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.'"
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.
Monstar L
Also...Like...Damn.
Unpleasantries.
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.
(IANAL)
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.
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.
-Pope Peter Porker, S.O.W., K.M.K.R., U.G.O.A., F.S.G.S.D.
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.
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.
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.
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).
The real litigious bastards...
Don't be silly. Why would I want Windows? I had a copy and reformatted, rather than accept the EULA.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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.