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

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:Am I wrong?

[pembo13]

Who said they were violating the GPL?

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:"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: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

[Smidge204]

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

=Smidge=

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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