I Suspect M$ That Has Broken The GPL

Doug writes "With all this recent heat from Microsoft about the validity of the GPL, I am drawn to wonder if they have if fact broken the GNU General Public License by stealing code from GNU software? You all know about how the thief always returns to the scene of the crime. If they hadn't done anything wrong this wouldn't be an issue. I wonder what it was that they horked..."

Comments

OK, so I used to work there...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and every few months e-mail from legal would come through reminding all employees to not even LOOK at GPL'd code.

Hard as it may be for Slashdotters to believe, there are too many people (and managers) with real, bona fide moral fiber for something like that to happen.

And even if there weren't people with morals, there are plenty of people there who are tired of Microsoft's legal troubles. The fear of most VPs is having a product recalled for legal reasons.

Doing something as stupid as using GPL code in a Microsoft product would, in Microspeak, be a serious CLM (Career Limiting Move) for a developer.

Furthermore, from a cultural standpoint, most Microsofties hold such disdain for GPL software that it would be too big a blow to their (rather large) egos to even consider using it in a Microsoft product.

Now, back to your regular April Fool's programming. Anyone listen to NPR's piece on Moon advertising?

Re:OK, so I used to work there...

[bluto29]

Whoa - OK, I agree that MS is rather careful. Serious questions for you: 1) In 1996, MS shipped the POSIX virtual environment from NutCracker, which can not, by any stretch of the imagination, be called "clean room code" WRT open source GPL products. In their zeal to avoid breaching the UNIX source copyright, the NutCracker team relied heavily upon open source for hints, pointers, behaviors, etc. Yes, they were also working to the IEEE 1003.1 spec, BUT they also wanted "UNIX" behavior. I know Pat Higby pretty well, and he is NO STRANGER to open source code. 2) MS has a huge team in India working on the services for Unix product line that runs on NT. Do you believe that this rather large team has no access to open source code? Who controls it? Is it the same manager in India who "controlled" the Excel team when a programmer put a mini version of flight simulator inside the shipping product? 3) What about the Interix product I mentioned above. The Interix team (prior to purchase by MS in June 1999) opennly stated, in writing, that the untilities shipped with Interix were based on open source. What happened to NEVER using open source? Serious comments, from persons with actual data, are appreciated. Opinions will go to /dev/null. -Bluto

You clearly do not understand the GPL

[Brian Knotts]

You don't need to agree to the GPL to *use* the software.

You only need a license to *redistribute* the software.

From COPYING:

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

Short answer: NO.

[rjh]

Guys, please. This is the kind of paranoid delusional ranting that gives us all a bad name. Let's look at it from both a MS-is-the-Antichrist and MS-is-Just-A-Very-Ruthless-Competitor angle:

Bill Gates is the Antichrist:

If Bill Gates is the Antichrist, then don't you think he's read the Evil Overlords list? And somewhere on that Evil Overlords list, shouldn't there be I will be very careful to make sure all of the IP for my company's flagship products is on extraordinarily firm legal footing? If Bill Gates is the Antichrist, then you have to admit: he's a smart, wily, ruthless Antichrist.

The Devil doesn't need to break the rules. He's already the best in the world at cheating within the rules.

MS-as-Ruthless-Competitor:

If you believe this, then you have enough intelligence and reason to see how utterly absurd the question is in the first place. Bill Gates is terrified of the GPL; the company, as evidenced by Allchin's testimony, thinks it's unamerican, dangerous, and--worst of all--"stifling to innovation". Would Bill Gates really let any employee of his put anything in Microsoft code which "stifled" his company's ability to "innovate"?

... Good grief. I can't believe such a stupid question qualified for a Slashdot story. I'll just write it down to an April Fool's thing, but really, I don't see what the joke is.

Um, hello, grammar?

[AFCArchvile]

I Suspect M$ That Has Broken The GPL

That's about as grammatically correct as "Somebody set up us the bomb."

Is this an April Fool's joke?

[Eladio McCormick]

Now *this* is content free .

You know, back in my day, when we wanted to make up a false conspiracy theory, we did it the hard and right way, and fabricated evidence. Jamie, I'm sorry, but you lose.

The ethics of Capitalism??

[einhverfr]

yes, Microsoft and many other companies are driven by Ethics. I agree with you. THe basic case for Ethics goes like so:

There is one ultimate good, which is the life-blood of any business. It is called currency. Now many of you might be thinking I mean currency of information (i.e. making sure that your information is current) but I mean the old fashioned kind of currency-- profits. The greatest good is attained by attaining the largest sum of that ultimate Good (i.e. Money).

Not that this is a bad thing in and of itself. Money allows you to pay your employees so that they have time to help you change the world.

However, there is a problem that exists when companies are willing to leverage undue influence not to extend their profits but rather to crush competitors. This is an action which appears ethical when indeed it is not. For such behavior causes customers to begin to resent the "success" of the company which is not living up to its responisibility for fair play and look for alternatives. Hence the overall profit of the company is reduced in the long run.

4/1 troll theory

[perdida]

1) If I respond to this story on topic and sincerely, am I being trolled?

2) If I troll the story, am I trolling the story and being trolled?

Too confusing.. must go smoke a joint.

Microsoft driven bt morals too.

[ethics major]

As much as people like to think that Microsoft is a behemoth driven only by profit, the simple fact is that it does have an ethical position, and is driven by morals very fundamentally.

The reason for this is that MS is nothing more than the sum of its employees, being an Intellectual Property company.

The reason we all take jobs and the reason we all do anything at all is because of ethics. Its about duty, honour and responsibility.

The ethics of the MS employees will be expressed by the company as a whole at an emergent level.

I would hazard as follows: It is perfectly ok to spread FUD, to embrace and extend one's competitors, because that is what one's competitors would do to you. However, the GPL is an Ethical step too far, even for MS. Despite the fact that the GPL is itself designed to embrace and extend, MS is not about to start using GPL'ed code, not just because it is legally shady, but because it is wrong.

I have studied many organisations, commercial and otherwise, and what I say is true, as far as I can ascertain. Ethics is the driving force of any company, and though those ethicvs may leave much to be desired, they are still present.

Stealing the GPL is too much for MS.