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?
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
WulframII - Free Online Mutiplayer 3D Tank Shooting Game
I've been trying to get an Ubuntu laptop myself, maybe Microsoft can give me a laptop too.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
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!
... thought it was a bit cold outside, did hell REALLY freeze over?
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.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
I downloaded and installed Unbuntu from the Microsoft page. Does anyone know where I can find a link to Rebuntu?
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.
in case the google cache goes away...
. jpg
http://mrose.org/images/slashdot/microsoft_ubuntu
pretty funny.
Beware of the Leopard.
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.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
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.
At least it got 11000 downloads -- not too shabby! :-)
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Well, I'm pretty sure his next review is going to be even worse.
"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
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 ;)
prepare the survey weasels.
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.
Windows Marketplace had a link to CNET's Download.com site. So MS was not distributing.
Still humorous though!
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?
You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
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.
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.
Too bad that argument doesn't work for torrent trackers. Yay double standard!
=Smidge=
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.
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...
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
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.
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.
http://www.windowsmarketplace.com/showcase.aspx?ct Id=17
So, perhaps story should be that a *ux fan got past the products posting filter.
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.
Ubuntu Home Basic
Ubuntu Home Premium
Ubuntu Ultimate
Ubuntu Business
or
Ubuntu Home Server?
load "$",8,1
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 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.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Now how will Linux ever be taken seriously for business use if MS isn't behind it?
-- Boycott Shell
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
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...
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.
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.
/.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.
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
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.
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.
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
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
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.
http://www.mhall119.com
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.
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.
Somebody dropped the ball at Microsoft. Why? Because much of the download content is syndicated from CNET Download.com
4 -10689104.html?tag=lst-0-1
Here is Ubuntu in the "Windows" section of Download.com:
http://www.download.com/Ubuntu-Desktop/3000-2098_
Scott
©20014 angrykeyboarder & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved