[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy microsoft-new-monopoly.nl.html s...
From: |
GNUN |
Subject: |
www/philosophy microsoft-new-monopoly.nl.html s... |
Date: |
Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:29:50 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 14/03/29 10:29:50
Modified files:
philosophy : microsoft-new-monopoly.nl.html
software-literary-patents.pt-br.html
Added files:
philosophy/po : microsoft-new-monopoly.nl-diff.html
software-literary-patents.pt-br-diff.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/microsoft-new-monopoly.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.11&r2=1.12
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/software-literary-patents.pt-br.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.25&r2=1.26
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/microsoft-new-monopoly.nl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/software-literary-patents.pt-br-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: microsoft-new-monopoly.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/microsoft-new-monopoly.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.11
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -b -r1.11 -r1.12
--- microsoft-new-monopoly.nl.html 31 Aug 2013 20:12:14 -0000 1.11
+++ microsoft-new-monopoly.nl.html 29 Mar 2014 10:29:48 -0000 1.12
@@ -10,6 +10,13 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/microsoft-new-monopoly.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.nl.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a
href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/microsoft-new-monopoly.nl.po">
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/microsoft-new-monopoly.nl.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/microsoft-new-monopoly.html"
-->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/microsoft-new-monopoly.nl-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2014-01-28" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.nl.html" -->
<h2>Het Nieuwe Monopolie van Microsoft</h2>
<p>door <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
@@ -182,7 +189,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
Bijgewerkt:
-$Date: 2013/08/31 20:12:14 $
+$Date: 2014/03/29 10:29:48 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: software-literary-patents.pt-br.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/software-literary-patents.pt-br.html,v
retrieving revision 1.25
retrieving revision 1.26
diff -u -b -r1.25 -r1.26
--- software-literary-patents.pt-br.html 31 Aug 2013 20:12:39 -0000
1.25
+++ software-literary-patents.pt-br.html 29 Mar 2014 10:29:49 -0000
1.26
@@ -9,6 +9,13 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/software-literary-patents.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pt-br.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a
href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/software-literary-patents.pt-br.po">
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/software-literary-patents.pt-br.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/software-literary-patents.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/software-literary-patents.pt-br-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2014-01-28" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pt-br.html" -->
<h2>Patentes de Software e Patentes Literárias</h2>
<!-- This document uses XHTML 1.0 Strict, but may be served as -->
@@ -276,7 +283,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
Ãltima atualização:
-$Date: 2013/08/31 20:12:39 $
+$Date: 2014/03/29 10:29:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/microsoft-new-monopoly.nl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/microsoft-new-monopoly.nl-diff.html
diff -N po/microsoft-new-monopoly.nl-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/microsoft-new-monopoly.nl-diff.html 29 Mar 2014 10:29:49 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,247 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/microsoft-new-monopoly.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Parent-Version: 1.76
--></em></ins></span>
+<title>Microsoft's New Monopoly
+- GNU Project - Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation
(FSF)</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/microsoft-new-monopoly.translist"
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Microsoft's New Monopoly</h2>
+
+<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
Stallman</strong></a></p>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><i>This</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><blockquote>
+<p>This</em></ins></span> 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:
+<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
+permission to implement OOXML.</a>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></i></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></p>
+</blockquote></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+<p>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 <abbr title="Internet service provider">ISP</abbr>s to use
the
+scheme anyway.</p>
+
+<p>Now Microsoft is planning to try something similar for Word
+files.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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. You can see the
+license here: <a
href="http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpspatentlic.mspx">
+http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpspatentlic.mspx</a>.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.)</p>
+
+<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
+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 <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">
+http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html</a> for more
+explanation.”</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<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:
+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>
+
+<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 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>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for id="content", starts
in the include above --></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
+Please</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please</em></ins></span> send <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"><em>address@hidden</em></a>.</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</em></ins></span>
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF.
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><br />
+Please send broken</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other corrections
or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be sent</em></ins></span>
+to <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+</p>
+
+<p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. --></em></ins></span>
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright © 2005, 2009 Richard Stallman
+<br />
+This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.
+</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p>Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2014/03/29 10:29:49 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.</p></em></ins></span>
+</div>
+
+<!-- <span class="removed"><del><strong>All</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Regarding copyright, in general,
standalone</em></ins></span> pages <span class="inserted"><ins><em>(as opposed
to
+ files generated as part of manuals)</em></ins></span> on the GNU web
server should <span class="removed"><del><strong>have the section about
-->
+<!-- verbatim copying.</strong></del></span>
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em>be under CC BY-ND 3.0
US.</em></ins></span> Please do NOT <span class="inserted"><ins><em>change
or</em></ins></span> remove this
+ without talking <span class="removed"><del><strong>-->
+<!--</strong></del></span> with the webmasters <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>or licensing team</em></ins></span> first. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>-->
+<!--</strong></del></span>
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em>document. For web pages, it is ok to
list just the latest year the</em></ins></span>
+ document <span class="removed"><del><strong>-->
+<!-- and</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>was
modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years,</em></ins></span> that <span
class="removed"><del><strong>it</strong></del></span> is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>like this</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>ok too.
+ Either</em></ins></span> "2001, <span class="removed"><del><strong>2002"
not this "2001-2002."</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>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.</em></ins></span> -->
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>Copyright © 2005, 2009 Richard
Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p></p><p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2014/03/29 10:29:49 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div></em></ins></span>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/software-literary-patents.pt-br-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/software-literary-patents.pt-br-diff.html
diff -N po/software-literary-patents.pt-br-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/software-literary-patents.pt-br-diff.html 29 Mar 2014 10:29:49
-0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,322 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/software-literary-patents.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Parent-Version: 1.76
--></em></ins></span>
+<title>Software Patents and Literary Patents - GNU Project -
+Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation
(FSF)</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/software-literary-patents.translist"
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Software Patents and Literary Patents</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><!-- This document uses XHTML 1.0
Strict, but may be served as -->
+<!-- text/html. Please ensure that markup style considers -->
+<!-- appendex C of the XHTML 1.0 standard. See validator.w3.org. -->
+
+<!-- Please ensure links are consistent with Apache's MultiView. -->
+<!-- Change include statements to be consistent with the relevant -->
+<!-- language, where necessary. --></strong></del></span>
+
+<p>by <strong><a href="http://stallman.org/">Richard
Stallman</a></strong></p>
+
+<p>
+<em>The first version of this article was published in
+the <cite>Guardian</cite>, of London, on June 20, 2005. It
focused on
+the proposed European software patent directive.</em></p>
+
+<p>
+When politicians consider the question of software patents, they are
+usually voting blind; not being programmers, they don't understand
+what software patents really do. They often think patents are similar
+to copyright law (“except for some details”)—which
+is not the case. For instance, when I publicly asked Patrick
+Devedjian, then Minister for Industry in France, how France would vote
+on the issue of software patents, Devedjian responded with an
+impassioned defense of copyright law, praising Victor Hugo for his
+role in the adoption of copyright. (The misleading
+term <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html"> “intellectual
+property”</a> promotes this confusion—one of the reasons it
+should never be used.)
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Those who imagine effects like those of copyright law cannot grasp the
+disastrous effects of software patents. We can use Victor Hugo as an
+example to illustrate the difference.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+A novel and a modern complex program have certain points in common:
+each one is large, and implements many ideas in combination. So let's
+follow the analogy, and suppose that patent law had been applied to
+novels in the 1800s; suppose that states such as France had permitted
+the patenting of literary ideas. How would this have affected Victor
+Hugo's writing? How would the effects of literary patents compare
+with the effects of literary copyright?
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Consider Victor Hugo's novel <cite> Les Misérables</cite>.
Since he
+wrote it, the copyright belonged only to him. He
+did not have to fear that some stranger could sue him for copyright
+infringement and win. That was impossible, because copyright covers
+only the details of a work of authorship, not the ideas embodied in
+them, and it only restricts copying. Hugo had not copied <cite>Les
+Misérables</cite>, so he was not in danger from copyright.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Patents work differently. Patents cover ideas; each patent is a
+monopoly on practicing some idea, which is described in the patent
+itself. Here's one example of a hypothetical literary patent:
+</p>
+
+<ul>
+ <li>Claim 1: a communication process that represents in the mind of a
+ reader the concept of a character who has been in jail for a long
+ time and becomes bitter towards society and humankind.</li>
+
+ <li>Claim 2: a communication process according to claim 1, wherein
+ said character subsequently finds moral redemption through the
+ kindness of another.</li>
+
+ <li>Claim 3: a communication process according to claims 1 and 2,
+ wherein said character changes his name during the story.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+If such a patent had existed in 1862 when <cite>Les
Misérables</cite> was
+published, the novel would have conflicted with all three claims,
+since all these things happened to Jean Valjean in the novel. Victor
+Hugo could have been sued, and if sued, he would have lost. The novel
+could have been prohibited—in effect, censored—by the
+patent holder.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Now consider this hypothetical literary patent:
+</p>
+
+<ul>
+ <li>Claim 1: a communication process that represents in the mind
+ of a reader the concept of a character who has been in jail for a long
+ time and subsequently changes his name.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+<cite>Les Misérables</cite> would have been prohibited by
that patent too,
+because this description too fits the life story of Jean Valjean. And
+here's another hypothetical patent:
+</p>
+
+<ul>
+ <li>Claim 1: a communication process that represents in the mind
+of a reader the concept of a character who finds moral redemption and
+then changes his name.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+Jean Valjean would have been forbidden by this patent too.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+All three patents would cover, and prohibit, the life story of this one
+character. They overlap, but they do not precisely duplicate each other,
+so they could all be valid simultaneously; all three patent holders
+could have sued Victor Hugo. Any one of them could have prohibited
+publication of <cite>Les Misérables</cite>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+This patent also could have been violated:
+</p>
+
+<ul>
+ <li>Claim 1: a communication process that presents a character
+whose given name matches the last syllable of his family name.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+through the name “Jean Valjean”, but at least this patent
+would have been easy to avoid.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+You might think that these ideas are so simple that no patent office
+would have issued them. We programmers are often amazed by the
+simplicity of the ideas that real software patents cover—for
+instance, the European Patent Office has issued a patent on the
+progress bar, and a patent on accepting payment via credit cards.
+These patents would be laughable if they were not so dangerous.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Other aspects of <cite>Les Misérables</cite> could also have
+run afoul of
+patents. For instance, there could have been a patent on a
+fictionalized portrayal of the Battle of Waterloo, or a patent on
+using Parisian slang in fiction. Two more lawsuits. In fact, there
+is no limit to the number of different patents that might have been
+applicable for suing the author of a work such as <cite>Les
+Misérables</cite>. All the patent holders would say they
deserved a
+reward for the literary progress that their patented ideas represent,
+but these obstacles would not promote progress in literature, they
+would only obstruct it.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+However, a very broad patent could have made all these issues
+irrelevant. Imagine a patent with broad claims like these:
+</p>
+
+<ul>
+ <li>A communication process structured with narration that continues
+through many pages.</li>
+ <li>A narration structure sometimes resembling a fugue or
+improvisation.</li>
+ <li>Intrigue articulated around the confrontation of specific
+characters, each in turn setting traps for the others.</li>
+ <li>Narration that presents many layers of society.</li>
+ <li>Narration that shows the wheels of hidden conspiracy.</li>
+ </ul>
+
+ <p> Who would the patent holders have been? They could have been
+other novelists, perhaps Dumas or Balzac, who had written such
+novels—but not necessarily. It isn't required to write a
+program to patent a software idea, so if our hypothetical literary
+patents follow the real patent system, these patent holders would not
+have had to write novels, or stories, or anything—except patent
+applications. Patent parasite companies, businesses that produce
+nothing except threats and lawsuits, are booming nowadays.</p>
+
+ <p> Given these broad patents, Victor Hugo would not have reached
+the point of asking what patents might get him sued for using the
+character of Jean Valjean, because he could not even have considered
+writing a novel of this kind.</p>
+
+<p>This analogy can help nonprogrammers see what software patents
+do. Software patents cover features, such as defining abbreviations in
+a word processor, or natural order recalculation in a spreadsheet.
+Patents cover algorithms that programs need to use. Patents cover
+aspects of file formats, such as Microsoft's OOXML format. MPEG 2
+video format is covered by 39 different US patents.</p>
+
+<p>Just as one novel could run afoul of many different literary patents
at
+once, one program can be prohibited by many different patents at once.
+It is so much work to identify all the patents that appear to apply
+to a large program that only one such study has been done. A 2004 study of
+Linux, the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system, found 283
+different US software patents that seemed to cover it. That is to
+say, each of these 283 different patents forbids some computational
+process found somewhere in the thousands of pages of source code of
+Linux. At the time, Linux was around one percent of the whole
+GNU/Linux system. How many patents might there be that a distributor
+of the whole system could be sued under?</p>
+
+<p>
+The way to prevent software patents from bollixing software
+development is simple: don't authorize them. This ought to be easy,
+since most patent laws have provisions against software patents. They
+typically say that “software per se” cannot be patented.
+But patent offices around the world are trying to twist the words and
+issuing patents on the ideas implemented in programs. Unless this is
+blocked, the result will be to put all software developers in danger.
+</p>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><!-- If needed, change the copyright
block at the bottom. In general, -->
+<!-- all pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
+<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
+<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
+<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document
-->
+<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002."
--></strong></del></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
+Please</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please</em></ins></span> send <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF.
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><br />
+Please send broken</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other corrections
or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be sent</em></ins></span>
+to <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+</p>
+
+<p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. --></em></ins></span>
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>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 3.0 US. 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</em></ins></span> © 2005, 2007, 2008 Richard <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States <span
class="removed"><del><strong>License</a>.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>Updated:</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p></p><p
class="unprintable">Updated:</em></ins></span>
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2014/03/29 10:29:49 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy microsoft-new-monopoly.nl.html s...,
GNUN <=