Microsoft Was Distributing Ubuntu Linux

ausage writes "Groklaw has noted that for the last few days, Microsoft has been distributing Unbuntu Desktop Linux from the Windows Marketplace Website. The page is gone now, but can still — as of this morning — be seen using Google cache. 'Heaven only knows that's true, simply perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. The part Microsoft got wrong is it says the license is "Free" and "No limitations". Actually, the GPL does set some limitations, like what you are responsible to do if you redistribute.'"

Comments

confusing

[bleh-of-the-huns]

Slightly confusing.. wtf...

Maybe an employee joke?

Re:confusing

[include($dysmas)]

just got my head round this, gotta be some employee's last day joke type thing ....

Re:confusing

[Jugalator]

At least it got 11000 downloads -- not too shabby! :-)

Re:confusing

[kebes]

Let's assume for the moment it was an employee joke.

Microsoft can certainly fire the employee, but they nevertheless distributed Ubuntu, which includes alot of GPL-software. This means that they are bound by the terms of the GPL. Among other things, this means that:
1. Anyone can ask for source code from Microsoft. If Microsoft doesn't give out source, then they are violating the GPL and hence copyright law. If they do give out the source code, then they better hope it doesn't infringe on other companie's patents, or they can be sued for patent violations.
2. If memory serves, even the GPLv2 has clauses about implicitly extending any licenses to whoever you distribute the software to. (The GPLv3 makes this much more explicit.) So that would mean that all of MS's claims of patent infringement disappear, since they have now given us permission to use their patents. (Am I wrong on this point?)

If it was a employee doing this, I suppose MS can argue in court that they suffered from sabotage and can't be held responsible. Is that a valid legal defense? Or are companies always bound by the actions of their employees, with their only recourse being to fire the employee?

I can easily imagine a disgruntled employee doing this to force Microsoft into a tough position. If they are now a Linux distributor, then they are in a tough spot.

Re:confusing

[jbrader]

I don't know about "2" but as to "1" if somebody asks them for the source couldn't they just point them to the relevant Ubuntu web page?

Re:confusing

[kebes]

Ah... apparently the download link was redirecting to CNET. So I guess Microsoft can claim, as they do with the Novel coupons, that they are not the ones actually distributing the binaries hence not bound by the GPL.

Re:confusing

[_Hiro_]

You also have the debate as to whether they were a distributor or merely a Vendor. If Staples carries a boxed copy of RHEL, they're not bound by the GPL anymore than they're bound by the EULA for Windows for carrying Vista.

Since it wasn't a Microsoft-Branded product, and was in their "Marketplace" area, not their downloads, they probably haven't incurred any liabilities at all.

Re:confusing

[Smidge204]

Too bad that argument doesn't work for torrent trackers. Yay double standard!

=Smidge=

Re:confusing

[soleblaze]

MS wouldn't have to show any of their source, nor would they have to do anything about their patents that are in their software. However, I believe they would be required to give out the source or point in the direction of where the source can be found of all the programs that are shared on the ubuntu iso. GPL also has some crazy things like having to provide it for 3 years.

Re:confusing

[Erioll]

You also have the debate as to whether they were a distributor or merely a Vendor. If Staples carries a boxed copy of RHEL, they're not bound by the GPL anymore than they're bound by the EULA for Windows for carrying Vista.

Since it wasn't a Microsoft-Branded product, and was in their "Marketplace" area, not their downloads, they probably haven't incurred any liabilities at all. Beyond that, if somebody put it up without approval then they aren't liable to be bound by it. It's like if some random guy at MS signed a contract saying that his company gives up all patent rights now and in the future. It wouldn't hold water because it wasn't authorized by anyone with the authority to authorize that. This falls under the same sort of thing.

Re:confusing

[_Sprocket_]

Microsoft can certainly fire the employee, but they nevertheless distributed Ubuntu, which includes alot of GPL-software. This means that they are bound by the terms of the GPL. Among other things, this means that:

Microsoft has distributed GPL software in the past (Services for Unix). Just not Linux per se.

Re:confusing

[Anonymous Coward]

> This means that they are bound by the terms of the GPL.

Um, bullshit and pathetic. You can't be forced into distributing something against your knowledge or will.

Re:confusing

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm looking for the "itsatrap" or "aprilfools" tags...

Re:confusing

[_Hiro_]

Depending on who's arguing the point. At work we had a gentleman in maintenance sign a Yellow Pages agreement, and the Yellow Pages (One of the third-party ones who send you the order-stub that looks like a bill) published an ad for us that we didn't want. When they called about their money, we refused to pay because the person who signed wasn't authorized to do so. They said they didn't care, and sent the debt to collections, where it sits to this day.

Re:confusing

[Intron]

No wonder companies are afraid of the GPL when stuff like the above is posted.
1) You are only required to distribute source if you made modifications.
2) If MS makes patent claims against Linux users, they just lose the right to distribute Linux, they don't magically lose (or give up) rights to their own patents.

Re:confusing

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft can claim what they want, they entered into voucher distribution willfully and with full knowledge that GPL2 covered indirect distribution. They weren't distributing via their marketplace, it's a simple link to a product available elsewhere.

There's a world of difference between telling someone where to download something and selling them a voucher directly redeemable against a product and commercial support package. If I tell you there's a guy down the road selling crack then I'm not supplying it. If I sell you a voucher redeemable for crack from the dealer down the block, I am indirectly supplying it.

Disclaimer: IANACD (I Am Not A Crack Dealer).

Re:confusing

[ohearn]

No, this just means that the next time a torrent tracking site is taken to court they can point to this example with Microsoft as part of thier defense. After all precident does hold a lot of sway in court cases.

Re:confusing

[canUbeleiveIT]

The sales practices of the various Yellow Pages can be real shady. I've noticed that the more irrelevant YP becomes (I throw mine right in the recycle bin), the more they use these types of deceptive practices.

While your company was well within its legal rights to not pay, I wonder whether the fact that it is "in collections" will affect your company's D&B rating and Paydex score. Not a big problem if you don't want to borrow money or need credit from a supplier, but it could be a hassle nonetheless.

Re:confusing

[TheRaven64]

1) You are only required to distribute source if you made modifications. Not true. You are required to distribute the source to anyone you distribute copies to. You are not, under copyright law, allowed to make copies. If you do, then you can only do this by agreeing to the GPL. If you agree to the GPL then you are required to make the source code available to anyone you distribute the binaries for. You are permitted to charge a reasonable copying fee for providing the source, however.

2) If MS makes patent claims against Linux users, they just lose the right to distribute Linux, they don't magically lose (or give up) rights to their own patents. The GPL clearly states that it includes a license to any patents required to use the code. The slight catch here is that, if any MS patents were infringed, then the people Microsoft got the code from probably didn't have the right to distribute it to them (the GPL also states that you may not distribute the code at all if it would require a patent license that you can't grant).

Re:confusing

[maztuhblastah]

That actually might make this a good case for the EFF. If they sue Microsoft, Microsoft's defense will be:

We didn't distribute it -- we just pointed people to a place that was.

At which point, the we'll have legal precedent for the defense of BitTorrent trackers. If the EFF loses, we get precedent, if they win, the MS patent threat is neutralized. Sounds like a good idea to me! (But IANAL).

Re:confusing

[Drgnkght]

It wouldn't hold water because it wasn't authorized by anyone with the authority to authorize that. Not quite true. If the individual signing the contract appeared to have that authority, reguardless of their actual authority, the company could be held to the terms of the contract. However, reasonablity would apply. "Bob" in Customer Service wouldn't be able to do something like that. No one could seriously claim that they thought he had that authority. However, if an executive did that it might be binding.

This is the same reason that many companies require purchase orders be used when they setup accounts with vendors.

Re:confusing

[Intron]

You should read the thing before you post.

1) From the GPL v2 on source distribution:

  c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
        to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
        allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
        received the program in object code or executable form with such
        an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Now explain how putting up a link on a webpage counts as commercial
distribution.

2) Title of the GPL v2:

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

Note that the title is not, CONTRACT TO FORCE YOU OUT OF BUSINESS
TOMORROW, or SNEAKY AGREEMENT TO STEAL YOUR PATENTS.

Re:confusing

[644bd346996]

If the boxes containing the software go through Staples' supply chain, they are distributing it. Odds are that there is even a specific entity known as a regional "distributor". The only way to escape liability would be to claim that the box was still owned by RedHat and Staples was simply acting as a kind of shipping service. Even that would be tough, because they put a markup on the product and keep some profit from it.

You wouldn't say that ibiblio isn't bound by the GPL because they are only a mirror service, would you? All they do is pull a copy from RedHat and pass it along to others. (This is kind of interesting. We might have a double standard where the rules for the internet are more sensible than the rules for the physical world!)

Re:confusing

[Teancum]

Regarding point #1 .... read the GPL again. The source code is required if you make a modification or not. If you get it from a website, you are usually covered by providing a link to the source code, but it still must be there. If this is distributed on physical media, the source code must be included on the media. You don't have to give modifications "back to the author" (a common thought for some open source discussions) or even make it easy for the original author to find you, but if you do make modifications you must provide the modified code as well to those who receive a copy of the software from you. Think "pay it forward" and you got the idea down more or less.

As far as Point #2 is concerned, it does weaken the patent claim if you are a software developer who uses this particular version of Linux and makes modifications with this particular code base. Provided you personally downloaded the content from the Microsoft website or can show a clean chain of custody from somebody who did. A judge might throw out the counter claim if you want to plea on this point to presume that Microsoft made a mistake to even having this content on their website, but here is the main counter argument:

If Microsoft wants to sue for patent infringement, they are openly admitting that they blatantly violated the copyright of that software against the terms of the GPL. So Microsoft can't have it both ways... either they have violated copyright and face statutory damages on behalf of all of the software developers involved in any piece of the distro, or they have to drop the patent infringement claim. But only if you were a lucky S.O.B. and downloaded the software in the first place. Not after it was /.ed and you got the software elsewhere. If this instead was a 3rd party website, Microsoft could have been held blameless but it *was* a Microsoft website, complete with the Microsoft logo and copyright tag.

Mind you, this would only realy amount to a defense in this limited situation, but if you are you got yourself a "get out of jail free" card from Microsoft patents. Especially if you were a kernel contributors and got your own software from Microsoft. Somehow I have doubts that any Linux kernel developer ever got a copy this way...particularly if they did something that may be technically covered by a Microsoft patent. And besides, I have not seen Microsoft try to milk these patents and file lawsuits over them forcing Linux kernel developers to cease and desist distribution of the "violating" software.

Re:confusing

[Anonymous Coward]

Services for UNIX is derived from OpenBSD 3.0 sources.

Re:confusing

[deanlandolt]

I'm surprised by how many people here seem to be very confused as to what the GPL actually requires. So what if Microsoft distributes GPL'd software -- they can do it all they want, so long as they distribute the code to any changes THEY make to this software. If they hacked any packages in Ubuntu, then yes, they'd have to abide by the GPL -- but ONLY for the GPL'd software. This doesn't mean they'd have to turn over the source code to Windows -- ever. Nor does it mean they're only protected because they just "pointed" to the software. They could host it on their servers for eternity -- more power to them if they did -- but the GPL cannot automagically change the licenses of their other applications.

Re:confusing

[_Hiro_]

Ibiblio and Staples both serve the same purpose. They merely move the product from the producer (Red Hat) to the consumer. It's a Retail distribution, as opposed to a "Linux" distribution.

And while IANAL, I would think that someone moving product in a "Sealed" method (whether mirrored or through a retail or online retail site) is probably not liable for any EULA, GPL or otherwise. (Now, if they were installing the software, then they become an OEM which is completely different, but we won't go there, shall we?) Realistically, I would think only in distributing a modified (even if it's as little as re-branding) version of Ubuntu would the GPL have any relevance at all, since at that point you're not reselling, but actually distributing your own product.

Re:confusing

[quantaman]

Microsoft can certainly fire the employee, but they nevertheless distributed Ubuntu, which includes alot of GPL-software. This means that they are bound by the terms of the GPL. Among other things, this means that:

Microsoft has distributed GPL software in the past (Services for Unix). Just not Linux per se. That's an important detail. Any legal rights that Microsoft bestowed would be limited to the software they distributed under the GPL, if they wrote some custom app and released it under the GPL it wouldn't affect any other application, but if they did legally redistribute Ubuntu then they're now bound to the GPL for the kernel, gcc, OpenOffice, and any other app included in there.

Re:confusing

[Random832]

WTF, no-one's saying they'd have to turn over the windows source code - but, regardless of if they modified it or not, if they didn't distribute the Ubuntu source code WITH the Ubuntu binary download, they have to make the Ubuntu source code available for three years.

Re:confusing

[Teancum]

Actually, Staples would be held responsible for content they distributed, just as anybody else would be bound by the terms. Staples and other retail vendors have their own separate distribution licenses from companies like Microsoft to distrubt the software in boxes. It is for this reason that the GPL v. 2 has the explicit requirement that if you distribute GPL'd software on physical media, you must provide the source code for that software in machine readable form in the same "package". A network address doesn't work.

The MS-EULA is an "End User License Agreement", with the emphasis on End User. The restrictions are placed upon those who "break the seal" and actually are the final user of the software, and not somebody who merely passes it down the line in a distribution chain.

If Staples had been distributing Microsoft software from Cho Ming in Shanghai, even if the box looked like it came from Microsoft they would be guilty of distributing computer software without a license and be guilty of copyright infringement. The same would be true if they were distributing GPL'd software that doesn't meet all of the terms of the GPL. Being a vendor or somebody who actually put the stuff together in the first place is irrelevant.

Imagine if instead of this Linux distro, it had been a copy of Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Would Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema have a claim of copyright infringement against Microsoft for allowing people to download that movie without permission or in violation of the terms of use (assuming somebody just ripped a few DVDs to get the movie)? With permission is another story, but "with permission" for terms other than the GPL on a Linux kernel and suppliment software means you have separate permission from each and every contributor. I don't think Microsoft did this. And yes, the comparison of downloading a movie vs. downloading software is nearly identical in terms of copyright violations or non-violation. Only as long as they don't press the patent issue turning the thing into a copyright infrigement issue would it really be something for Microsoft to worry about.

The only reason why the MS patents are even an issue is that the GPL has a clause that explicitly voids the license if the software being used has patents preventing the free downline redistrubution of the software. So by offering the software for redistrubtion, Microsoft is in effect suggesting that this particular distro of Linux doesn't have any patent concerns, at least from their own portfolio or patents they have cross licensed. Either that or they have violated copyright laws by allowing people to download the sftware.

Re:confusing

[MrNiceguy_KS]

I think that the parent posters aren't speculating on Microsoft having to open up any of their code. I read them as speculating on how it affects their nebulous claims of patent infringement in Linux. Basically, one can argue that they no longer can pursue patent infringement cases regarding code that they have distributed. IANAL and have no idea of the validity of this argument, but it certainly is intriguing. Anyone qualified to comment on this?

Re:confusing

[Torvaun]

What if Bob in Customer Service was pretending to be Steve in the Boardroom? What you say seems to imply that Joe Social Engineer can potentially cause companies to enter into binding contracts against their will.

Re:confusing

[nine-times]

Even if they were distributing, wouldn't that only require that they make the source available on request? IIRC, it doesn't actually require that the source code be hosted by you at all time, but it's sufficient if you note that it's licensed under the GPL and offer to make code available upon request.

Either way, it would be relatively small potatoes unless they were making modifications and the source code were not available elsewhere. As it is, I don't see why Microsoft couldn't provide an Ubuntu mirror for binaries without providing a mirror for source. Or am I wrong?

Re:confusing

[_Sprocket_]

Services for UNIX is derived from OpenBSD 3.0 sources.

Services for Unix also includes various GNU utilities licensed under the GPL. Just for giggles:

ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/developr/interix/interix22 /GPL.TXT

Re:confusing

[Aliriza]

If Microsoft can not beat a product he enters the market takes a share and leave the market and there is a hole left there they always do this remember java.

Re:confusing

[_Hiro_]

Staples and other retail vendors have their own separate distribution licenses from companies like Microsoft to distrubt the software in boxes.

Only if they order direct from Microsoft. I worked in a local computer store, and we were able to sell box copies of any Microsoft Software we wanted to without ever signing (or seeing) an agreement from Microsoft. We just went to our distributor (who we did make sure was on their list of approved distributors) and bought a case of product, and resold said. Just like any other physical sales item. Here: https://partner.microsoft.com/US/40012335

Now, there were agreements that had to be in place for OEM copies, but like I said, that's a whole other tangent...

If Staples had been distributing Microsoft software from Cho Ming in Shanghai, even if the box looked like it came from Microsoft they would be guilty of distributing computer software without a license and be guilty of copyright infringement.

Actually, wouldn't it be possession of counterfeit property with intent to sell?

Re:confusing

[_Sprocket_]

That's an important detail. Any legal rights that Microsoft bestowed would be limited to the software they distributed under the GPL, if they wrote some custom app and released it under the GPL it wouldn't affect any other application, but if they did legally redistribute Ubuntu then they're now bound to the GPL for the kernel, gcc, OpenOffice, and any other app included in there.

Oh - I quite agree. The Devil in the details isn't GPL code itself (nothing new to Microsoft - "viral" FUD not withstanding). As you've noted, the point of interest would be the specific software packages and their GPL licensing.

Re:confusing

[baggins2001]

The box copy contains the source.

Re:confusing

[_Hiro_]

The source is only part of the theoretical problem with the GPL in this case. The others being the patent clause, and the ramifications on other copyrighted code. (i.e., if one of the GPL'd packages contained Microsoft code, and they knowingly re-distributed it, then theoretically, they couldn't 'Pull a SCO' since they distributed it under the GPL themselves.)

So realistically, you have to take it as "Does the GPL matter, or since they're redistributing a product put together by someone else, is it merely a resale?" (And as someone above put forth, are resellers bound by the GPL, or merely the people who put the entire package together?)

Re:confusing

[HiThere]

There's been at least one court case that decided that linking to a download of software counted as distributing it. Don't know the details...something about dsss.

Re:confusing

[mhall119]

They did not distribute it, their site merely promoted it. Therefore they are not bound by the GPL distribution requirements, they didn't even have to accept the GPL as a license.

Now, if your BitTorrent tracker points to a source of illegal music distribution, you can still be held liable for copyright infringement because you are promoting violation of copyright. Microsoft was in no way promoting violation of the GPL.

So basically this doesn't hurt Microsoft (other than we all get a good laugh at their expense), and it doesn't help illegal file sharing. And since Microsoft was diligent about removing the page after it was brought to their attention, they can't even be accused of actively promoting the use of Ubuntu, so it wouldn't even be patent entrapment.

So the long and short of it is this: It was funny, but doesn't change anything.

Re:confusing

[HiThere]

And if you download software based on an official MS web page...are you implying that the person who clicks on the link is supposed to be able to verify who put the link on the web page?

Re:confusing

[mhall119]

Even if they were distributing, wouldn't that only require that they make the source available on request? IIRC, it doesn't actually require that the source code be hosted by you at all time, but it's sufficient if you note that it's licensed under the GPL and offer to make code available upon request. It would be important in the sense that you cannot distribute, or even actively promote the distribution of, a product that you know violates one or more of your patents, and then in the future try to sue people for patent infringement based on their use of that product. It's the patent equivalent of entrapment. If they can be legally deemed as having distributed Linux, either for this or their Novell vouchers, they would lose any patent suit against any code that was a part of that distribution.

Re:confusing

[WrongSizeGlass]

Disclaimer: IANACD (I Am Not A Crack Dealer). DYKOWTV? (Do you know one who takes vouchers?)

Re:confusing

[HiThere]

Well, if you get a copy from someone who got a copy via MS, then you're still in the clear. And under the GPL, they're allowed to make that copy if they got it legally...and the patent rights necessary to use the code transfer with the copy.

Proving the chain of connection, however, could be quite sticky.

Caution: IANAL. This could all be quite wrong. Etc.

Re:confusing

[fermion]

If it was a employee doing this, I suppose MS can argue in court that they suffered from sabotage and can't be held responsible. Is that a valid legal defense? Or are companies always bound by the actions of their employees, with their only recourse being to fire the employee?

So, when MS comes in and does a surprise mandatory audits, and finds a single install of unlicensed MS software, or finds a single machine that does not have proper documentation for MS WIndows, the firm can say, hey, sorry, it was an employees fault, and that employee will be fired. That would certainly be a good things, as the alternative is to be at risk of owing MS 200K per incident.

Re:confusing

[644bd346996]

And while IANAL, I would think that someone moving product in a "Sealed" method (whether mirrored or through a retail or online retail site) is probably not liable for any EULA, GPL or otherwise. (Now, if they were installing the software, then they become an OEM which is completely different, but we won't go there, shall we?) Realistically, I would think only in distributing a modified (even if it's as little as re-branding) version of Ubuntu would the GPL have any relevance at all, since at that point you're not reselling, but actually distributing your own product. From the GPLv2:

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.
 
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

In other words, you're wrong. Re-distribution, even without modification, is completely subject to all of the GPL's terms. Unless, of course, that portion of the GPL is illegal. But then, so would be all "not for resale" and "not for individual sale" labels. As would all licenses granted to the "original purchaser" and all non-transferable warrantees.

Since the GPL is the only license that grants re-distribution rights for most code in a Linux distro, any distribution of that code not following the GPL's terms is copyright infringement and effectively piracy.

Re:confusing

[AvitarX]

They are not copying it though.

I believe right of first sale would apply.

If I buy a CD, make no copies of it, and then sell it to someone else, nobody has any say in what I do.

The GPL relies on the fact you need special permission, and to get that permission you must comply, but since you do not need special permission to do anything with a sealed box it does not effect you.

Only if they have a specific deal in place with whomever they buy the sealed boxes from or you need extra rights (usage or copying) does the GPL apply.

My guess is that fascilitating a sale is not going to be an enforcable clause. Not if the GPL advocates are honest in there statements about how it is a give and get.

Re:confusing

[jacksonj04]

If they can be found to have been distributing it, and therefore bound to make the source code available for 3 years, doesn't the GPL also forbid them from sueing using any of their patents regarding that code?

Re:confusing

[Enlightenment]

Well... No. Sorry.

Re:confusing

[sumdumass]

Could be that site was hacked and this happened or some employee screwed up and made something private (only to be available to internal users which wouldn't kick in the distribution stuff) available to the general public too.

either way, I'm not sure it means much.

Re:confusing

[sumdumass]

Not the GPLv2 which is currently what Ubuntu is under.

Now, the GPL cannot become inclusive of someone else's arguments ot create a third set of arguments. Meaning, I cannot include your IP without your knowledge and trick you into giving it away. The GPL, both versions specifically say that other have extended a license to you and you have to extend their license to anyone you distribute too. So unless Microsoft knows specifically of something in violation and either placed it in there or continues to distribute the parts in violation after they know about it, then don't lose anything. It would be like me sneaking into the bank and putting my name on the deed to your house so once you get it paid off, I can mortgage it. Things just don't work that way.

Even with the GPLv3, it only matters if you placed it in there or continued to distribute after knowing it was suspected of violations.

What probably happened here was Microsoft was giving it internally to employees who were going to look for infractions and someone messed up with letting the public view the page. It is hard to say because we are all guessing. We could also guess about some hacker doing it and MS taking no part of the claims from it.

Re:confusing

[sumdumass]

There has been another that rejected the idea of distributing linux and claiming ownership to code directly linked to Unix. It is still going but think SCO and how everyone attempted to say SCO distributed everything so they gave the code away even when they didn't place it in there directly.

Re:confusing

[sumdumass]

I don't think it is that cut and dry. Patent infringement requires someone placing the patented material in something. If MS distributes something, it would have to know of the specifics and of what that was infringing in order for this to be the case. Now, saying linux violates their patents isn't the same as saying Ubuntu linux violates it. Ubuntu isn't linux even though it uses linux. Now, Ubuntu has said that it doesn't violate any of Microsoft's patents, so if Microsoft were to take their word for it, then they aren't "in the know" perse as your scenario would suggest.

There isn't a default in anything that would effect each party equally. And this doesn't create a slam dunk case. Maybe MS is attempting to fool some people into making those claims and suing MS so it can open a can of whip ass or something. I don't know. But the scenario has many many more possibilities then that.

Re:confusing

[Cr0t]

I can see chairs flying... who did this?!

Re:confusing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! Sure! Microsoft can distribute Ubuntu and provide the servers free of charge for this! I'm not sure why anyone would think this a bad thing. What would really be interesting would be Microsoft Linux. I think their working on it.

Re:confusing

[Anonymous Coward]

No, if they're distributing binaries, they have to distribute source along with it (or at least offer to and fulfill the offer if anyone accepts).

Re:confusing

[carl0ski]

thats not true
1. Unless Microsoft customised and edited the code they are not required! to redistribute vanilla Ubuntu source code.

Re:confusing

[GiMP]

Maybe for RHEL, but what about for the Linux installation on that linksys router? What about on the TiVO?

Last I checked, (and maybe I haven't checked in a while) these devices do not ship with source code in the package.

Re:confusing

[mdwh2]

But surely giving someone a software package (as opposed to copying it) isn't copyright infringement?

Re:confusing

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, if your BitTorrent tracker points to a source of illegal music distribution, you can still be held liable for copyright infringement because you are promoting violation of copyright. Microsoft was in no way promoting violation of the GPL.

I really do not understand this distinction. Anybody who makes available copyrighted material on the internet has to assume that the person who downloads the stuff honors the terms of its respective license. I would feel really bad if I learned that the person who downloaded some music tracks from my collection was not licensed to do so - regardless whether we are talking about the GPL or any other license (not sure what kind of license owners of audio CDs have at all, because I never saw anything like a license on those disks - so I suppose nobody is authorized to distribute their content to the player's memory or speakers or internet or anywhere else... in other words it would be really really dumb to buy those useless things).

Re:confusing

[mhall119]

Now, saying linux violates their patents isn't the same as saying Ubuntu linux violates it. Ubuntu isn't linux even though it uses linux. Now, Ubuntu has said that it doesn't violate any of Microsoft's patents, so if Microsoft were to take their word for it, then they aren't "in the know" perse as your scenario would suggest. Microsoft has specifically said that the Linux Kernel and OpenOffice.org (and others I don't remember) both infringe on their patents, both of which are a part of the default Ubuntu installation. It's also hard to not be "in the know" when you distribute something who's source code is readily available. That said, this isn't a case of distribution, just promotion, and even then Microsoft was quick to remove it from their site.

Maybe MS is attempting to fool some people into making those claims and suing MS so it can open a can of whip ass or something. I don't know. It seems almost certain that WindowMarketplace is simply copying the contents of C.net's download.com software listing, which has an nearly identical listing for Ubuntu is a nearly identical category. Nobody was trying to do anything here, it was a humorous situation caused by automation, that's all.

Re:confusing

[Anonymous Coward]

I think their working on it. I hate you.

Re:confusing

[Anonymous Coward]

11000

For all of those that don't get it, that's only 24 downloads. Still, not too shabby. I can see Linux is growing in leaps and bounds!

Re:confusing

[Kyojin]

From the GPL V2: 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) I believe part c is what you are referring to. There is no other mention of "commercial" in the licence text, so I can only assume that if Microsoft were not charging for the distribution and had not modified the code, then they need only point to the source code on the Ubuntu website. This is another way of saying "you can be a free binary-only mirror. Unfortunately, however, CNet were the ones hosting the file, Not Microsoft. I don't believe putting a link to a page on another website where you can download it from counts as redistribution. Disclaimer: IANAL.

Re:confusing

[freakxx]

Now, if your BitTorrent tracker points to a source of illegal music distribution, you can still be held liable for copyright infringement because you are promoting violation of copyright. Microsoft was in no way promoting violation of the GPL.

Well, it doesn't seem to be consistent. If a BitTorrent tracker points to a source of illegal music, M$haft's link (to download the Ubuntu) also pointed to something(Ubuntu) what is alleged to have violated 235 patents by the same M$haft. For M$, the situation is actually worse because if some other company, e.g. IBM, claims that Ubuntu has included some of their patented ideas, softwares etc., M$ has provided links to those contents what is violating others' patents.

What it essentially means is: both, BitTorrent and M$, are directing users to something illegal, and what it further means is: both can be held responsible for patent violations, and what it further means is: it is a win-win situation for the community. If M$ wins the case on the ground that they only "directed", DIDN'T distribute, it means that BitTorrent's trackers are out of any legal threat. If M$ looses the case because their links pointed to something illegal, it would be time for IBM to nail them down and, effectively, it would be end of their FUD and linux would be out of their patent threats.

Re:confusing

[Drgnkght]

No, it is safe to say that who ever put it there was not acting under any authority from Microsoft's management. Microsoft's execs would never willing have allowed it to be placed there. You can't claim you honestly believe they would. It is far more believable that the site was hacked.

Re:confusing

[Drgnkght]

Maybe, but Joe Social Engineer has to first be employed by the said company. That's the first hurdle. If Joe doesn't actually work for VictimCo, Inc. nothing he does is going to obligate VictimCo. It is just your basic case of fraud. If he does things are going to get trickier. Say Joe works in Purchasing, he's ordered items from BigVendor several times in the past. BigVendor knows that Joe buys things for VictimCo, so if Joe places an unauthorized order for something, and BigVendor supplies it, then odds are pretty good that unless the order itself was somehow unusual, VictimCo might be liable for the bill. (Of course they're also going to fire Joe and probably press charges in an attempt to recover their expense.)

As far as I know, if Joe is impersonating Steve in the Boardroom, nothing he does is going to obligate VictimCo. He isn't actually Steve so anything he signs is just a forgery, i.e. fraud.

That's my understanding anyway. Standard disclaimers do apply of course.

Re:confusing

[adolf]

The problem with your argument is that your distinguishing point is invalid:

"Promoting copyright infringement" is not a crime.

I mean, dig this:

Hey, fuckers! I want each and every one of you to personally try the burn-and-return game, today. Just download DVD Shrink and a trial of AnyDVD, install them both, and then rent some movies from Blockbuster, dupe them, and return them. It's easy! Anyone can do it! Keep the copy forever!

So there it is - shameless promotion of copyright infringement, courtesy of me. Funny how I don't feel like a criminal for saying it.

Re:confusing

[sumdumass]

Microsoft has specifically said that the Linux Kernel and OpenOffice.org (and others I don't remember) both infringe on their patents, both of which are a part of the default Ubuntu installation. It's also hard to not be "in the know" when you distribute something who's source code is readily available. That said, this isn't a case of distribution, just promotion, and even then Microsoft was quick to remove it from their site.

With the nature of linux and free software in general, just because you get the software from one place doesn't mean it is the same in another. Now, if it doesn't have to be the same in both places and a company like Ubuntu has said, we don't violate anything, there is a likelihood that they aren't. This is just like redhat not providing the NTFS driver or some codecs for the longest of time. Sure it is there, other versions have it pre installed but it doesn't' mean you or redhat has it there.

It seems almost certain that WindowMarketplace is simply copying the contents of C.net's download.com software listing, which has an nearly identical listing for Ubuntu is a nearly identical category. Nobody was trying to do anything here, it was a humorous situation caused by automation, that's all.

Sure, I will agree to this. Of course, the "maybe" meant I was guessing and I offered more then the one explanation then you quoted. I hope you are right. because if it is something else, we might see more then we wish. But again this is just guessing like before.

Re:confusing

[chawly]

You really think they're working on it ? Who profits from their work, eh ?

Re:confusing

[mrchaotica]

...as they do with the Novel coupons...

Novell , damnit! Two 'l's!

Re:confusing

[dmsuperman]

I'm pretty sure telling someone there are no limitations on the download is promoting the violation of the GPL.

Plus, telling someone to break a law isn't illegal, courtesy the first amendment.

Re:confusing

[Anonymous Coward]

It works for trackers in Sweden.

Re:confusing

[nomadic]

Anyone can ask for source code from Microsoft. If Microsoft doesn't give out source, then they are violating the GPL and hence copyright law.

For Ubuntu, maybe. I guess someone can

They could argue they're not distributing anymore, and shouldn't be held

If it was a employee doing this, I suppose MS can argue in court that they suffered from sabotage and can't be held responsible. Is that a valid legal defense? Or are companies always bound by the actions of their employees, with their only recourse being to fire the employee?

Principals can be bound by the actions of their agents in certain situations, but not always if the agent wasn't authorized to take the action. Generally the principal should repudiate the action right away, and I don't know if a court would consider removing the link as a repudiation (but MS could certainly argue it). I think a question may come up as prejudice, i.e. was anyone prejudiced as a result of the mistake. I don't really see how anyone could win on that front against MS.

Even if you successfully sued MS for breach of contract, I can't see how the damages would be anything more than nominal.

Re:confusing

[dhasenan]

Are you referring to DSSS?

Re:confusing

[Stachybotris]

I find it both amusing and comforting that whoever in Redmond did that placed Ubuntu in the 'BIOS & System Updates Downloads' category. After all, it's certainly an improvement over Windows.

Having said that, I'm going to have to go with 'it's someone's last-day joke'. I can't even begin to fathom that MS would start offering (directly or indirectly) downloads of Ubuntu, even if they do see it as a larger threat to their market share than Mac (and who knows, maybe they do). Of course, even if the page was placed intentionally, rather than as a joke, I don't think Shuttleworth would be to happy with them for it.

Re:confusing

[mhall119]

Telling someone to break the law may not be illegal, but if someone did what you told them to do, then you can be held as an accessory to the crime. If you plan a bank robbery, but stay in the get away car instead of going into the bank, you're still part of the crime.

Re:confusing

[perp]

mhall119 says:
Therefore they are not bound by the GPL distribution requirements, they didn't even have to accept the GPL as a license.

Moot point. No one has to "accept" the GPL; there's no button to click. The way it works is that the GPL is what gives you the right to distribute at all, so if you distribute a GPLed app, you are bound by the GPL for that app.

If you don't like it, well, no one is forcing you to distribute it.

That said, I don't believe that pointing to a Sourceforge link counts as "distributing".

Re:confusing

[dmsuperman]

Planning to break the law and making a generic statement about breaking the law are different. Telling someone to "disregard copyright" would never hold up in court, otherwise nearly everyone on the internet would be going to jail.

Re:confusing

[suffe]

I'm not an American lawyer, nor even a Swedish one, but I'm going to make one assumption about both places that seem logical enough. In order to bind your company to any deal you need power of attorney. This can be limited in scope and range from such things as being allowed to exchange store kept gods for money at a fixed rate of exchange (store clerk) to binding your company to extensive deals concerning billions of dollars. Just because a guy working at MS signs a paper stating that MS agrees to give you a zillion billion dollars and sharks with lasers mounted on them doesn't make it legally binding. You (and MS) might have a case against the moron trying to fraudulently enter into the contract, but that is a different thing.

Re:confusing

[HiThere]

No. It had to do with (I think) the DVD encryption program...or decryption. (As you can see I'm not certain about the details...but it did find that linking counted as distribution, at least in that context.)

Re:confusing

[dhasenan]

Ah, DeCSS. Much different :)

Re:confusing

[mhall119]

True, but telling someone that they can get a copy of band "XYZ"'s new song "123" at the following URL is hardly a generic statement. And that's basically what a Bittorrent tracker is doing.

Re:confusing

[dmsuperman]

I'm not sure the legality of that, since they aren't really planning it, only telling others where to get it. Either way, I meant that MS's statement that they can use it without limitations was a generic statement.

Re:confusing

[_Hiro_]

Ah! But you missed the key point there:

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies...

The retail store isn't copying, merely handling the distribution for the copier. A download service isn't necessarily making copies either, as the "copy" is the packaged .iso, just distributing said .iso to the end user.

So, Red Hat/Ubuntu/SuSe is the copier and bound by the GPL. The retail establishment is merely a distributor. So long as they don't have reasonable cause to believe the software is stolen or counterfeit, they have no liability for the internal license.

Re:confusing

[Teancum]

Selling any copyrighted product without authorization from the copyright holder is still a copyright violation and can land you with a $750,000 fine and/or up to 5 years in prison.... especially if you have multiple infringements and are openly trying to sell the product. A retailer would have very little to defend themselves against this unless they can show a clear chain of custody back to the original copyright holder or some other license agreement to sell the product.

So no, you don't have to buy products direct from Microsoft in order to be legally required to have a license (or be sub-licensed through a distributor and the agreement with that distributor) to be able to sell copyrighted products like Microsoft Office.

A retailer can have as a defense the "first sale" doctrine, that allows you to re-sell a copyrighted product that you have legally purchased through normal distribution channels. However, both the RIAA, MPAA, and increasingly software companies don't recognize this "right" in their license agreements.... even if you might be able to convince a judge about the idea. It is also this doctrine that allows public libraries to distribute copyrighted material, including computer software, without having to pay additional licensing fees.

But a retailer should know who their supplier is and how reputable their products are. If they buy illegal products, the retailer may be liable as well. And as you pointed out, there may be additional laws about counterfeit products (like counterfeit Levi's) that may apply as well, increasing the liability to a business. I don't know how many small retail shops can afford a $750,000 fine and stay in business, but I don't think too many can. Larger retail chains might be able to absorb the cost, but they would certainly fire any manager who was involved in such stupid behaivior and not give any sort of positive reference afterward.

Re:confusing

[_Hiro_]

The retail establishment is not required to follow the chain of custody of a product covered by copyright all the way back to the original copyright holder. Actually, that chain may be hidden behind NDA's at points! The retailer is only required to have a reasonable expectation that their distributor is legitimate. If the distributor isn't, but there is no REASONABLE way to tell without an audit/investigation, then the retailer is most likely not liable, definitely would not be charged criminally, and might even have a fraud claim against the distributor.

You also forget, that in the case of a book or software, "Selling" is the job of the publisher. Everything else falls under distribution.

And First Sale doesn't apply to retail stores, as they are not the CONSUMER of the product. Once again, you're mistaking the distribution/retail chain with the publisher or the end consumer.

Now, I do agree with you that a retailer should do a bit of investigation just to make sure their supplier is legitimate. And yes, knowingly buying stolen or counterfeit products would open the retail establishment up to liabilities, but explicit licensing is not required by law, nor can it be required by the EULA on the software in the box. It could be required through distribution contracts between the publisher and the distribution chain, but then you're cutting many smaller stores (who either don't have the money to pay a lawyer to look over the distribution contracts, or are just paranoid over liability) and possibly some larger stores out of your retail chain, and that's just silly.

Re:confusing

[_Hiro_]

Thank you! You managed to say that much more succinctly than I did.

Re:confusing

[Anonymous Coward]

Doubtful, if it was an employee joke, that employee was not authorized to make such decisions. Lets say a government employee... the security guard at the National Archives says it's OK to take home any materials indefinitely. Does that make the government liable to comply with that security guard's statement? No. What if a disgruntled employee at the local sports arena gets on a TV interview and says admission is free for the rest of the year is the arena liable to uphold his statement? Of course not.

Am I wrong?

[moderatorrater]

Or do I see that Microsoft was merely putting a link to a place where you can download Ubuntu? Wouldn't this free Microsoft from any obligations under the GPL?

Re:Am I wrong?

[pembo13]

Who said they were violating the GPL?

Re:Am I wrong?

[Lockejaw]

Well, it wouldn't be a violation of the GPL, but it would be hard for them to make a serious lawsuit threat for using software they gave you.

Re:Am I wrong?

[moderatorrater]

Actually, the GPL does set some limitations, like what you are responsible to do if you redistribute. It's at least implying it.

Re:Am I wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

don't turn to logic! that screws up all the knee jerk reactions and fud that is sure to be spread by the anti-microsoft thugs here.

another instance where slashdot misrepresents to drum up flames. imagine that.

Re:Am I wrong?

[Lumpy]

I am.

I guarantee that there is GPL code somewhere in one or more of their products that they are not owning up to. you can't keep GPL code out easily with the sheer number of devs they have there. It is way too tempting to take a snippet to solve a problem and simply not tell anyone.

Re:Am I wrong?

[Elsan]

I don't know... I just know the parent didn't!

Re:Am I wrong?

[elyk]

yeah, but if they're claiming that the software violates their patents making it illegal, and courts have determined that linking to illegal software is illegal, then they'd be either breaking the law or giving up the ability to enforce their patents.

Re:Am I wrong?

[CrkHead]

Does it really matter?

I'm not GPL scholar, but my understanding of the license is that the only obligation I have in distributing it is to make the source code available, make available any changes that is in the distributed software, and not attempt to place any additional restrictions on it.

Should MS decide to start taking people to court as they've begun to threaten it may be an entertaining bit to bring up, but I don't see that it'll be considered too relevant.

BWHAHAH

[jrwr00]

Arg! our Linux spy have bee found! he was going to make a windows update to reinstall windows as Ubuntu, Oh well i guess this works

Re:BWHAHAH

[Anonymous Coward]

Not Ubuntu, but plain Debian... still, close to what you suggest: http://www.goodbye-microsoft.com/

Re:BWHAHAH

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the same though, I think you were looking for this.

Well, you might prefer Debian anyway, but the Ubuntu one is closer to what was suggested, all that needs to be done is make the installer silent and sneak it in as a Windows update.

Interesting to see what comes out of this

[pembo13]

I've been trying to get an Ubuntu laptop myself, maybe Microsoft can give me a laptop too.

Re:Interesting to see what comes out of this

[Rude Turnip]

There's probably a shitload of free chairs in their parking lot today, too.

Re:Interesting to see what comes out of this

[laffer1]

Broken executive chairs...

Re:Interesting to see what comes out of this

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Microsoft have any other kind anymore?

Classic

[TENxOXR]

I can't even imagine why they would do this, trying to provoke a little healthy competition are they? Internal joke that escaped? Hacked off employee that got a bad performance review? Who knows...

First Post! or maybe not

[Anonymous Coward]

I think my first post is missing because:

1) It was on a blackberry confiscated by the communist French govt.
2) I was ready to post, but the lake I was fishing on suddenly disappeared
3) I was 4th born in my family and I'm too stupid to post
4) ???
5) Profit!

MS distributing a Linux distro?

[jshriverWVU]

... thought it was a bit cold outside, did hell REALLY freeze over?

Re:MS distributing a Linux distro?

[SnowZero]

Amazing, isn't it? I guess John C Dvorak was right after all...

Re:MS distributing a Linux distro?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you in Iowa too?

Re:MS distributing a Linux distro?

[jshriverWVU]

Are you in Iowa too?

No the south, the deep south.

Re:MS distributing a Linux distro?

[MMC Monster]

Australia?

Re:MS distributing a Linux distro?

[robbiethefett]

you mean he was right that flying apple PCs would be unleashed from the gates of hell to swarm the redmond campus and shower the earth with hard-to-use keyboards? or was he right about one of the other 99999 ridiculous predictions?

Re:MS distributing a Linux distro?

[Elsan]

Where ya been? It's been frozen for a while already, at least since that Novell deal.

Re:MS distributing a Linux distro?

[MichaelSmith]

Australia?

Antarctica

Is it getting cold?

[Ramble]

Brrr! It's getting chilly in Hell nowadays.

Distributing?

[AKAImBatman]

There's a difference between "distributing" and "referencing". According to TFA, Microsoft was doing the latter by sending users to CNET for the product.

This is amusing, but it will not have any of the legal implications that many would expect from Microsoft distributing Linux.

Re:Distributing?

[norminator]

I don't think TFS was accusing MS of violating the GPL, it was just accusing them of misrepresenting the license that covers Ubuntu Linux. I don't think it was even implying that it was done intentionally, just that whoever listed Ubuntu on there was a little careless with their description.

On a side note... how did that get there to begin with? Can users of the website submit software, a la Web2.0, or did some MS dude explicitly approve it?

Re:Distributing?

[sayfawa]

But even if they were really distributing it, so what? Well, obviously that would be a huge fricking deal, but it wouldn't have any legal ramifications. MS could distribute Ubuntu if they wanted to just like I could.

Re:Distributing?

[AKAImBatman]

Well, obviously that would be a huge fricking deal, but it wouldn't have any legal ramifications.

It *would* have some rather serious implications under the terms of the GPL license. Specifically, Microsoft would be agreeing to give patent rights with the code. Which would invalidate their request for protection money.

Or so the claims from Groklaw have been. In this particular case, Groklaw pointed it out as simply amusing. The submitter jumped the gun a bit and reported that Microsoft was "Distributing" Linux. Which was bound to cause a lot of folks to think that Microsoft had just given up their patent rights. Thus my post pointing out the error. :)

Re:Distributing?

[Knuckles]

Looks to me as if they'd have a hard time suing you over patents though.

Re:Distributing?

[drinkypoo]

It *would* have some rather serious implications under the terms of the GPL license. Specifically, Microsoft would be agreeing to give patent rights with the code.

Only if they distributed it under the GPLv3, and it's not under the GPLv3 yet as the GPLv3 doesn't actually exist (still in draft, not approved or ratified or whatever, just a final draft.)

Under GPLv2 they would however be granting license to use any Microsoft code that had been copied into Linux. Hopefully there is none of that and so it would be quite irrelevant to us.

Re:Distributing?

[LordLimecat]

what legal implications are you referring to? i think people have some mistaken impression that GPL is viral and would require MS to release source to all their products... or am i reading these comments wrong? Worst case microsoft would have to supply the freely available source code to ubuntu (oh noes).

Re:Distributing?

[AKAImBatman]

I believe these are the sections they're concerning themselves with:

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

[...]

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

The GPLv3 attempts to strengthen the language to force patent rights rather than making it a simple violation.

Re:Distributing?

[rtb61]

I think a lot of the patent thing is something that M$ is scared about as it is obviously shifting to a more Linux friendly stance. Specifically should it distribute an open source product and that product infringe somebody's BS patent, then that person suing M$.

Ballmer has just managed to misrepresent the whole concept is his typical bumbling and foolish manner.

Look at IBM they take a Linux distribution neutral stance and do not produce their own, when they a certainly most capable of doing so.

As M$ seems to be shifting further into to hardware, they need a cheap embedded OS and producing there own is far more expensive than just using Linux. How ever, their past behaviour sets them up as being targets for when they try to make the shift, revenge, nowadays, is best served with hot air in a court of law, and settled of out of court for millions of dollars.

You still of course get the impression that M$ would just like to steal the code with out returning any of their work back to the community. Free hardware and pay for software was always dumb, free software and paid for appliances is the only system that will survive (with a mixture of paid for and free content on top).

Now why would M$ foolishly drop the link, in terms of marketing it would have been far better for them to leave it up and just edit the description. They should show a little maturity and demonstrate the technical skills they claim to have.

"Unbuntu"?

[sczimme]

From the summary:

"Groklaw has noted that for the last few days, Microsoft has been distributing Unbuntu Desktop Linux from the Windows Marketplace Website.

However, according to the cached page Microsoft spelled 'Ubuntu' correctly.

Re:"Unbuntu"?

[GMFTatsujin]

Microsoft *is* the Un-Ubuntu.

They've been distributing that for years. I say we call the article a 'dupe' and move on to real news.

Re:"Unbuntu"?

[_Sprocket_]

Microsoft *is* the Un-Ubuntu.

SCENE: MR BALLMER IN A WHITE LINEN SUIT ON A LARGE WICKER CHAIR.

BALLMER: Microsoft... the un-Ubuntu. Freedom - never had it, never will. Ah-ha-ha-ha. [BIG SMILE]

Re:"Unbuntu"?

[Anonymous Coward]

next you'll hear Bill talking about Microsoft's new OS: Lunix (coming out in 2009)

Re:"Unbuntu"?

[Anonymous Coward]

They both got it wrong. Everyone knows it's UBANTO.

Re:"Unbuntu"?

[drinkypoo]

BALLMER: Microsoft... the un-Ubuntu. Freedom - never had it, never will. Ah-ha-ha-ha. [BIG SMILE]

BALLMER stands up and throws the chair at the camera, then storms off set muttering "developers, developers, devel-" under his breath.

Exeunt.

Rebuntu link?

[Anonymous Coward]

I downloaded and installed Unbuntu from the Microsoft page. Does anyone know where I can find a link to Rebuntu?

Re:Rebuntu link?

[Cctoide]

Search in the general area surrounding the Onbuntu.

Re:Rebuntu link?

[halfloaded]

It will be out later this year when MS releases Service Pack 1 for Unbuntu.

Re:Rebuntu link?

[Valdrax]

I thought one of Linux's advantages was that you didn't really need to Rebuntu so often.
Also -- obligatory xkcd.

How much do you want to bet

[antifoidulus]

that a security breach was responsible for this? Someone breaks into the microsoft distribution area and silently puts Ubuntu there and leaves, knowing that Microsoft probably would not notice for days.

Re:How much do you want to bet

[rhartness]

I kind of had the same thought but I think it is more likely that a disgruntled employee did this, or one that knew his days at M$ were numbered.

Re:How much do you want to bet

[jeevesbond]

That makes a lot of sense, either that or a Microsoft grunt was playing a practical joke (whoever is responsible: they're playing with chairs IMO).

The breadcrumbs for that page backup your theory:

Downloads > Utility Downloads > System Downloads > Driver Downloads > BIOS & System Update Downloads > Ubuntu Desktop

Pretty weird place to put the download if they meant to be distributing it. :)

Re:How much do you want to bet

[Short Circuit]

Sounds like a "system update" to me...

Re:How much do you want to bet

[fermion]

It is more likely sheer ignorance. How many people know that Ubuntu is a version of Linux. Probably less than know Linux is an OS that can replace the basic functionality of MS Windows on many machines.

My suspicion is that someone submitted this to the market place. Note that the title is Ubuntu Desktop, rather than Ubuntu Linux. Also note that the text does not seem to contain 'OS' or 'Linux', and from the description appears to be an office application rather than full featured OS. I suspect that some drone put it on the page never realizing what it was. Given that MS is almost always oblivious to the market, someone probably just thought YAOO.

Re:How much do you want to bet

[treckle]

Or, more simply, some third-party vendor thought it would be funny to list it. I doubt it was a Microsoft employee.

From the Windows Marketplace FAQs:

"How does Windows Marketplace determine product and reseller selection?

Products and reseller data are provided by reputable third-party suppliers. Windows Marketplace does not favor products or reseller selection in any way. Windows Marketplace lists -- but doesn't provide preferential treatment - to Microsoft products."

Re:How much do you want to bet

[southpolesammy]

Not to mention that the "Driver Downloads" and "BIOS & System Update Downloads" categories also seem to be missing now as well....

Re:How much do you want to bet

[unlametheweak]

I think this is the most informative post so far. Also from the FAQ:

Windows Marketplace does not sell any products directly. The products available on the site are offered, sold and shipped, or made available for download, by resellers independently of Windows Marketplace.

So I would think a reseller probably put up a link for Ubuntu. IIRC, Best Buy sells Vista, on windowsmarketplace.com, so they could have offered an alternative OS for their computer systems. However, Dell seems most likely to be the culprit, since they already appear to be Ubuntu friendly.

However, doing a whois it is clear that Microsoft owns the domain, so likely had that link removed ASAP.

Re:How much do you want to bet

[unlametheweak]

As an addendum, I finally found another informative post which helps to explain the listing. It appears to have been more a problem with a miss-listing of the product on CNET:
#19610081

I could still presume that a hardware chain offered Ubuntu (on CNET), but may not have expected it to show up on windowsmarketplace.com.

System Requirements

[Odin_Tiger]

Supported OS
Windows 3.x
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows Me
Windows NT
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows MCE
Windows 2003 Server

WTF?
Also...

Number of Downloads 10,923

Like...Damn.

Re:System Requirements

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Does it use a Windows-based installer?

Re:System Requirements

[Jugalator]

You can run all those operating systems virtualized from within Ubuntu, so I guess technically they're supported. ;-)

Re:System Requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds perfectly reasonable. You can install over the top of all those operating systems just fine!

Re:System Requirements

[BrianGKUAC]

....Except Vista....*cough*

Re:System Requirements

[jimicus]

I'd be astonished if you could get Win95 to boot on anything vaguely modern - it was full of timing issues on very fast systems. Don't know if the same was true of 3.1

Re:System Requirements

[Jaegs]

Actually, it can use a Windows-based installer: Wubi

Re:System Requirements

[IWannaBeAnAC]

I don't know why my post was modded funny, it was entirely serious. Why Iwouldn't a Linux system designed for migration from a Windows platform, offer a Windows-based install?

Re:System Requirements

[pD-brane]

Yes, it could. But it is pointing simply to an Ubuntu 7.04 iso.
Besides that, the grand parent is a bit funny.

Re:System Requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

The main installer is a live CD, allowing you to put a CD in your drive and install it independent of OS. Saves them the trouble of having to mess with windows versions, and mac, and any other OS, and then distributing all those different versions. This way they only have to worry about the system architecture. Also means microsoft can't at any point lock them out on purpose or accidentally - preventing vendor lock-in or lock-out.

Of course, there *are* third party windows installers, as someone else pointed out.

Compiz Fusion

[twoboxen]

I know I was impressed by the new Compiz Fusion videos, but I never expected M$ to throw in the towell.

Vista is a disaster... Once the mindless trolls that make the corporate decisions (at every company at which I've ever worked) learn that... sigh. if only.

Screenshot

[Known Nutter]

in case the google cache goes away...

http://mrose.org/images/slashdot/microsoft_ubuntu. jpg

pretty funny.

Re:Screenshot

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice large image suitable for printing posters at http://bayimg.com/iabHhaAbk

System requirements

[Nimey]

From the cached page:

Windows 3.x
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows Me
Windows NT
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows MCE
Windows 2003 Server

*snerk* The Windows 3.1 requirement really makes this post.

SP1

[MadUndergrad]

They only took it down because they forgot to replace all instances of "Ubuntu" with "Vista SP1". It'll be back fairly shortly, I'm sure.

Lmfao

[cromar]

That is too rich!

It seems like it would be more damning if it wasn't just Windows Marketplace, though.

Performance Review

[norminator]

I can't even imagine why they would do this [...] Hacked off employee that got a bad performance review?

Well, I'm pretty sure his next review is going to be even worse.

Re:Performance Review

[Austerity Empowers]

Oh I'm pretty sure he's had his last.

Re:Performance Review

[rapidweather]

Oh, no, they were doing it as a "test". They know there is an interest out there in linux, and wanted to prove a point or something. Looks like someone at Microsoft is trying to come up with something new, probably because of too many meetings, where one is supposed to offer up new ideas. After all, Vista is "married" to the hardware, and there are all kinds of decent linux distros out there that run on almost anything. Right now, I am running my knoppix remaster (screenshots below) on a usb drive, here is my blog post with details, downloads on exactly how that is done.
So many of the computers in existence today are not able to boot directly from a usb drive, so I came up with a method to briefly use the installed hard drive, Windows or MSDOS, to get the OS up and running from the usb drive in a few seconds. I use loadlin and a menu.
I can see where Microsoft would want to test the waters, Ubuntu can be run as a livecd linux, so they point everyone in that direction, as a test, of course.
My problem with Ubuntu is that they use a newer, current kernel, which runs slowly, if at all, on many of the older computers still around today.
I have experienced boot times of 10 minutes to get to the desktop.
In my remaster, I use the 2.4 kernel from Knoppix 3.4, which runs very well on 128MB RAM, and 400 MHZ processor. A lot of Windows 98 boxes were made, quite a few running Pentium II's, at 266 MHZ, and capable of using several 128 MB memory sticks. Those machines come with usb ports, just what I need to plug in my usb drive, and get linux up and running, with the latest web browsers, firewall, GIMP, emelFM, and other applications made just for my remaster, details here. Security? Just power down, unplug the usb drive, and put it in your pocket.

Psychological tactic?

[TheDarkener]

Could this possibly be something simply to stir up the community by causing confusion?

That being said, is there anything illegal about MS re-distributing Ubuntu? Did anyone here actually download it? Can we checksum everything to make sure they didn't trojan any packages?

Re:Psychological tactic?

[Anonymous Coward]

doubtful.
If anything it will stir up amusement rather then confusion.

Theres nothing illegal about them redistributing it so long as its unaltered.

Re:Psychological tactic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Got a pretty thick tinfoil hat today? Microsoft isn't stupid enough to publicly distribute third-party software intentionally infected with a trojan.

Like others have pointed out, it's probably a practical joke or something by someone and not authorized by any higher-ups.

Re:Psychological tactic?

[TheDarkener]

But are they smart enough to simultaneously talk patent violations and distribute the Linux code to cause the community to feel uneasy? I mean, they ARE one of the richest companies in the world, right? You think they don't have major marketing tactics that involve psychology? Just because you don't think about it every day doesn't mean they don't have processes in place.

WTF, didn't SCO do this too though?

Re:Psychological tactic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they doing something really big and bad and just letting the attention go around this topic for a while.

What could be so dangerous as to merit them allowing every kid on the road making a joke out of them?

If it is a planned psychological tactic, you can expect real fireworks from them inside a week.

Could they be planning to tarnish the image of the FOSS movement by saying that rogue hackers from the Linux community have done this?

As it is people dont understand the difference between hackers and crackers.

Actually if that was the plan, they would have come up with a few names and allegations by now.

The silence means that they are shaken up.... I hope....

Or (in utopia almost) are they trying to tell shareholders that if it goes to that - everyone stares them down, they will use the really better product and start making money off it?

By next week things should be clear.

If nothing comes up, well, someone will get fired and badly at that!

Re:Psychological tactic?

[iamstretchypanda]

That being said, is there anything illegal about MS re-distributing Ubuntu
No

Can we checksum everything to make sure they didn't trojan any packages?
If someone downloaded it: Yes.

limitations of the GPL ..

[rs232]

"Actually, the GPL does set some limitations, like what you are responsible to do if you redistribute"

Actually that isn't a limitation, it prevents you from imposing limitations on what downstream developers can do with the code.

Re:limitations of the GPL ..

[spun]

It is a limitation, in service of greater freedom. Freedom is like that, you have to give up some to gain some. That's a basic implication of the golden rule. If you don't want something done to you, you can't go around doing it to others.

Re:limitations of the GPL ..

[Short Circuit]

Actually that isn't a limitation, it prevents you from imposing limitations on what downstream developers can do with the code. Making it a limitation. But not necessarily a bad one.

Re:limitations of the GPL ..

[Myopic]

Something that prevents you from doing something is a limitation.

Re:limitations of the GPL ..

[robbiethefett]

interestingly enough, in that screenie the description says Feisty ships with Ubuntu Studio, but Studio wasn't finished until months after Feisty's release, and afaik is not affiliated with the official release in any way.

Re:limitations of the GPL ..

[Braino420]

"Actually, the GPL does set some limitations, like what you are responsible to do if you redistribute"

Actually that isn't a limitation, it prevents you from imposing limitations on what downstream developers can do with the code.

Oh I see. It doesn't limit you, it prevents you from doing something. That makes about as much sense as MS distributing Ubuntu.

Re:limitations of the GPL ..

[rs232]

If you don't want something done to you, you can't go around doing it to others.

Agreed ..

"Oh I see. It doesn't limit you, it prevents you from doing something", Braino420

"Something that prevents you from doing something is a limitation", Myopic

The law prevents me from entering your home and stealing your goods. In that respect it prevents me from limiting your freedom to not get robbed.

Re:limitations of the GPL ..

[spun]

Yes, but it also limits your freedom to just take whatever you like. I don't buy the natural rights argument, and one reason is that 'taking whatever you like' would be a natural right under the "What could I do if there were no other humans about," rule.

sweet sweet endorphins

[Gearoid_Murphy]

ah yes, let the derison of yet another microsoft foible begin, I can feel those endorphins already, coupled with the remnants of the Red Hat and Ubuntu defiance of Microsoft patent fud, I've been walking around with a natural high these last few days ;), speak my friends, let my minds reward systems be overwhlemed with the resonance induced by our collective anti-microsoft rants, amen ;)

Re:sweet sweet endorphins

[wordsnyc]

Please step out of the vehicle, sir.

you are correct

[number6x]

Windows Marketplace had a link to CNET's Download.com site. So MS was not distributing.

Still humorous though!

Re:you are correct

[nacturation]

Also it says "by Canonical Ltd." so likely Shuttleworth & Co. somehow managed to become a vendor who has some kind of editor access to the Windows Marketplace site to update their own "drivers" and put in a link to the CNet site. A good publicity stunt, but that's about it.

Poor Novell...

[jfbilodeau]

I did a search on Windows Marketplace for Suse. No result where returned. Instead, the website asked me 'Were you looking for Windows Vista?'

On the other hand, there are 22 search result for Linux!

Not Quite

[lprechan]

The part Microsoft got wrong is it says the license is "Free" and "No limitations".

The page Google cache is showing me does not say that. What the page I'm seeing says is...

1. Ubuntu is and always will be free of charge. - (True according to the Ubuntu web site.)

2. You do not pay any licensing fees. - (True.)

3. You can download, use and share Ubuntu with your friends, family, school or business for absolutely nothing. - (True, again.)

Perhaps an previous version of the file may have said the license is "Free" and "No limitations", but I'm not finding any evidence of it now. Even Groklaw is saying that "The part Microsoft got wrong is it says the license is "Free" and "No limitations"."

My home and office have been Microsoft-free since 1995 so I'm certainly no Microsoft fanboy, but I think I'm smelling a bit of "knee-jerk" here.

Re:Not Quite

[Anonymous Coward]

MOD PARENT UP.

Re:Not Quite

[swg101]

If you expand the "Detailed Product Specifications" sections, you will see:
License Type - Free
Limitations - No Limitations

Re:Not Quite

[bouchecl]

Perhaps an previous version of the file may have said the license is "Free" and "No limitations", but I'm not finding any evidence of it now. Even Groklaw is saying that "The part Microsoft got wrong is it says the license is "Free" and "No limitations"."

My home and office have been Microsoft-free since 1995 so I'm certainly no Microsoft fanboy, but I think I'm smelling a bit of "knee-jerk" here.

It's not in Ubuntu's litterature. It's in the Microsoft Marketplace page. Click the "Detailed Product Specification" thingy and it's all there Licence: free Limitations: No limitations Both statements are absolutely correct. Ubuntu (and other Linux distros) do not impose limitations on what you do with your computer. No WGA checks, no DRM, no viruses, no spyware... ;)

Re:Not Quite

[Inanis]

Perhaps an previous version of the file may have said the license is "Free" and "No limitations", but I'm not finding any evidence of it now
You are not looking in the right place. It lists the license as "free" and "No Limitations" under the Detailed Product Specifications section.

Re:Not Quite

[labyrinth]

As this seems to be in the "demos and trials" section, I think "no limitations" means it is not crippleware and has nothing to do with the license

Re:Not Quite

[mhall119]

No, you misunderstand. Since it is in the "Product Details" section, read it like this:

Product License Type - Free (True enough, GPL is a free license)
Product Limitations - No Limitations (Now Ubuntu does have some limits, but the flattery is still nice)

Where can I

[Wooky_linuxer]

get the code? I downloaded this funky utility called Ubuntu from Microsoft, and it says in a funny EULA called GPL or something that I should be able to get the source code from whoever distributes it. Since my Windows system has been rock stable and much quicker after I installed this utility, I guess it's a keeper, and I think it is a pretty good marketing idea from Redmond to let us see how do they actually program these things. Course, this Ubuntu stuff is only a utilty or a driver according to that page, but even then this is pretty slick. Can you imagine if someone would let us see the source code for, say, a a WHOLE OPERATING SYSTEM? wow! Perhaps that is MS next step and this whole Ubuntu downloads are a marketing test. So spread the word guys...

Re:Where can I

[kurokaze]

holy jebus.. haven't you read all the other posts above you that have already stated the fact that MS wasn't distributing the code, but referencing it? Not to mention all the talk about it being planted there (just look at the breadcrumbs...)

Re:Where can I

[Anonymous Coward]

Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh!!!

Re:Where can I

[otacon]

I had modpoints but there was no -1 Dense

Re:Where can I

[T23M]

Too bad my X-Fi and half my games stopped working. But man, this utility would be PERFECT if I wasn't a gamer!

Automated Addition?

[phantomcircuit]

This would appear to be an automated audition to the windows marketplace.

The download.com page for Ubuntu Desktop places it in the same category as the windows marketplace page does.

Google cache of windows market place page

Download.com Ubuntu Desktop page

Notice how similar the categories are.

Download.com: Windows > Utilities & Drivers > Device Drivers > BIOS & System Updates

Windows Market Place: Downloads > Utility Downloads > System Downloads > Driver Downloads> BIOS & System Update Downloads

Re:Automated Addition?

[dreemernj]

Exactly. Most of the stuff on Marketplace is available through a different provider like Download.com or Tucows. The stuff you actually get from the Market Place is usually stuff you buy. Even Outlook Express is actually downloaded from tucows. They probably have an automatic filtered system for grabbing stuff off of the other sites and just weren't expecting a linux distro to show up in that category because it really shouldn't be there.

Re:Automated Addition?

[dreemernj]

Whoops and almost forgot, Ubuntu's license is "Free" on Download.com, which is why the detailed specs of Ubuntu on the MS page had License: Free listed as well.

Breaking Microsoft news:

[PurifyYourMind]

I just pooped my cute little pants.

Apology...

[lprechan]

Okay, okay, I see where I was wrong. Once you click on "Detailed Product Specifications" the dropdown box does show MS claiming the license is "free" and there are "no limitations".

No wonder I was smelling "knee-jerk", it was coming from me! ;-)

Good Old Mahatma Quote

[syylk]

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Re:Good Old Mahatma Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh huh. But look happened to him.

Re:Good Old Mahatma Quote

[mhall119]

Yeah, but he still won didn't he?

He wanted to free India, not live forever.

Re:Good Old Mahatma Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure he would have preferred both.

Stereotype review needed

[baomike]

Sarkozy is the new French pres, having defeated Royal the "left of center" candidate.
Even the parliment went conservative, although not by a huge majority.
And Sarkozy likes the US.

Re:Stereotype review needed

[jez9999]

Doesn't seem to mind the French farmers getting subsidised under the Common Agricultural Policy, though.

Re:Stereotype review needed

[dbIII]

And Sarkozy likes the US.

The US is not going to like him though - they hate the reminder that the French gave them their country in the first place and that French governments will not do what they are told when threatened like third world dictatorships.

Re:Stereotype review needed

[G Morgan]

He's a conservative that distrusts the free market, what's the point. He is a traditional conservative (pre-classic liberal) with all that protectionist and big state claptrap. Unfortunate really, I thought the French were finally waking up to the insanity of a big state.

Screenshot in case the cache disappears

[m0zes]

here is a screen shot in case the cache disappears, hosted at bayimg http://bayimg.com/DAbbEaABB

Re:Screenshot in case the cache disappears

[z0idberg]

That may or may not be a screenshot, but I am holding off on visiting random bayimg pages until I know whether TPB counts goatse as worthy of censorship.

Re:Screenshot in case the cache disappears

[m0zes]

that is fine, i understand your concern, i don't think they are going to censor anything though...

Re:Screenshot in case the cache disappears

[CautionaryX]

There are worse things than goatse out there, ya know. Be careful.

Re:Screenshot in case the cache disappears

[Creepy Crawler]

Though... you all ought to check out goatshe.cx .... Its really funny (and what you expect, but she's hot).

i am NOT making that a link so if you do go there, its by your copy/pasting.

System requirements

[danbert8]

Did anyone read those? It's kinda funny:

Minimum Requirements
Supported OS Windows 3.x
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows Me
Windows NT
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows MCE
Windows 2003 Server
Dependencies 256MB RAM
3GB disk space (minimum)
Size/Speed
Download Size 697.90MB
Download Speed Dial-Up (53.3 kbps): 29:47:44
DSL/Cable (384 kbps): 04:08:08
DSL/Cable (768 kbps): 02:04:04
T1 (1.5 Mbps): 01:03:31
Miscellaneous
Number of Downloads 10,923
Uninstaller Included? No
License Type Free
Limitations No limitations

Uh. Anyone can post products to sell there...

[satansmurf]

http://www.windowsmarketplace.com/showcase.aspx?ct Id=17 So, perhaps story should be that a *ux fan got past the products posting filter.

It's a CNET thing

[KarmaMB84]

You can get listed in the Windows Marketplace by signing up with a Microsoft partner or by signing up with CNET.com. Items in the Windows category end up in the same or equivalent category as they are on Download.com.

From the how to get listed page at the Windows Marketplace:
"Packaged Software, Hardware, & Devices: If your product is available in packaged format, you can offer it at Windows Marketplace by signing up with CNET.com."

The category for Ubuntu form Download.com:
Windows > Utilities & Drivers > Device Drivers > BIOS & System Updates

Eerily familiar, no?

This is a total non-story. Microsoft isn't distributing anything and CNET needs to fix their categories.

There is no conspiracy here

[Marton]

It was a simple prank I'm sure. Applications can get listed on the Windows Marketplace with next to no approval process. You need to self-certify the software as something that "works with vista" and then inclusion in the catalog should be largely automatic. Someone's day in Redmond probably starts with clicking Accept and Reject next to new listings, and this one slipped through. Not a big deal I think.

Big Deal

[fm6]

There's still a ton of Linux and Linux-related products on Windows Marketplace:

http://www.windowsmarketplace.com/results.aspx?tex t=linux&tabid=1

This site is just Microsoft aggregating listings from other web sites, such as CNET. A typical brand exploitation exercise, which has essentially nothing to do with the product the product the brand ("Windows" in this case) originally applied to. Ironic, but no relevance to the climate of Hell.

Which version was it?

[fishthegeek]

Ubuntu Home Basic
Ubuntu Home Premium
Ubuntu Ultimate
Ubuntu Business
or
Ubuntu Home Server?

Re:First Post! or maybe not

[calculadoru]

Oh man, do you read the news or what.

More information

[RockMFR]

Link to identical Ubuntu page on download.com

They've removed more stuff than just Ubuntu from the Marketplace site. The entire Driver Downloads category (and all contents?) is gone now:

Google cache of Driver Downloads page

Hell on Earth, but also...

[Hoplite3]

Well, given the terrible times of late, with the global warming and such, its clear that we're experiencing Hell on Earth.

However, there's conservation of infernal-ness, so Hell is experiencing "Earth on Hell", which is great if you're damned. These small nice gestures represent a gradual cooling of the hellfire and a nice-streak developing. It also has occasional impact on our life up here in the form of Microsoft distributing Linux.

You can even get spyware from Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Our Websense firewall forbid access to windowsmarketplace saying it was malicious
so i did a quick check on Mcafees Siteadvisor and sure enough that site distributes rather nasty malware called WhenU

http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/windowsmarketplac e.com

logging in to my box at home and browsing it from there shows me the site lists all sorts of toolbars and adware/spyware downloads

nice to know Microsoft is providing an outlet so that people can infect their OS with confidence

Avoids Linux

[ashwinds]

The post avoids the word "linux" like the plague!!

Re:Avoids Linux

[Fission86]

That could be due to the ubuntu community trying to attract computer n00bs and the connotations associated with the word "linux"

Looks like they took down "Driver Downloads"

[assassinator42]

Compare the current page with the cache.
Looks like they took the entire "Driver Downloads" category, the one that Ubuntu was in, down.
Also, Notice what category Download.com has Ubuntu under. BIOS & System Updates, same as the Microsoft page. So I'd wager that Microsoft was using a script to aggregate download links rather than do them by hand.
So, no joke by a Microsoft employee or anything like that.

Re:Looks like they took down "Driver Downloads"

[LParks]

I think this is the one time that Microsoft will say its a bug and I'll say its a feature, instead of the other way around.

Re:Looks like they took down "Driver Downloads"

[ashwinds]

I agree. And someone removed all mention of the word linux to make sure it would get past the content filtering rules!!

In other news

[pete.com]

Superman breaks out of prison and robs a bank......

Rating/Comments

[neowolf]

I visited this when it was still active yesterday.

Something that doesn't show up in the Google Cache that really added to the whole thing before it was deleted: Ubuntu got a 5-star rating, and there were several glowing commentaries about how much more usable and stable it is compared to Windows.

Maybe it's a feed ...

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

May be m$ has some agreement with cnet/others and their e-commerce site gets this products through some rss feed, SOAP server, or similar. The filter fucked up and this showed up on their site.

I'm sure m$ has some pretty strict contracts with their employees, and they are held liable for this kind of action, even after fired, so i don't think someone will take such a risk.

Besides, don't attribute to malice what is clear product of stupidity.

Re:First Post! or maybe not

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a little update on point 1. The French have now a sort of conservative dictatorship just like in the USA before the latest legislative elections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_legislative_el ection%2C_2007

All your patents are belong to us

[WillAffleckUW]

The interesting question is, what changes, if any, did they make, did they include source in the distro, and if any work was done which is now GPL by virtue of their acting as a publicly available distributor.

Because, no matter what they say, or even if they charged for it, they were in effect acting as a distributor.

Free and No limitations

[Starcom8826]

I think I have pretty good idea why it says free and no limitations. The free is probably there for the "Shareware, freeware" type of licensing (after all we are talking windows world here). The limitations would probably be the field for descriptions of limitations the software may have on it in terms of what you can't do (for shareware versions).

Dell involved?

[johkir]

I wonder if Dell was involved in some way. Maybe some contractual obligation to provide support for systems Dell ships in order to maintain their license fees, blah blah blah...

Mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.sqlspace.com/msft/

In case anyone's interested in a mirror.

Shades of MSLinux....

[carney1979]

I can't believe This web site still exists. Of course it was just a farce......

I've tried it

[AlgorithMan]

I've downloaded and installed it
looks nice, feels nice... only one thing disturbs me... every once in a while a paperclip appears and saies

It looks like you are trying to switch to linux.
How can I help you to stay honest?
- show me bogus statistics about how much better and more secure windows is
- threat me with patent lawsuits
- offer me more DRM

Re:The puling of the SlashSheep

[janrinok]

Do you think that Linux is only used in America? I don't know the figures, but I suspect that a similar proportion of people outside of the US choose to use linux in preference to a pirated version (or even genuine version!) of Windows to those in America.

Oh, no!

[objekt]

Now how will Linux ever be taken seriously for business use if MS isn't behind it?

In fact they had not 1, but 2 offerings for Ubuntu

[xivulon]

They were also shipping Wubi

Wubi on windows Marketplace (Google cache)

I'd be more concerned...

[bano]

if they were selling Ubuntu.
I'm not quite sure that Unbuntu is.

Uh, So what??

[oni]

Anyone can ask for source code from Microsoft.

Yeah, anyone can ask for source code for Ubuntu from Microsoft. So what?? You make it sound like OMFG NOW THEY HAVE TO GIVE ME WINDOWS!!!111oneone

Re:Uh, So what??

[HiThere]

Don't be silly. Why would I want Windows? I had a copy and reformatted, rather than accept the EULA.

It was a third-party upload to Marketplace

[stimpy77]

Marketplace is not entirely employee-driven. It's trying to enter the space that is enjoyed by the likes of Download.com. Look at the Google cache. It's under: Downloads> Utility Downloads> System Downloads> Driver Downloads> BIOS & System Update Downloads> Ubuntu Desktop Clearly that was a section where Microsoft wasn't paying attention to third party support uploads.

Yeah, I actually posted a review

[xipietotec]

....bastards didn't post it though >:(. Best damn product on Windows Marketplace.

how long before..

[jb.cancer]

Windows is renamed to 'Balmer Linux' :)

Re:how long before..

[trofer]

Windows is renamed to 'Balmer Linux' :) Featuring chair-proof security.

heard the rumble?

[Anonymous Coward]

From here standing I can hear the loud rumble of chairs hitting walls...

Slashdot is maturing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell is freezing today!
Slashdot says microsoft is inadvertently distributing linux and the new isn't tagged as 'haha'!!!

Re:Slashdot is maturing!

[Anonymous Coward]

no, slashdot is well down the slippery slope and into the pool for flamebait articles that have no redeeming value.

You're confusing that with the Microvell agreement

[silicon not in the v]

The GPLv3 relates to prohibiting agreements like the Microsoft-Novell agreement. Even under GPLv2, however, it would result in Microsoft giving rights to their patents. Remember, this only would apply IF Microsoft directly distributed Linux, which they haven't in this case.

Re:You're confusing that with the Microvell agreem

[drinkypoo]

Even under GPLv2, however, it would result in Microsoft giving rights to their patents.

I disagree. Under GPLv2 it would result in Microsoft not being allowed to distribute Linux. Their sole remedy is to cease distribution of the GPL'd code/program which conflicts with their other agreements (barring weaseling out of the original agreements.

Here is the relevant text from the GPL, which I did not find to be at all unclear:

" 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."

It doesn't say "if your patents conflict, you must donate your patents". It says you must refrain entirely from distribution of the program (as I said, whee.) In fact if you read down slightly it also says "It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims" which I think is also pretty clear.

Other mentions of patents in the GPLv2: " 8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License." And one in the preamble.

These are all the occurrences of the word 'patent' in the GPLv2. If you could point out to me which of them state that you must donate your patents, I'd be interested in which language you're speaking and why you think it's English.

No, it's WINDOWS!

[dskoll]

Remember, Ubuntu validates as genuine Windows.

Re:confusing launch

[saskboy]

At the Vista launch event in my city, I handed out a handful of Ubuntu CDs to the crowd of IT people. About 3 people I approached already had it, or another Linux distribution running at home. And nearly all said they were not considering Vista for their workplace "until at least SP1".

Re:The puling of the SlashSheep

[HiThere]

I don't have the figures either, but a report I saw recently said that FOSS adoption in the EU was running significantly ahead of FOSS adoption in the US. OTOH, figures from Asia appeared to show that pirated MSWind was generally preferred. Didn't see any reports on genuine MSWind for some reason. (I sort of doubt that those reports from Asia should be believed. Probably someone was reporting "What I see from right around where I live", as the specific comments in the text were all "street scene" reports.)

Re:First Post! or maybe not

[Anonymous Coward]

4.1) Your 237 mile wifi link failed
4.2) Chavez' gangsters hijacked your connection, your message was a conspiracy to overthrow his goverment
4.3) You were using a microsoft modified ubuntu installation, that surprisingly, was full of bugs

Re:You're confusing that with the Microvell agreem

[mhall119]

You're right that the GPLv2 would only require that they stop distributing GPLv2 code. However, if they did not take immediate action to stop distribution GPLv2 code (which they did, good for them), then they would have a remarkably harder time suing anybody for infringement of those patents in their use or distribution of the same software.

Distro name

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. They're tentatively calling it "Balmex".

If Ballmer Can't Sell VISTA

[BoRegardless]

At least he can port MS Office to Linux and start selling Office there in the NIX world.

Of course if Ballmer can't sell Office to the Linux crowd, he can resort to tried and true tactics.

Sue the bastards for setting up the expectation of "Free Software" intended to harm Microsoft...

I can already hear it...

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

If they hacked any packages in Ubuntu, then yes, they'd have to abide by the GPL

Steve, could you throw me the source code for libevilrootkitchair.so that your company kindly contributed? Please?

I will clarify my comment

[silicon not in the v]

These are all the occurrences of the word 'patent' in the GPLv2. If you could point out to me which of them state that you must donate your patents, I'd be interested in which language you're speaking and why you think it's English.

Well, you didn't waste any time jumping on the frothing insult bandwagon in response to a reasonable post. I admit in looking at it now that I did not explain fully what I meant. It's called "writer-based prose", where the rest of the concept was still in my mind, so I didn't notice that I didn't get everything out explicitly to the reader. From tracking this issue on Groklaw for quite a while there is a lot of legal basis in my head I was forgetting to specify.

*MY ORIGINAL COMMENT* Even under GPLv2, however, it would result in Microsoft giving rights to their patents. END ORIGINAL COMMENT
I disagree. Under GPLv2 it would result in Microsoft not being allowed to distribute Linux. Their sole remedy is to cease distribution of the GPL'd code/program which conflicts with their other agreements (barring weaseling out of the original agreements.

I was referring to a hypothetical, which I'll describe in a second. Your comment is entirely correct in the current real life situation, which is that Microsoft is NOT distributing anything that they are claiming patent infringement on. Since they are making those patent threats, Section 7 of GPLv2 does say that MS cannot distribute that software.

My hypothetical is referring to what some people think is going on. WHAT IF Microsoft actually did choose to start distributing Linux anyway, even with their patent threats? There are multiple factors here. MS' distribution would be not allowed, so as you mention, the copyright owners of that GPL code can demand that MS stop distribution. That's not what I was talking about because it's the less interesting result. The element I was talking about is that MS in that hypothetical situation have put themselves under the legal doctrine called "estoppel".

You will find some definitions of estoppel in this Groklaw article. It basically means that if someone behaves with actions that demonstrate that they are allowing or giving permission for something, they cannot come back later and attack you with litigation for acting in accordance with that implied permission. So in this hypothetical situation, if MS were to actually distribute Linux to people with all the GPLv2 implications, that is implied permission that you are free to use it. Then, if they ever tried to sue anyone over patent rights on that, the defense of estoppel would shut that down.

That is what I meant by "giving rights to their patents", not "you must donate your patents", which you tried to attribute to me. MS would be basically giving up their patent enforcement rights for that particular software, not that the law would force them to donate ownership of them or anything.

I have read and understood the full text of GPLv2. My point was not coming from a clause contained in the GPL license; it was based on other legal principles.

More Offerings

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft announced today they would soon be distributing their own desktop version of Linux, tentatively titled "Rebootu."

In other news...

[petrus4]

...over the last few days, Hell has begun reporting temperatures in the range of -2,000 degrees centigrade. We have also received reports from famed PC game developer 3D Realms that the game Duke Nukem Forever may be available for release by next week. Finally, earlier today, a lion was reportedly observed lying asleep next to a human being and a sheep within its' enclosure at a local zoo.

Lost sales of Windows, Office as a result?

[christian.einfeldt]

I wonder how much this posting of Ubuntu cost Microsoft. Now check my math, because I am REALLY bad at math. If we assume that each person who downloaded this Ubuntu package would have spent an *average* of only $100.00 USD but didn't due to this download, then 10,923 copies times $100.00 each = $1,0923,000.00. Not a big hit for Microsoft.

Now, you might well say that only a small percentage of these people who downloaded Ubuntu would have purchased a copy of Microsoft Office or Microsoft Vista. But what about subsequent sales to those downloaders? And what about second and third generation conversions as a result of this download?

If only 1% of those downloaders (100) would have spent $100.00 on Microsoft products, it is a loss of $10,000.00 USD in the first generation (chump change for Microsoft). If each of those downloaders later introduces only two people in the next generation (100 dowloaders x 2), each of whom would have spent $100.00 on Microsoft products, then it is a loss of another 200 sales in the second generation, for another $20,000.00 USD, or a total of $30,000.00. If each of those 200 people in the second generation introduces only one person in the third generation, then it is a loss of 200 more sales, for an additional $20,000.00, or a total of $50,000.00. Not enough to show up as a rounding error for Microsoft.

But what if 10% of the downloaders and the second and third generations would have spent $100.00 USD? Now we are talking about $500,000.00 USD. Still not enough for a rounding error. But what if the lost sales would have amounted to $200.00 per person, and 10% would have made purchases. Now we are talking about lost sales of $1 million USD, and maybe that is enough for Microsoft to notice.

But rather than look at is as a loss, let's look at it as a gain for someone else. What if 1% of those downloaders (100) and their second (200) and third generation (200, total 500) progeny when out and spent $500.00 on a naked system on which to install Ubuntu? Now we are talking about 500 systems at $500.00 each, or a total of $250,000.00 USD spent on naked boxes. And what if 10% of those downloaders and the second and third generations did the same thing? Now we are talking about $2,500,000.00 USD in new sales to companies that are rewarded for selling a system without Microsoft Windows on it.

So in a worse case scenario of 10% defectors, this error would have cost Microsoft $1 million in new sales, and increased sales by $2,500.000.00 for "rebellious" OEMs selling naked systems. Still not enough to effect Microsoft, but it is enough to make me smile for the 5 mins that it took me to write this silly post.

Microsoft wasn't distributing

[jgoemat]

Come on people, they were only offering a link to "CNET Download.com". They were no more distributing Ubuntu than Slashdot was distributing porn by messages linking to Goatse.cx.

Possibly a hoax?

[kelarius]

I'm guessing that this could easily be a hoax since the link supplied in the post goes to someone's IP address. It would be a relativly simple matter to make up a page that LOOKS like it could have come from Google Cache and throw the info on it that shows Microsoft offering Ubuntu Linux.

Stop!

[akkarin]

It's a trap!!!

Re:The puling of the SlashSheep

[dwater]

> As an aside, the most amusing thing is how people outside the US would rather put up with a pirated copy
> of Windows than a free (as in worthless) copy of Lunix. So even when competing with free, Windows still
> wins.

I don't get your logic. If (pirated) MS Windows wasn't free[1] and was it's real price (as in the US), it wouldn't win since most people couldn't afford it's price. As it is free, it has the market monopoly, and it's what people already know, it does win. Of course. What's amusing about that?

Also, I don't know of any serious disadvantage of running a pirated version of MS Windows (compared to the authentic version), so I don't know what you mean by 'put up with'.

[1] actually, pirated MS Windows usually isn't free, but it costs very little (about a dollar), so I guess there's some kind of line to be drawn after which people will not buy it and either do without or get something else that is free (and put up with the incompatibility and unfamiliar).

Pretty plain and simple...

[MahariBalzitch]

Someone at M$ had access that was leaving the company (for whatever reason) and put the page up... DUH!!!

MOD PARENT UP!

[mrchaotica]

This is the first post so far that gets the distinction between passing along the original vs. passing along a copy. As a copyright license, the GPL only applies in the latter case.

Douptful

[anss123]

When your paid good $$$ to code, wading through uncommented GPL code just to save a few minutes is not all that appealing. And copying a whole library or application is a bit too obvious if you want to hide it from the other devs, especially with the knowledge that all MS code will be scrutinized by third parties more so than most.

Granted, an insidious programmer might intentionally inject code just for the thrill of it, and MS might just have one of those in their employment.

I need coffee

[nomadic]

It's too early to be posting on slashdot I guess. Those sentences should have read:
For Ubuntu, maybe. I guess someone can try asking for it and see.

They could argue they're not distributing anymore, and shouldn't be held to the contract, but from what I understand the GPL has a 3 year distribution requirement.

website or ftp also ok

[fritsd]

IIRC putting it visibly and gratis for download on your public website is also OK: linksys and tivo

At least IIRC this is a new explicit clause in GPLv3 to make it easier for "box-sellers" such as Linksys and TiVO to provide the required source. IMHO it would have been just as easy and not extremely expensive to put just an extra, source CD in the box (I don't own either so I don't know if they actually do this anyway).

In the *DRAFT* GPLv3 version it says at 6.3b:

b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, either (1) to give anyone who possesses the object code a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) to provide access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.

so option (2) is OK because they put the source for free on their public website for everyone to download. (There's nothing in the GPLv3 about the slashdotting effect though so don't all go there to check it out! That tivo site was already slow!)

Disclaimer: IANAL, and the ink of that piece of the GPLv3 I quoted isn't yet dry I believe.

Funny, but...

[Stervyatnik]

Did you notice how on the Microsoft page (I saw the cached version), they never said the word "Linux?" I just thought that was funny.

Does this really matter?

[watchingeyes]

Microsoft merely had a link to a C|Net download of Ubuntu Linux. I'm not quite sure if this would actually qualify as them distributing Linux. Furthermore, if this wasn't intentional on Microsoft's behalf, but instead was a hacker or rogue employee, that would make any claim that this affects Microsoft's patent claims even more dubious.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft's patent claims are also dubious thusfar.

There's a logical explanation.

[angrykeyboarder]

Somebody dropped the ball at Microsoft. Why? Because much of the download content is syndicated from CNET Download.com

Here is Ubuntu in the "Windows" section of Download.com:

http://www.download.com/Ubuntu-Desktop/3000-2098_4 -10689104.html?tag=lst-0-1