@quotation
@i{This section is a political message from the League for Programming
Freedom to the users of Window Maker.  We have included it here because the
issue of interface copyright is important to the GNU project.}
@end quotation

Apple, Lotus, and now CDC have tried to create a new form of legal
monopoly: a copyright on a user interface.

An interface is a kind of language---a set of conventions for
communication between two entities, human or machine.  Until a few years
ago, the law seemed clear: interfaces were outside the domain of
copyright, so programmers could program freely and implement whatever
interface the users demanded.  Imitating de-facto standard interfaces,
sometimes with improvements, was standard practice in the computer
field.  These improvements, if accepted by the users, caught on and
became the norm; in this way, much progress took place.

Computer users, and most software developers, were happy with this state
of affairs.  However, large companies such as Apple and Lotus would
prefer a different system---one in which they can own interfaces and
thereby rid themselves of all serious competitors.  They hope that
interface copyright will give them, in effect, monopolies on major
classes of software.

Other large companies such as IBM and Digital also favor interface
monopolies, for the same reason: if languages become property, they
expect to own many de-facto standard languages.  But Apple and Lotus are
the ones who have actually sued.  Apple's lawsuit was defeated, for
reasons only partly related to the general issue of interface copyright.

Lotus won lawsuits against two small companies, which were thus put out
of business.  Then Lotus sued Borland; Lotus won in the trial court (no
surprise, since it was the same court that had ruled for Lotus twice
before), but the court of appeals ruled in favor of Borland, which was
assisted by a friend-of-the-court brief from the League for Programming
Freedom.

Lotus appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which heard the case but
was unable to reach a decision.  This failure means that the appeals
court decision stands, in one portion of the United States, and may
influence the other appeals courts, but it does not set a nationwide
precedent.  The battle is not over, and it is not limited to the United
States.

The battle is extending into other areas of software as well.  In 1995 a
company that produced a simulator for a CDC computer was shut down by a
copyright lawsuit, in which CDC charged that the simulator infringed the
copyright on the manuals for the computer.

If the monopolists get their way, they will hobble the software field:

@itemize @bullet
@item
Gratuitous incompatibilities will burden users.  Imagine if each car
manufacturer had to design a different way to start, stop, and steer a
car.

@item
Users will be ``locked in'' to whichever interface they learn; then they
will be prisoners of one supplier, who will charge a monopolistic price.

@item
Large companies have an unfair advantage wherever lawsuits become
commonplace.  Since they can afford to sue, they can intimidate smaller
developers with threats even when they don't really have a case.

@item
Interface improvements will come slower, since incremental evolution
through creative partial imitation will no longer occur.
@end itemize

If interface monopolies are accepted, other large companies are waiting
to grab theirs:

@itemize @bullet
@item
Adobe is expected to claim a monopoly on the interfaces of various
popular application programs, if Lotus ultimately wins the case against
Borland.

@item
Open Computing magazine reported a Microsoft vice president as threatening
to sue people who imitate the interface of Windows.
@end itemize

Users invest a great deal of time and money in learning to use computer
interfaces.  Far more, in fact, than software developers invest in
developing @emph{and even implementing} the interfaces.  Whoever can own
an interface, has made its users into captives, and misappropriated
their investment.

To protect our freedom from monopolies like these, a group of
programmers and users have formed a grass-roots political organization,
the League for Programming Freedom.

The purpose of the League is to oppose monopolistic practices such as
interface copyright and software patents.  The League calls for a return
to the legal policies of the recent past, in which programmers could
program freely.  The League is not concerned with free software as an
issue, and is not affiliated with the Free Software Foundation.

The League's activities include publicizing the issues, as is being done
here, and filing friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of defendants sued
by monopolists.

The League's membership rolls include Donald Knuth, the foremost
authority on algorithms, John McCarthy, inventor of Lisp, Marvin Minsky,
founder of the MIT 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.

Activist members are especially important, but members who have no time
to give are also important.  Surveys at major ACM conferences have
indicated a vast majority of attendees agree with the League on both
issues (interface copyrights and software patents).  If just ten percent
of the programmers who agree with the League join the League, we will
probably triumph.

To join, or for more information, phone (617) 243-4091 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{lpf@@uunet.uu.net}.

In addition to joining the League, here are some suggestions from the
League for other things you can do to protect your freedom to write
programs:

@itemize @bullet
@item
Tell your friends and colleagues about this issue and how it threatens
to ruin the computer industry.

@item
Mention that you are a League member in your @file{.signature}, and
mention the League's email address for inquiries.

@item
Ask the companies you consider working for or working with to make
statements against software monopolies, and give preference to those
that do.

@item
When employers ask you to sign contracts giving them copyright on your
work, insist on a clause saying they will not claim the copyright covers
imitating the interface.

@item
When employers ask you to sign contracts giving them patent rights,
insist on clauses saying they can use these rights only defensively.
Don't rely on ``company policy,'' since that can change at any time;
don't rely on an individual executive's private word, since that person
may be replaced.  Get a commitment just as binding as the commitment
they get from you.

@item
Write to Congress to explain the importance of these issues.

@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

@c Local Variables:
@c TeX-master: "WindowMaker.texi"
@c compile-command: "makeinfo WindowMaker.texi"
@c End:
