From bcc819a481408d361ef481d9ce04a01cbba8b35f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: karl Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:49:11 +0000 Subject: . --- doc/.cvsignore | 1 + doc/ChangeLog | 6 ++ doc/freedom.texi | 268 ------------------------------------------------------- 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 268 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 doc/freedom.texi diff --git a/doc/.cvsignore b/doc/.cvsignore index f3c7a7c..4b630f8 100644 --- a/doc/.cvsignore +++ b/doc/.cvsignore @@ -1 +1,2 @@ Makefile +fontu.info* diff --git a/doc/ChangeLog b/doc/ChangeLog index 7e409bb..b119633 100644 --- a/doc/ChangeLog +++ b/doc/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@ +2004-06-24 Karl Berry + + * *.texi: remove node pointers. + * freedom.texi: old info, remove (sadly). + * fontu.texi: remove @include of freedom. + Mon Apr 8 08:32:57 1996 Kathy Hargreaves * overview.texi: added direction to CCC arrow. diff --git a/doc/freedom.texi b/doc/freedom.texi deleted file mode 100644 index c8a09b7..0000000 --- a/doc/freedom.texi +++ /dev/null @@ -1,268 +0,0 @@ -@c Copyright (C) 1992 Karl Berry. -@c For copying conditions, see the file copying.texi. - -@node Freedom, Index, Copying, Top -@appendix Regain your programming freedom - -@cindex freedom, programming -Until a few years ago, programmers in the United States could write any -program they wished. This freedom has now been taken away by two -developments: software patents, which grant the patent holder an -absolute monopoly on some programming technique, and user interface -copyright, which forbid compatible implementations of an existing user -interface. - -In Europe, especially through the GATT treaty, things are rapidly -approaching the same pass. - -@menu -* Software patents:: Algorithm monopolies. -* User interface copyright:: Forbidding upward-compatibility. -* What to do?:: What to do? -@end menu - - -@node Software patents, User interface copyright, , Freedom -@section Software patents - -@cindex patents, software -@cindex software patents - -The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted numerous software -patents on software techniques. Patents are an absolute -monopoly---independent reinvention is precluded. This monopoly lasts -for seventeen years, i.e., forever (with respect to computer science). - -One patent relevant to @TeX{} is patent 4,956,809, issued to the Mark -Williams company on September 11, 1990, applied for in 1982, which -covers (among other things) -@quotation -representing in a standardized order -consisting of a standard binary structure file stored on auxiliary -memory or transported on a communications means, said standardized -order being different from a different order used on at least one -of the different computers; - -Converting in each of the different computers binary data read from an -auxiliary data storage or communications means from the standardized -order to the natural order of the respective host computer after said -binary data are read from said auxiliary data storage or -communications means and before said binary data are used by the -respective host computer; and - -Converting in each of the different computers binary data written into -auxiliary data storage or communications means from the natural order -of the respective host computer to the standardized order prior to -said writing. -@end quotation - -@noindent @dots{} in other words, storing data on disk in -a machine-independent order, as the DVI, TFM, GF, and PK file formats -specify. Even though @TeX{} is ``prior art'' in this respect, the -patent was granted (the patent examiners not being computer scientists, -even less computer typographers). Since there is a strong presumption -in the courts of a patent's validity once it has been granted, there is -a good chance that users or implementors of @TeX{} could be successfully -sued on the issue. - -As another example, the X window system, which was intended to be able -to be used freely by everyone, is now being threatened by two patents: -4,197,590 on the use of exclusive-or to redraw cursors, held by Cadtrak, -a litigation company (this has been upheld twice in court); and -4,555,775, held by AT&T, on the use of backing store to redraw windows -quickly. - -Here is one excerpt from a recent mailing by the League for Programming -Freedom (@pxref{What to do?}) which I feel sums up the situation rather -well. It comes from an article in @cite{Think} magazine, issue #5, -1990. The comments after the quote were written by Richard Stallman. - -@quotation - ``You get value from patents in two ways,'' says Roger Smith, IBM - Assistant General Counsel, intellectual property law. ``Through fees, - and through licensing negotiations that give IBM access to other - patents. - - ``The IBM patent portfolio gains us the freedom to do what we need to - do through cross-licensing---it gives us access to the inventions of - others that are the key to rapid innovation. Access is far more - valuable to IBM than the fees it receives from its 9,000 active - patents. There's no direct calculation of this value, but it's many - times larger than the fee income, perhaps an order of magnitude - larger.'' -@end quotation - -This information should dispel the belief that the patent system will -``protect'' a small software developer from competition from IBM. IBM -can always find patents in its collection which the small developer is -infringing, and thus obtain a cross-license. - -However, the patent system does cause trouble for the smaller -companies which, like IBM, need access to patented techniques in order -to do useful work in software. Unlike IBM, the smaller companies do -not have 9,000 patents and cannot usually get a cross-license. No -matter how hard they try, they cannot have enough patents to do this. - -Only the elimination of patents from the software field can enable -most software developers to continue with their work. - -The value IBM gets from cross-licensing is a measure of the amount of -harm that the patent system would do to IBM if IBM could not avoid it. -IBM's estimate is that the trouble could easily be ten times the good -one can expect from one's own patents---even for a company with 9,000 -of them. - - -@node User interface copyright, What to do?, Software patents, Freedom -@section User interface copyright - -@cindex rms -@cindex user interface copyright -@cindex interface copyright -(This section is copied from the GCC manual, by Richard Stallman.) - -@quotation -@i{This section is a political message from the League for Programming -Freedom to the users of the GNU font utilities. It is included here as -an expression of support for the League on my part.} -@end quotation - -Apple, Lotus and Xerox are trying to create a new form of -legal monopoly: a copyright on a class of user interfaces. These -monopolies would cause serious problems for users and developers of -computer software and systems. - -Until a few years ago, the law seemed clear: no one could restrict -others from using a user interface; programmers were free to implement -any interface they chose. Imitating interfaces, sometimes with changes, -was standard practice in the computer field. The interfaces we know -evolved gradually in this way; for example, the Macintosh user interface -drew ideas from the Xerox interface, which in turn drew on work done at -Stanford and SRI. 1-2-3 imitated VisiCalc, and dBase imitated a -database program from JPL. - -Most computer companies, and nearly all computer users, were happy with -this state of affairs. The companies that are suing say it does not -offer ``enough incentive'' to develop their products, but they must have -considered it ``enough'' when they made their decision to do so. It -seems they are not satisfied with the opportunity to continue to compete -in the marketplace---not even with a head start. - -If Xerox, Lotus, and Apple are permitted to make law through -the courts, the precedent will hobble the software industry: - -@itemize @bullet -@item -Gratuitous incompatibilities will burden users. Imagine if each -car manufacturer had to arrange the pedals in a different order. - -@item -Software will become and remain more expensive. Users will be -``locked in'' to proprietary interfaces, for which there is no real -competition. - -@item -Large companies have an unfair advantage wherever lawsuits become -commonplace. Since they can easily afford to sue, they can intimidate -small companies with threats even when they don't really have a case. - -@item -User interface improvements will come slower, since incremental -evolution through creative imitation will no longer be permitted. - -@item -Even Apple, etc., will find it harder to make improvements if -they can no longer adapt the good ideas that others introduce, for -fear of weakening their own legal positions. Some users suggest that -this stagnation may already have started. - -@item -If you use GNU software, you might find it of some concern that user -interface copyright will make it hard for the Free Software Foundation -to develop programs compatible with the interfaces that you already -know. -@end itemize - - -@node What to do?, , User interface copyright, Freedom -@section What to do? - -(This section is copied from the GCC manual, by Richard Stallman.) - -To protect our freedom from lawsuits like these, a group of programmers -and users have formed a new grass-roots political organization, the -League for Programming Freedom. - -The purpose of the League is to oppose new monopolistic practices such -as user-interface copyright and software patents; it calls for a return -to the legal policies of the recent past, in which these practices were -not allowed. The League is not concerned with free software as an -issue, and not affiliated with the Free Software Foundation. - -The League's membership rolls include John McCarthy, inventor of Lisp, -Marvin Minsky, founder of the Artificial Intelligence lab, Guy L. -Steele, Jr., author of well-known books on Lisp and C, as well as -Richard Stallman, the developer of GNU CC. Please join and add your -name to the list. Membership dues in the League are $42 per year for -programmers, managers and professionals; $10.50 for students; $21 for -others. - -The League needs both activist members and members who only pay their -dues. - -To join, or for more information, phone (617) 492-0023 or write to: - -@display -League for Programming Freedom -1 Kendall Square #143 -P.O. Box 9171 -Cambridge, MA 02139 -@end display - -You can also send electronic mail to @code{league@@prep.ai.mit.edu}. - -Here are some suggestions from the League for things you can do to -protect your freedom to write programs: - -@itemize @bullet -@item -Don't buy from Xerox, Lotus or Apple. Buy from their competitors or -from the defendants they are suing. - -@item -Don't develop software to work with the systems made by these companies. - -@item -Port your existing software to competing systems, so that you encourage -users to switch. - -@item -Write letters to company presidents to let them know their conduct -is unacceptable. - -@item -Tell your friends and colleagues about this issue and how it threatens -to ruin the computer industry. - -@item -Above all, don't work for the look-and-feel plaintiffs, and don't -accept contracts from them. - -@item -Write to Congress to explain the importance of this issue. - -@display -House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property -2137 Rayburn Bldg -Washington, DC 20515 - -Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights -United States Senate -Washington, DC 20510 -@end display - -(These committees have received lots of mail already; let's give them -even more.) -@end itemize - -Express your opinion! You can make a difference. -- cgit v1.2.1