Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Interoperability and the GPL?

Posted by Cliff on from the corportate-dirty-pool dept.

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?"

3 of 50 comments (clear)

  1. Re:SAMBA Vs Interix - Why one and not the other? by Da+Schmiz · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

    Good point -- I wonder if this would give the SAMBA team any legal ammunition if in fact they do get sued. By demonstrating that Microsoft itself evidently does not consider the GPL to be "IPR-imparing", could they get a judge to rule the CIFS Technical Reference license null and void?
    --

    "Anything is better than IE, and you can quote me on that." -- Wil Wheaton.

  2. Microsoft should be more concerned over EUCC by NZheretic · · Score: 3, Interesting
    European Commerce Commission initiates additional proceedings against Microsoft,Brussels 30 August 2001.
    To enable alternative server software to interoperate in the prevailing Windows PC and server environment, technical interface information must be known. Without such information, alternative server software would be denied a level playing field, as it would be artificially deprived of the opportunity to compete with Microsoft's products on technical merits alone. The Commission believes that Microsoft may have withheld from vendors of alternative server software key interoperability information that they need to enable their products to 'talk' with Microsoft's dominant PC and server software products. Microsoft may have done this through a combination of refusing to reveal the relevant technical information, and by engaging in a policy of discriminatory and selective disclosure on the basis of a "friend-enemy" scheme.

    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.''..

  3. Re:Exactly because the GPL permits. by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think the question was a moral one.

    It's not immoral to use someone else's product against them. If it was, then it would be immoral for RMS to use copyright against copyright.

    It may be immoral for Microsoft to have such a draconian EULA in the first place, but the fact that they use GPLed products legally doesn't change that one way or the other.