Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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?
in case the google cache goes away...
. jpg
http://mrose.org/images/slashdot/microsoft_ubuntu
pretty funny.
Beware of the Leopard.
You can run all those operating systems virtualized from within Ubuntu, so I guess technically they're supported. ;-)
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
"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.
davecb5620@gmail.com
Windows Marketplace had a link to CNET's Download.com site. So MS was not distributing.
Still humorous though!
Microsoft has distributed GPL software in the past (Services for Unix). Just not Linux per se.
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.
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.
If you expand the "Detailed Product Specifications" sections, you will see:
License Type - Free
Limitations - No Limitations
Like pi? Try 10,000 digits.
Our Websense firewall forbid access to windowsmarketplace saying it was malicious
c e.com
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/windowsmarketpla
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
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.
Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh!!!
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
They were also shipping Wubi
Wubi on windows Marketplace (Google cache)
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.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Services for UNIX is derived from OpenBSD 3.0 sources.
Actually, it can use a Windows-based installer: Wubi
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?
Redundancy is good And also good.
Services for Unix also includes various GNU utilities licensed under the GPL. Just for giggles:
ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/developr/interix/interix2
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".
There are two kinds of sysadmins: paranoids and losers. I'm both kinds.