Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Interoperability and the GPL?
NZheretic asks: "Microsoft will be including Interix in it's next release of Services For Unix (SFU). How can Microsoft use GPL licensed products, such as GNU GCC, for the express purpose of 'interoperating' with Unix and Linux systems and at the same time deny everybody else the right to use GPL licensed products to interoperate with Microsoft's own products?"
The GPL does not permit combinated code
(i.e. linked-together programmes) being
under a different license than the GPL.
But because the gcc etc. in the example
are not linked to that other code, just
packaged with it, it doesn't infect the
other code as it would if e.g. it would
be linked to libreadline etc.
My Karma isn't excellent, damn it! (And
How can Microsoft use GPL licensed products, such as GNU GCC, for the express purpose of 'interoperating' with Unix and Linux systems and at the same time deny everybody else the right to use GPL licensed products to interoperate with Microsoft's own products?
Heh. I take it this question is rhetorical. Greed, arrogance, and blatant disregard of professional honor are, I think, the distinguishing marks of Microsoft. But, as other posters have pointed out, it's okay to bundle GPL with non-GPL products.
Bush Lies Watch
i may be mistaken, but i believe that using gcc's output for whatever purpose is allowed; its merely using the gpl'ed source code that makes up gcc that wouldn't be allowed. for instance, if they used gpl'ed gcc code in their visual c++ compiler, that would be a violation.
Now, if you were speaking in more metaphoric terms, i agree, its completely unethical. but its no secret that microsoft is the worlds most morally bankrupt company. i wouldn't expect any less of them.
Even so ...
There is nothing stopping Microsoft from bundling GPL licensed software on it's CDroms, as long as they provide the end customers with a copy of the particular modified source under the same GPL license.
There is nothing stopping Microsoft from linking LGPL licensed software in their own software, as long as they provide the end customers with a copy of the particular modified source under the same LGPL license. ( You might want to check out what LGPL licensed libraries come with Interix )
Aparently neither of the above restrictions prevent Microsoft from including such licensed code in their Interix and SFU 3.0 products, for which Microsoft charges a fee. This runs entirely counter to most of the arguments presented by Microsoft against GPL and LGPL licensing.
If the GPL was such an Intellectual Property Destroyer then how is Microsoft able to bundle it in with SFU 3.0 and charge for the result?
But far more important is how much Microsoft is the hypocrite on GPL License.
If Microsoft can use, distribute and sell products containing GPL and LGPL licensed code for the specific purpose of "interoperating" with Unix AND Linux, EXACTLY what gives Microsoft the moral right to prevent anybody else using GPL or LGPL source code for the purpose of Unix, BSD and Linux "interoperating" with Microsoft's own products?
Interix Software Development Kit
Development tools, including make, RCS, lex, yacc, cc, c89, nm, ar, strip
ANSI C, POSIX.1 and POSIX.2 interfaces
Color curses library
BSD-style sockets library support
X11R5 libraries and header files
gcc (GNU C) compiler
g++ (GNU C++) compiler
g77 (GNU FORTRAN77) compiler
Support for Microsoft Visual C/C++ versions 4.0 and 5.0
No GNU for me. No GNU for you.
If thats new to you well its not new to Bill.
"How can Microsoft use GPL licensed products..."
Sometimes it seems that Microsoft's main product is abuse, not software.
Some teenagers react to having an insufficient, abusive family life by testing the limits of the adults around them. Usually they adjust and stop making their anger a problem for everyone around them by the time they are 25 or so. Maybe Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer never adjusted. Maybe they are still abused teenagers at heart, who see themselves as separate, and not connected, with other people in the world.
Whatever theory explains their behavior, they are building up a truly awesomely intense dislike. They often have the complete opposite of customer loyalty, even among people with little technical knowledge.
I am anything but a microsoft fan, but I see no problem with this as long as Microsoft obeys the GPL. And it looks like they are.
As for accusing a company like Microsoft of, say, having inconsistent values, I have this to say.
1. Duh.
2. Any company of that size willl have different divisions (legal, marketing...) that do different things. And sometimes the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. In cases like that, don't expect consistency, because you won't find it.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
How do Microsoft, or Microsoft's advocates claim that Microsoft can, justify their position?
They've been consistantly hypocritical from the start.
Is microsoft making the source for the GPL'd utilities they distribute available? Or could this be Microsoft's attempt to challenge the GPL?
As for one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing, how could the management of Microsoft's "server section" not know?
Microsoft's SFU is targeted at the market currently using Unix, BSD and Linux. Practically all of the competition in that market use SAMBA to provide an interoperating SMB server( including the other Unix vendors not listed there ). How could Microsoft's Marketing and Management teams not be fully aware of what the competition is using?
Sometimes it seems that Microsoft's main product is abuse, not software.
No, Microsoft's main product isn't abuse or software. It's stock.
Microsoft is a pyramid scheme. It only looks like a mountain because it's grown so darned large.
-- Markus
The Microsoft license conditions for the documentation of CIFS is precisely ``engaging in a policy of discriminatory and selective disclosure on the basis of a "friend-enemy" scheme.''..
Actually, if you read the license for the CIFS spec, it doesn't prohibit you from distributing your work with some other GPL'd work. It does prohibit you from using their spec to create a work and then license it for distribution under an "IPR Impairing License". A quote from Microsoft:
"IPR Impairing License" shall mean the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser/Library General Public License, and any license that requires in any instance that other software distributed with software subject to such license (a) be disclosed and distributed in source code form; (b) be licensed for purposes of making derivative works; or (c) be redistributable at no charge.
What's funny is that the GPL and LGPL don't fall into any of categories (a), (b), or (c). There is nothing in the GPL that puts any sort of limitations on software distributed with the GPL'd software. It only limits linking and derivative code. So, you could take the GPL, re-arrange one sentence without changing the meaning, change the name to "Bob's Public License", and then it could not be considered an "IPR Impairing License", according to Microsoft's definition.
They are trying to spin the GPL so people think it limits what software you can distribute with GPL'd stuff. They are trying to convince commercial developers that they will have legal problems if they try to get their commercial packages distributed with Linux.
Either that, or their lawyers suck and can't read the simplest contract. After all, they say never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence. Funny how that phrase keeps coming up in every discussion I've had about Microsoft lately...
include $sig;
1;
I couldn't have worded it better. Just another example of Microsofts two-faced tactics and something to use against the MS Anti-GPL astroturf. Wasn't it just a while ago that BG was saying how the GPL was the ruiner of economies? Heh.
Well actually there is such a requirement and in the USA, its called the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Once a "consortium", corporation or even an individual gains a dominant position in the marketplace, they are required not to abuse their dominant position to control or eliminate the competition.
Microsoft has marketed DOS,Win1/2/3.11,Win9X,WinME,Win2k and XP as general purpose operating systems for the use of not only Microsoft's own applications but also third party vendor's applications.
By restricting the class or terms that other vendors can develop competing products under, Microsoft is in serious breach of the entire intent of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
As for it being immoral, just look at number of clauses in the act which include the phrase "imprisonment not exceeding three years". Those clauses are at the discretion of the court for good reason.
That's interesting. Someone in my city wrote several long papers about this. I had forgotten about them. I can't find the link immediately.
So, they are abusing the shareholders too?
What about distributing as much as possible from interix (the GPL parts) ?
;)
They can even be included in debian
(I'm probably wrong at some point, but I don't care)
#include "coucou.h"
Microsoft maintains the GPL and LGPL are "cancer"s to "intellectual property" in an attempt to dissuade you from even using (much less developing and shipping) GPL and LGPL'd software in your organization. If they took that seriously, they would never ship GPL or LGPL'd software for their customers to use. It is hypocritical of Microsoft to discourage others from doing what Microsoft is about to engage in itself.
The question here is not a legal one—Microsoft was always welcome to share and modify Free Software. The question is ethical—in regards to the GPL and LGPL, Microsoft has made statements it is apparently unwilling to live by.
Another question is how this plays out if Microsoft tries doing something in violation of the GNU GPL. It will be interesting to see how many copyright holders actually defend their license. I'm sure the FSF will (GCC is part of Interix). The FSF has demonstrated the will to get involved, they have the money to get involved, and they have the legal expertise to defend their license in court. Not all copyright holders are in such a position.
Digital Citizen
Because Microsoft's programmers are smarter than their FUDmeisters is how. Ever talk to an MS programmer? Some of them actually DO know what the hell they're doing, believe it or not.
Thanks!!! That's what I was looking for.
Here's a quote from the article by Bill Parish, Microsoft Financial Pyramid: "The fundamental problem is that Microsoft is incurring massive losses and only by accounting illusions are they able to show a profit." (The quote is from the second paragraph of the article.)
Note the second half of the question.
as for anthony_dipierro's comments.
Anthony, can you please explain exactly how the GPL license uses copyright against copyright? Actual, IMO it does. As I have pointed out, Microsoft's exclusionary practices are in breach of the intent of the US Antitrust laws and the EU Commerce Commision are concerned over Microsoft's policy of discriminatory and selective disclosure on the basis of a "friend-enemy" scheme. Microsoft need to present very valid arguments to excuse their exclusionary practices.The inclusion of GPL license code in Interix and SFU 3.0 runs counter to the rational Microsoft uses for the GPL and LGPL exclusion clauses in Microsoft's license agreements. Without such an "excuse", how can Microsoft deny everybody else the right to use GPL licensed products to interoperate with Microsoft's own products?
That's pretty funny, Dokta_C; after all, hypocrisy is a form of inconsistency -- in rendering value judgments. I am assuming that Dokta_C's epigram is "new to Slashdot" in the context of Microsoft bashing, BTW; if it is, someone should mod it up.
Well, it depends on your definition of use, doesn't it? According some people, they've never sold something one could use -- just stuff you struggle against.
Seriously, though, it's perfectly legal for them to sell you something "you can't use", especially if it's licensed under the GPL(!) they so despise. Yes, really. Read the GPL again. Now, did you see that bit about "without warranty" of "merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose"? Well, there you have it! :-)
I'm sure you meant that as a rhetorical question, but I am going to take advantage of it and elaborate on the implied logical conclusion, which is not (only) "those bastards...". The answer, I think, is that so-called intellectual property doesn't have to remain exclusive in order for it to make money for its creators and distributors. I may be going out on a precarious limb by saying this, but IMHO if Bill & Co. were to make money from Unix interoperability products built around GNU tools, they would be (albeit unwittingly) legitimizing the Free Software approach as a business practice; that is, by selling GPL'd software, Microsoft is validating Stallman's claim that you can sell free (libre) software for profit, and further shows that this is true even when it's no longer a "first sale", which implies that the value (commercial or otherwise) of ideas (so-called intellectual property) is not bound inextricably to their exclusivity.
The question that now suggests itself is whether the creators of those GNU tools are adequately compensated for their effort in such a scheme. The answer to that depends on what kinds of compensation is deemed adequate; I, for one, think that money is in order. Yep, I think Microsoft should cut the FSF a check, with no strings attached, just as many other (re)distributors have. Now, I do realize that some features of the Free Software ecosystem rely on the legal framework while others rely on the Honor System, and that the latter may be legally unenforceable, but I still think that we can and should demand of Microsoft that they make a financial contribution to support the community whose work makes it possible for them to release Yet Another Microsoft Product and enter yet another market.
Of course its immoral. But when did you ever think business had anything to do with morals? There's a reason they teach a business ethics. Because business doesn't necessarily have to be conducted ethically. And thus we have monopolies and anti-trust legislation, anti-competitive corps, and generally the most greedy people on earth running the show. Is it right or wrong? Does it matter? How much money did you make? Because that's what its all about.... in the words of a very famous CEO. *sigh*