii.org";> ffii.org</a> for more information and
+to participate in the campaign against software patents in Europe.
+</p>
+
 </div>
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
@@ -146,7 +155,7 @@
 </p>
 
 <p>
-Copyright &copy; 2005 Richard Stallman
+Copyright &copy; 2005, 2009 Richard Stallman
 <br />
 Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
 permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is 
@@ -156,7 +165,7 @@
 <p>
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2009/03/06 16:42:15 $
+$Date: 2009/12/15 15:10:50 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>