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.
How do Microsoft, or Microsoft's advocates claim that Microsoft can, justify their position?
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;
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.
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"
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?
It is hypocritical of Microsoft to discourage others from doing what Microsoft is about to engage in itself.
That's just silly. If I own copyright on a work, the whole point is to discourage others from doing what I am engaged in. Copyright is an exclusive right in a work.
I think the problem is you're confusing morality with legality. Microsoft's license terms state that it is illegal to do certain things, not that it is immoral to do those things. Hypocrisy is when you don't follow the morals you possess. It is not simply when you try to force others to do things that you yourself do not do.
Copyright is not a law of morality. It's not immoral to copy something. Copyright is not a God-given right. Rather, the people who created our country have decided that giving artists exclusive rights to their works would encourage science and the useful arts.
When dealing with legalities, as opposed to moralities, it's perfectly legitimate to exploit every loophole in the system.