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
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?
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.
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;