Microsoft's Code Contribution Due To GPL Violation

ozmanjusri writes "While Microsoft presented its recent embrace of the GPL as 'a break from the ordinary,' and the press spoke of them as going to great lengths to engage the open source community,' as is often the case with Microsoft, it turns out they had an ulterior motive. According to Stephen Hemminger, an engineer with Vyatta, Microsoft's Hyper-V used open-source components in a network driver and the company released the code to avoid legal action over a GPL violation. Microsoft's decision to embrace the GPL was welcomed by many in the open source community, but their failure to honestly explain the reason behind the release will have squandered this opportunity to build trust, something which is sadly lacking in most people's dealings with Microsoft."

Comments

First Laugh

[omnichad]

It's hilarious.

Re:First Laugh

[causality]

It's hilarious.

What's hilarious is how many times I've been called a "tin-foil hatter" because I openly expected ulterior motives and other treachery from this company. There is nothing paranoid or cynical about actually having a working knowledge of the history of the entity in question. It's so simple, too:

• Microsoft has interests which can be described as "selfish", in the sense that realizing those interests serves them and not you. Not unless you are employed by them or own stock in the company, anyway. Most successful corporations can be described this way; they are not your pal or your buddy. Microsoft is just notable because they are so dominant in their industry.
• Microsoft is in this for the long haul. They use long-term strategy extensively, which is part of how they got to where they are today. I'll bold this one because it's important: the best long-term strategy is indistinguishable from "random" events that happen to "go your way." I think the failure to understand this about Microsoft is similar to the failure to understand this about government. Neither takes any deliberate action, however benign or however evil, unless it fits into this strategy of gaining money, control, PR, or all of the above. Ever. If Microsoft donates a million dollars to save the whales, you can bet it's because they ran the numbers and expect that the good PR will make them at least a million and one dollars back. They make mistakes, like this near-violation of the GPL, but as you see they try to turn those into good PR.
• Some of the FOSS community needs to get over the fantasy that Microsoft is ever going to be an ally. Yes, it would be nice. Yes, it would probably improve both Windows and Open Source platforms. However, for that to happen Microsoft would have to be fully open and transparent, maybe not on the business side but definitely for technological matters. They would have to use nothing but fully open standards, with fully open reference implementations in widely available source code. They'd have to give up "embrace-and-extend" and a whole host of other strategies that got them where they are today. They are not voluntarily going to do that, for the same reason that politicians don't like to reduce the size and power of government.

Microsoft's decision to embrace the GPL was welcomed by many in the open source community, but their failure to honestly explain the reason behind the release will have squandered this opportunity to build trust, something which is sadly lacking in most people's dealings with Microsoft."

How many times does this have to happen before we can save everyone some time and just skip the fantasy that there was ever an opportunity to build trust? Or, do people have some inability to know who and what they are dealing with? To have a corporation act like it wants to be your friend in order to further its own interests is merely a nuisance. When people start to really believe that it's their friend though, that is something much worse. That is actually how an "opponent" which cannot be bought out could eventually (long-term) be taken down or rendered irrelevant. To Microsoft, FOSS is such an opponent.

Re:First Laugh

[Ardaen]

I don't get called a "tin-foil hatter" for that, I get called a "troll" :(

I have to agree with much of what you've said, corporations aren't nessisarily opponents or evil. You just have to realize that as an entity their personality tends to consist of the greed of their decision making employees. Companies exist to make money, people get jobs to make money.

I have found myself in situations I question the morality of, but I don't want to lose my job and my paycheque over them. Often these situations exist not because someone above me has given an order, but simply due to interactions between circumstance and policy.

Re:First Laugh

[deadlinegrunt]

"...How many times does this have to happen...do people have some inability to know who and what they are dealing with?"

I believe the saying goes, "A fool is born every minute."

Re:First Laugh

[dem0n1]

Or like Microsoft deciding to invest in Apple. Good faith gesture, or caught with QuickTime source code and acquiescing to make a gesture that makes it appear that they support competition?

Re:First Laugh

[Elektroschock]

Very good. My impression is that Microsoft will be reformed by simple market pressure. There are two tools for that:

1. You need to shoot down their cash cows. The relevant cash cows are
* office
* windows
* exchange

With Zarafa, Exchange is basically obsolete.

Chrome OS has the potential to hit Windows 7 hard,

No pain, no gain.

2. Market share does not matter.

What counts instead is the competition. When you have the leverage to sink an multibillion market with a 60 Mio investment, that is powerful.

Re:First Laugh

[nmb3000]

What's hilarious is how many times I've been called a "tin-foil hatter" because I openly expected ulterior motives and other treachery from this company.

I guess I'm not seeing this "treachery" of which you're going on about. Microsoft made use of GPL code, like hundreds of other companies before them, and in keeping with the law and the license, also released their code under the GPL. This really is a big move for them, the company that previously wouldn't want to be caught dead with their hand in the GPL cookie jar. Here they are not only using the code but releasing it back out for public use and scrutiny.

Nobody cares that Linksys/Cisco uses GPL code in their cheap routers. Nobody cares that Google uses GPL code in their various web apps. Nobody cares that FOSS-heavy companies like Novell and Red Hat use GPL code to make a profit. Why should any care that Microsoft is using GPL code as long as they are following the terms of the license?

So what if their marketing and PR machine didn't outright say "We used GPL code and so we're releasing this under the GPL"? The code is right there in the open. Slashdotters always bemoan that closed source is terrible because it's all secret and hidden with bugs and evil embedded where nobody can see. MS dumped the 20,000 lines of code into the open where everyone can go read it. There's not much headway to be made via treachery and subterfuge when anybody can just read the code.

Your three little bullet points describe every publicly-owned company on the planet. A corporation, by definition, has obligations to itself (the shareholders) that it is expected to meet. There's no such thing as an altruistic for-profit corporation. Sure, some embrace F/OSS more than others but that's usually just due to their respective market overlap. Google doesn't sell an OS so they're okay using and helping Linux. They do have a browser so you can expect Firefox support to dwindle. They do have an office suite so you won't expect them to support Open Office. This is normal and to be expected. The same thing goes for Microsoft.

Re:First Laugh

[tsm_sf]

Once again...

The old IT hands bash MS because they have experience with the company. They are NOT trolling, or apple or linux fanboys. They are _EXPERIENCED_.

Young Republicans: we're not anti-corporation, we're anti-getting-dicked-over. Thank you for understanding the difference.

Re:First Laugh

[causality]

I have to agree with much of what you've said, corporations aren't nessisarily opponents or evil.

I view them as amoral Machiavellian entities. If a car salesman is nice to you, it's only because he makes more sales that way.

It's evil but in a subtle way. It requires people to be other than genuine, to play a role and pretend that it is real. Nowhere in this do you find nobility or virtue or loving-kindness. It's evil not because it necessarily has to do harm, but because it regards many expressions of honesty or of good intentions as hinderances to its goals.

Re:First Laugh

[burnin1965]

I guess I'm not seeing this "treachery" of which you're going on about.

You may want to click on the links to the articles to see the treachery. Here is a quote from one of the articles...

Pigs are flying low: Why Microsoft open-sourced its Linux drivers
"Microsoft originally was licensing the Linux drivers, also known as the Linux Integration Components (LIC), in a way that was in violation of the GPL. It was offering them under a combination of the GPL and a closed source license."

Nobody cares that Linksys/Cisco uses GPL code in their cheap routers.

The whole idea of releasing source code under the GPL is to make it available for use. The copyright holders of that code do not take issue with corporations using the code, they take issue with corporations when they violate the license terms under which the source code is made available to them for use. As was the case with Linksys/Cisco.

Cisco sued by FSF over GPL violation

Re:First Laugh

[cbiltcliffe]

You didn't read the article, did you?

Microsoft didn't release the code by choice. They released it after somebody figured out that they were violating the terms of the GPL, and made what essentially amounted to legal threats.

Now, the fact that Microsoft, with their huge warchest and armies of lawyers, simply caved, rather than trying to weasle out of it and drown the opponents in legal bills, points to Microsoft's opinion of the GPL's legal status.....which is to say, rock solid. If it was as flakey and contradictory as they've claimed in the past, they would have fought it. They didn't, because they know they would have lost badly.

Re:First Laugh

[Daniel_Staal]

You forgot something. You see, I can forgive all that: It's a corporation, operating in it's own self-interest. Yeah, they wouldn't be on my 'nice guys' list, but it leaves them no different than any other big company out there.

What sets Microsoft apart is the fact that competing on the merits of the product is always the last choice for them. They will bribe, influence, undercut, disinform, re-brand, and lock-in. They act always an only as if their customers deserve nothing, and should be handing over as much money as MS wants at any and all times. They will do anything they can to avoid being in a position to be directly evaluated against a competitor of the strength of their products. And they will avoid improving their products unless forced to by an outside force, be it competition or government. And even then they will only improve them as much as they need to in order to deflect the force.

They are not in the software business. They are in the business of dominating software markets. The fact that doing so occasionally requires them to write software is incidental, as far as I can see.

If and when Microsoft turns itself into a company that will compete on the strength of it's products, I will consider starting to trust them, somewhat. Until then, even the smallest bite is a poison pill, eventually requiring you to swallow all their products.

Re:First Laugh

[Austerity Empowers]

You should be happy that a company that has so closely embraced closed/proprietary licensing is doing the right thing by honoring the GPL as they should. They could have chosen any number of wrong directions, but they chose the right one. Their motives for doing so are irrelevant.

No. When dealing with enemies, you try to stay one step ahead of them. Understanding why they do what they do is key to preventing them from succeeding.

If you think the motives for IBM, Oracle, Sun, or even RedHat for honoring and promoting the GPL are anything other than financial or self-interested you are seriously deluding yourself. This isn't a religion to those companies. It is a tool that they leverage to try and increase their dominance and profits in the technology sector.

I don't think anyone is thus deluded. None of those companies are presently in a position to be serious threats. Microsoft still has the OS, and by virtue of that, device drivers with priorietary interfaces and NDA-based documentation/code. This prevents us from building a truly competitive system. As long as MS retains that, it is in a position of extreme power. So to that end, the enemy of my enemy is my ally. The day may, and hopefully will, come when Microsoft has been stripped of the part of its business which enables it to stifle competition and hurt the industry. Those companies may stop being allies, but provided we've done nothing to enable them to take Microsoft's place, it will at least be competition, which is always a good thing. I note you're missing the most dangerous "Ally", Apple. They absolutely are poised to become the new Microsoft, and certainly have the sharpest knife right now.

If anything this should be good news for FOSS zealots everywhere because it shows that Microsoft now considers the GPL a viable route to see product success. It is a fairly huge paradigm shift. Unfortunately there will be people who are more concerned with Microsoft failing than they are with corporate giants moving in the right direction. It limits you.

No, this has not been established. The point is that MS does not necessarily consider the GPL a viable route, at worst they simply had no choice. It's also not a given that Microsoft isn't changing it's ways for the better, however after 20 years of being used and abused, you can't expect us all to change our mindset towards them overnight because of one very suspicious move.

We all know that for-profit businesses act for-profit. This does not excuse them of common decency and the moral obligation to go above and beyond the bare minimum the law requires. The lack of expectation from the general public that corporations have any form of ethics or standards is what has driven so many of the bad behaviors we've seen in the past 20 years. Everything from crappy customer service, to offshoring jobs (i.e. hurting your country for personal gain), to monopolistic behavior to financial misreporting all fall into that category. Capitalism requires competition to be successful, the more of it, the better. Any company which views their business as a game to destroy competitors, explicitly or implicitly, is hurting all of us. You either act to make yourself the best you can possibly be (perhaps using competitors as a guide-post) and let your competitors do the same, or you should expect hostility and sanctions.

Re:First Laugh

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Chrome OS has the potential to hit Windows 7 hard,

Of all the companies I trust on my desktop less than Microsoft, Google is number one. Microsoft just wants me to give them money. Google wants to know everything about me.

That, and I bought a computer damnit, not a cloud-computing terminal. I haven't used a terminal since the 90's, and have no desire to return to that world. At least now when I use a terminal, it's into a machine I own.

Re:First Laugh

[causality]

Of course you will be modded +5 Insightful, Interesting, and most importantly +5 Loved by the blind zealots. You post of bunch of "I knew it all along" tripe to support your hate and everyone loves you for it.

When someone takes a position and backs it up with solid reasoning, which is what I have tried to do, I have a hard time describing this as "blind zealotry." If you believe that is zealotry, be glad that you have not experienced the real thing. It's rather ugly.

Also, if you were familiar with my posting history you'd know that I have been saying things like this for quite some time (i.e. years). I am not suggesting that you should be familiar with my posting history, only that you should be aware of when you don't who you're dealing with or what he believes before you make assumptions about his motives.

I really did know this all along, not because I have special insight but because it's rather predictable. If I said that driving drunk increases your chances of having a car accident, is that "'I knew it all along' tripe" or common sense rooted in a simple understanding of cause-and-effect? If I say that drunk driving is a very, very bad idea, am I now an anti-alcohol zealot?

You can't stand the fact that Microsoft is doing the right thing so you will spin your "facts" any way you can to start the FUD wheel moving.

You are making an accusation. Specifically, you are accusing me of deceit. What evidence do you have to back that up, other than "I don't like what he said?" If I accused you of being a paid Microsoft shill or an astroturfer because you are supporting their actions, is that fair? Is it helpful, does it contribute anything to the discussion? No, it doesn't. Note, I am absolutely not accusing you of being a shill of any sort, I am just making a point.

If you think the motives for IBM, Oracle, Sun, or even RedHat for honoring and promoting the GPL are anything other than financial or self-interested you are seriously deluding yourself. This isn't a religion to those companies. It is a tool that they leverage to try and increase their dominance and profits in the technology sector. The fact that all those companies have closed, restrictive, or proprietary solutions should testify to the fact that they are concerned about their position and profits only. Microsoft is doing the same thing.

That one's easy to address. When IBM, Oracle, Sun, and RedHat do this, I don't see members of the community heralding a new era of openness and cooperation. When Microsoft does this, too many people want to believe that. Additionally, IBM, Oracle, Sun, and RedHat do not have monopolies to protect. That means they are more likely (though certainly not guaranteed) to view a degree of cooperation as a good thing that benefits everyone, including themselves.

If anything this should be good news for FOSS zealots everywhere because it shows that Microsoft now considers the GPL a viable route to see product success. It is a fairly huge paradigm shift. Unfortunately there will be people who are more concerned with Microsoft failing than they are with corporate giants moving in the right direction.

I'll believe that Microsoft considers GPL a viable route to successful products when the entirety of Windows, or Office, or Exchange is released as source code under the GPL. That's called "putting your money where your mouth is." As it stands now, Microsoft obviously believes that keeping those three cash cows closed-source is the best business decision they can make. That's their prerogative; the software is theirs to do with as they please. I have no problems with that, but I'm not going to call it a huge paradigm shift either. It could be the beginning of one, but that is nothing more than speculation and remains to be seen.

Additionally, I never expressed a concern with whether or not Microsoft f

Re:First Laugh

[jayme0227]

I'm glad that you understand that it's not just Microsoft. It seems that the parent really had an issue with Microsoft, since that's the only company that he cited. I'm not saying that Microsoft isn't evil. In fact, I'm fairly certain that they are. But that doesn't somehow make them worse than other businesses. Any for profit entity is motivated by primarily by greed. Any other motivations can almost always be traced back to greed of some sort.

In fact you could say that people in general work the same way. Either so they can put it on their resume or so they can feel good about themselves. Why are followers of Abrahamic religions "good"? So they can go to heaven.

Acting like it is some revelation that Microsoft's "embracing" of the open source community was something other than self serving is silly. Acting like you were in on some secret when you figured that Microsoft had an ulterior motive is downright absurd.

Re:First Laugh

[AikonMGB]

What's hilarious is how many times I've been called a "tin-foil hatter" because I openly expected ulterior motives and other treachery from this company.

I guess I missed the public announcement where ensuring your company didn't violate any copyright laws and/or software licenses was considered treacherous. Sure, Microsoft were not completely forward about why they were contributing GPLed code, but the real reason behind the contribution is not any form of betrayal.

Aikon-

Re:First Laugh

[AikonMGB]

p.s. Emphasis mine.

Aikon-

Re:First Laugh

[Yaa 101]

They are in the business making money and do ALL that is needed to reach their goal.

Re:First Laugh

[Grishnakh]

Of all the companies I trust on my desktop less than Microsoft, Google is number one. Microsoft just wants me to give them money. Google wants to know everything about me.

That's weird; I don't have the same feelings towards Google. Google might try to advertise to me, but the only ads I ever see from them are inconspicuous text ads which I just ignore, and don't take up my time or annoy me like banner ads, pop-ups, etc. do. That's why I don't bother to block them, like I do the others using AdBlock Plus. In fact, sometimes I even click on the Google ads shown to me on Gmail because they're relevant and useful.

Unlike MS, Google doesn't try to force me into using any particular technology or software (or more importantly, OS). I can use all online Google stuff just fine in Firefox on Linux. I can even run Google Earth just fine in Linux. Yeah, SketchUp isn't available on Linux yet, so their record isn't perfect, but then again, Google Earth and SketchUp are free so I really can't complain. MS, on the other hand, is constantly trying to force me to use their OS and their software by pushing for lock-in instead of using open standards. They even try to kill my preferred OS (Linux) by making vague patent threats, and by financing SCO's ridiculous lawsuit via Baystar. Google never tried to do anything like this. Google just wants me to look at some unobtrusive text ads in exchange for using an excellent webmail service and search engine for free. That's a bargain I'm OK with. If I decide I don't like it, I can always use a different search engine and webmail service. So far, Google hasn't given me any reason to believe they're going to do anything beyond this to screw me over, whereas MS has done countless things to screw their users over from Day 1.

That, and I bought a computer damnit, not a cloud-computing terminal. I haven't used a terminal since the 90's, and have no desire to return to that world. At least now when I use a terminal, it's into a machine I own.

I mostly agree with this, as I prefer to run almost all my software locally (except email), and keep my data on my own computer. However, apparently most people don't agree with us, as evidenced by the huge growth in cloud computing and SaaS (software as a service) lately. I don't really understand it myself, but all these vendors probably wouldn't be going down this road if all their customers were firmly against it, so I guess they see things differently. Whatever the reason, this means the parent might be correct: Chrome OS might actually "hit Windows 7 hard". And if it does, then great. I probably won't use it myself, but anything to break up the OS market and restore competition is a good thing.

Re:First Laugh

[Grishnakh]

It's also not a given that Microsoft isn't changing it's ways for the better, however after 20 years of being used and abused, you can't expect us all to change our mindset towards them overnight because of one very suspicious move.

Another important thing to remember about MS, unlike most other companies, is that it CAN be considered to be more-or-less a real person in its actions. This is because, over most of its history, it's been run by the same people. How long has Ballmer been CEO? Most other companies change leadership every few years, including the CEO position. MS hasn't; they're pretty much the same bunch of people as they've always been, and have been since Windows has been dominant.

We're not going to see any different behavior from MS until the people in charge are different, and given who owns much of MS's stock, that's probably not going to happen for a while.

Re:First Laugh

[sumdumass]

I think you are missing a very important point, Once MS saw their error, they corrected it without anyone pointing to the need.

This is important because it shows that they would have complied earlier if they understood the depth if their involvement and obligation to begin with. This indicates a specific lack of treachery and points to a misunderstanding or confusion that they sorted out on their own.

You cannot take every instance of a GPL violation as a sign of treachery. If you do, then almost any linux distribution would be treacherous. This is because I have seen, almost all of the larger distributions offer binary updates through a service or program which doesn't offer the source code alongside it and doesn't make the location of the source code for the updates obvious. Some times it is days or even weeks before the source code for the binary patches make to an obvious locations (which is in violation of the GPL) and then you have distros who use mirrors that don't store the source and make them availible for 3 years after distribution. Take Mandriva for instance, Their URPMI update service often drops updates after a year (instead of the three as mandated by the GPL) or so when the new versions are availible. If you have to reinstall, you have to hunt down another URPMI mirror in order to find older updates just to get a system back to a usable state.

Now, no one complains about this crap being treacherous when linux distros do it. There is an after the fact attempt to get in line with the GPL and is seemingly completely acceptable even though it is a clear and direct violation of the GPL (either version).

Re:First Laugh

[anyGould]

The difference is between
(a) Microsoft decides to use GPL code in their product, and then releases their code under GPL.
and
(b) Microsoft uses GPL code in their product, and only releases it under GPL (like they were supposed to), *after* someone calls them up and says "hey, you do know you're breaking the law here, right"?

I don't blame them for trying to spin it as case A, especially when you consider that case B equates to "Yeah, we totally broke the law, and these guys were nice enough to hang us for it."

Re:First Laugh

[Blakey Rat]

To sum up your little rant:

1) Three bullet-points that apply as well to any corporation, ever as they do to Microsoft.

2) A bunch of mouth-foaming about being called a paranoid loon that somehow does absolutely nothing to discredit the idea that you are, indeed, a paranoid loon.

3) Intense focused rage that Microsoft is doing the very action you want them to do: release software under the GPL. "Treachery?" Christ.

Re:First Laugh

[sumdumass]

Sure Microsoft released the code by choice. They had plenty of other options availible like completely rewriting the code in question, keeping it close, and taking the hit for the code already distributed. It wouldn't have been very expensive because they would have argued a mistake was made in distributing the code in the first place, it was corrected once realize, and assert their willingness to pay monetary damages for the erroneous use of the code in question.

This would have been to their advantage because it would be very difficult to assign monetary value to something already given away for free while somewhat just as difficult for each and every copyright holder to bring a case forward over it. You also have the problem of the legal remedy in the GPL being not using the code anymore when you aren't in compliance. If the contract portion allowing the copyright is held as valid, it could be that a competent court could treat it just like a contract violation with an already built in solution and absolve them of any copyright royalties owed.

But instead of doing that, instead of as you already acknowledged- used their army of lawyers, MS decided to take the most beneficial approach for itself and the OSS community as a whole. It doesn't mean they have some high impression of the GPL or that they are afraid of it, all that is in your head as without them admitting to it, you have no way of reading their minds. But from what we do know is that there were options that weren't taken and there were officially state reasons for taking the options they did.

Re:First Laugh

[man_of_mr_e]

Microsoft didn't release the code by choice. They released it after somebody figured out that they were violating the terms of the GPL, and made what essentially amounted to legal threats.

How is someone saying "Hey, I think you're violating the gpl" a legal threat? I don't believe the person that discovered the issue was the author of the code, so would not have any legal standing to make a legal threat. But even if he was, Microsoft's response was "Oh, you're right... here, let me fix that".

Re:First Laugh

[JAlexoi]

Nobody cares that Linksys/Cisco uses GPL code in their cheap routers. Nobody cares that Google uses GPL code in their various web apps. Nobody cares that FOSS-heavy companies like Novell and Red Hat use GPL code to make a profit. Why should any care that Microsoft is using GPL code as long as they are following the terms of the license?

Why? I believe that Microsoft is the company that is the biggest anti-OSS company ever. Even calling OSS "communism", wishing that that brand would give some PHB's the "hibby jibbies" of the cold war era.
PS: F/OSS is probably the best incarnation of communism there ever was, right after a family.

Re:First Laugh

[Elektroschock]

You don't have to use it to benefit from it.

When Google does it the Hardware manufacturers will prepackage Google OS with their machines. So we will get better hardware support for the Linux kernel and so forth. Microsoft will hate it which puts them in a weak negotiation position. This is not about you switching to anything. This is about a cheap investment of Google that kills Microsoft's cash cow. The hardware manufacturers will negotiate lower margins from Microsoft and invest in the new competitor. It is a victorious circle. They will eat Microsoft's lunch.

Same in an business with say 30 000 licenses. They will evaluate OpenOffice, and ask the Microsoft sales guy: What else do you offer?

Re:First Laugh

[causality]

When you have certain goals that you cannot or will not compromise, lots of "choices" aren't really choices at all but should be regarded as expedient measures instead.

Sure Microsoft released the code by choice. They had plenty of other options availible like completely rewriting the code in question, keeping it close, and taking the hit for the code already distributed. It wouldn't have been very expensive because they would have argued a mistake was made in distributing the code in the first place, it was corrected once realize, and assert their willingness to pay monetary damages for the erroneous use of the code in question.

The problem with that is that they would lose face. It would look too much like they were submitting not to copyright law, but to the GPL. If a silly game were made of it, then that scenario could be summarized as "GPL 1, Microsoft 0." That's about the level of discourse found in mass marketing. A marketing company that allows this is not a very good marketing company. Microsoft is a mediocre software company whose products can be described as "just good enough to sell to an undiscerning public." However, Microsoft is an excellent marketing company by any standard.

That's why they go ahead, bite the bullet, and release the relevant code as GPL software. Then they can play the PR game and talk about how cooperative and trustworthy they are, how they "did the right thing," etc. This way even a mistake turns into a win for them.

Re:First Laugh

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Google might try to advertise to me, but the only ads I ever see from them are inconspicuous text ads which I just ignore,

I'm not worried about Google advertising to me. I worried about when they decide to sell their profile of me.

Unlike MS, Google doesn't try to force me into using any particular technology or software (or more importantly, OS). I can use all online Google stuff just fine in Firefox on Linux.

They don't sell an OS (yet), so of course they are OS neutral. But they do try to foist JavaScript on you. And they're pushing Chrome (the Browser) pretty aggressively. Going to get more aggressive later.

Google just wants me to look at some unobtrusive text ads in exchange for using an excellent webmail service and search engine for free.

And gather information about you that they own.

. So far, Google hasn't given me any reason to believe they're going to do anything beyond this to screw me over, whereas MS has done countless things to screw their users over from Day 1.

Actually, when MS was as young as Google is, they were as revered by techies much like Google is today.

As for Google screwing people over, Google stole my intellectual property. It took a lawsuit to get a settlement from them.

However, apparently most people don't agree with us, as evidenced by the huge growth in cloud computing and SaaS (software as a service) lately

Every decade there is this movement and growth. And every decade it fails.

vendors probably wouldn't be going down this road if all their customers were firmly against it

Vendors don't really know what customers want... they only have an idea. And they'll do SaaS if it doesn't piss their customers off too much (as it generates recurring income) rather than only if the customer wants it.

I probably won't use it myself, but anything to break up the OS market and restore competition is a good thing.

Eek! I hate the idea of multiple OSes. I don't care which one wins, but can the UN just vote one the winner, nationalize the company that made it and get on with life? There's no real innovation, that was all done years ago. Having many OSes just make application development harder, helping family over the phone lines harder, and installing software harder. I just want write-once run-anywhere damnit.

Re:First Laugh

[Grishnakh]

I'm not worried about Google advertising to me. I worried about when they decide to sell their profile of me.

I honestly don't even care much about that. How's that going to affect me? So what if some big company knows what I look for in google searches? What are they going to do with that information? Offer me targeted advertising? So what?

I guess it just doesn't bother me too much when people advertise things I might actually be interested in to me, instead of spamming me with ads for things I have no interest in. Especially when these ads are tiny and easily ignored.

They don't sell an OS (yet), so of course they are OS neutral. But they do try to foist JavaScript on you. And they're pushing Chrome (the Browser) pretty aggressively. Going to get more aggressive later.

So what if they use JavaScript? Everyone does! In fact, it's the only way to do a lot of things inside a browser, such as having maps you can click and drag. Don't blame Google, blame the people who invented the WWW for not envisioning such interactivity when they thought up a system to show marked-up text. The whole WWW is one big giant hack, with PHP creating HTML on-the-fly and JavaScript operating on users' computers to make things seem faster and AJAX so entire pages don't have to be re-downloaded every time the user changes one little thing. The whole thing needs a big revamp.

Do you use Chrome (the browser)? No? Me neither. Never tried it, don't really care that much. So how does this affect me (or you)? If you don't want to use Google products, then don't. It's that simple. It's not like someone's going to email you stuff in a Google format and you have to use Google software to read it or else lose your job. If you prefer Firefox, or heaven forbid, IE, then use one of those instead. It's not like half the websites out there only work with Chrome.

And gather information about you that they own.

So? You haven't illustrated how this is a problem or affecting you in any meaningful way. If you want privacy, then don't participate in any online activities. Or create pseudonymous accounts.

Actually, when MS was as young as Google is, they were as revered by techies much like Google is today.

I certainly don't remember that. In fact, when I first started using PC computers around 1989, all I remember about MS was that they made DOS, which no one really liked very much, but put up with because it was the standard if you wanted to run PC software. It wasn't until Windows 3.1 came out when MS started really becoming visible, though they had already created problems before this ("DOS ain't done til Lotus won't run"). Before 1985 or so, what did they do of note, besides DOS and Altair BASIC? And lest you forget, BillG pissed off everyone at the Homebrew Computer Club with his rant against copying back in the 70s, so I really think you're wearing rose-colored glasses.

As for Google screwing people over, Google stole my intellectual property. It took a lawsuit to get a settlement from them.

Ah, I see now. With you, it's personal. What did they steal? Was it copyrighted, or patented? Because if it was patented, it wasn't your property since software patents are invalid. Just because one screwed-up country thinks they are doesn't mean they are.

Every decade there is this movement and growth. And every decade it fails.

Every decade there's movement and growth in something. Sometimes it works, sometimes it fails. The popularity of the internet in the 90s wasn't a fad, it was something that caught on and never stopped (though a lot of companies with questionable business models fell by the wayside after people got over the hype and focused on companies with more substance). Unlike 1995, now everyone and his pet dog is on the internet.

Will SaaS succeed or fail? I have no idea. Webmail certainly has caught on and never died out, since the benefits of not being tied to a single computer to read your ema

Re:First Laugh

[_Sprocket_]

What's hilarious is how many times I've been called a "tin-foil hatter" because I openly expected ulterior motives and other treachery from this company.

I guess I'm not seeing this "treachery" of which you're going on about. Microsoft made use of GPL code, like hundreds of other companies before them, and in keeping with the law and the license, also released their code under the GPL. This really is a big move for them, the company that previously wouldn't want to be caught dead with their hand in the GPL cookie jar. Here they are not only using the code but releasing it back out for public use and scrutiny.

Nobody cares that Linksys/Cisco uses GPL code in their cheap routers. Nobody cares that Google uses GPL code in their various web apps. Nobody cares that FOSS-heavy companies like Novell and Red Hat use GPL code to make a profit. Why should any care that Microsoft is using GPL code as long as they are following the terms of the license?

I don't know about "treachery" but I do see distinct differences between Microsoft and some of the other companies you've listed. This is all about history.

First and foremost, Microsoft has bent their "marketing and PR machine" towards discrediting the GPL - going so far as to call it both a "cancer" and a "virus". At the very same time that they made these claims, Microsoft used GPL utilities in their Services for Unix bundles. At the very least, this raises the question of Microsoft's honesty when it comes to their marketing (a question that's often raised). And there's something to be said that folks like yourself believe this is the first foray for Microsoft in GPL territory (no offense to you personally).

People do care when Linksys/Cisco, Google, Novell, and Red Hat use GPL code to make a profit. They take notice that the rules are followed and whether such attempts are successful - and tend to be supportive of success. Nobody is going to stop Microsoft from making money with GPL software. But when Microsoft enters those same waters, one has to wonder what happened to all the marketing they did that would imply that doing so gives away all one's "IP". Maybe we're not going to see a big press release. But we ARE going to remember previous PR hatchet-work.

Re:First Laugh

[_Sprocket_]

I'm glad that you understand that it's not just Microsoft. It seems that the parent really had an issue with Microsoft, since that's the only company that he cited. I'm not saying that Microsoft isn't evil. In fact, I'm fairly certain that they are. But that doesn't somehow make them worse than other businesses. Any for profit entity is motivated by primarily by greed. Any other motivations can almost always be traced back to greed of some sort.

Sure, we can just dismiss it all with the jaded outlook that everyone is fundamentally driven by selfish motives. But that's not very realistic or helpful. Selfish or not, there are very distinct differences between individual entities. Some can be expected to behave in a reasonably fair manner. Others can be expected to do otherwise and dealing with them will almost always be a disadvantage. It would be absurd to equate both as the same simply because they both wish to profit.

For example - a commercial is about selling you something. Nobody should think otherwise. But there is a distinct difference between the commercial that touts a product's real advantages and the commercial that lies about a product. Likewise, a company can be expected to seek a profit. But how they go about doing so is important.

Re:First Laugh

[X0563511]

This is a class of ethical behavior that tends to bubble up to the top every now and then throughout history, only to be (temporarily) buried by "nicer" ethics like the Greeks "Virtue Ethics" or what have you.

This is hardly unusual. Determining whether it is "evil" (ie, wrong) or not... is a quagmire I don't want to get into.

Re:First Laugh

[idontgno]

And they fixed it in the simplest of ways, in light of the GPL's terms and legal standing.

They could have hid, denied, and stonewalled it... but that only goes so far. At some point, they would have faced a court of law and an order enforcing the terms of the GPL, although that may have taken years. (They may have bankrolled SCO as their anti-Free-Software suicide bomber, but they're not stupid enough to strap the explosives vest onto themselves.)

They could have said "oops, sorry, we'll rewrite the offending driver and keep the product closed", but I'm not aware of any take-back provisions in the GPL: Once you have distributed, I don't know of any way to "undistribute". Once you've incorporated and distributed, you can't get out of the rest of your GPL obligations.

Re:First Laugh

[sumdumass]

When you have certain goals that you cannot or will not compromise, lots of "choices" aren't really choices at all but should be regarded as expedient measures instead.

I can agree that the reasoning behind the particular choice may have been for expediency. But you still have to remember, it was a choice they made for whatever reasons they thought it was in their interest.

The problem with that is that they would lose face. It would look too much like they were submitting not to copyright law, but to the GPL. If a silly game were made of it, then that scenario could be summarized as "GPL 1, Microsoft 0."

I'm not entirely sure how you arrive at that conclusion. Do you think some lawsuit after they stopped using the GPL'd code would force them to open up their code or something? Of course that wouldn't have happened because there is no sign that they accepted the terms of the GPL until such time as as they released their code in compliance with it. And of course in this hypothetical situation, that hadn't occurred. So at that point, the copyright holders would have to attempt to show damages on something they give away free of charge or take the statutory minimum. If anything, it would be a victory for copyright in and of itself and MS could spin that to their advantage by claiming it was proof that free software isn't free.

That's about the level of discourse found in mass marketing. A marketing company that allows this is not a very good marketing company. Microsoft is a mediocre software company whose products can be described as "just good enough to sell to an undiscerning public." However, Microsoft is an excellent marketing company by any standard.

Bad news/publicity is still news/publicity as in it allows you to get your side out and presents an opportunity to spin. It's sort of like these semi popular women who manage to get a sex tape or some compromising pictures released just when their career is about to die or their popularity is about over.

That's why they go ahead, bite the bullet, and release the relevant code as GPL software. Then they can play the PR game and talk about how cooperative and trustworthy they are, how they "did the right thing," etc. This way even a mistake turns into a win for them.

there are other ways they could turn this into a win. However, you are probably right and someone either thought they needed the code or needed to schmooze up to some people and went this route. I'm not saying it is a loss for them, I'm just pointing out that there was other viable choices and this route wasn't forced onto them outside of their own wishes.

Re:First Laugh

[squidinkcalligraphy]

Stuck between a rock and a hard place, they were.
Option 1: fight the GPL to court, probably lose, and give the GPL an even greater legal standing via the test case.
Option 2: Release the code as GPL, and nullify any previous (or future) arguments they have made about it being a 'viral' license, bad for capitalism etc etc.

Option 1 would have given them the moral high ground in terms of their philosophy - "We were against the GPL and fought it and lost", but at the cost of hardening the GPL legally.
Option 2 is spineless, but I'd be betting they are planning some 'comeback' about how the code evolution of the GPL version is less secure/buggier/slower than some alternative closed version they develop in-house.

Re:First Laugh

[squidinkcalligraphy]

I don't believe the person that discovered the issue was the author of the code, so would not have any legal standing to make a legal threat. But even if he was, Microsoft's response was "Oh, you're right... here, let me fix that".

I don't buy it. How can you accidentally be infringing on the GPL? It's not like the patent system where you may or may not be infringing on a patent because there's so bloody many of them covering everything up to sliced bread. Its a license that is _clearly included_ in every file covered by it. It's not as if some source code magically appeared on some programmer's desktop, stripped of all license information. Someone went looking for some code that did X, found a (GPL) version, used it, modified it, released it under a different license.

Re:First Laugh

[burnin1965]

I think you are missing a very important point, Once MS saw their error, they corrected it without anyone pointing to the need.

Actually, based on the articles someone did point out the need for the fix in their licensing and source code release. But I do see your point and I admit that it is quite possible they simply made a mistake and had every intention of following the GPL. However, the reaction of the community should come as no surprise considering Microsoft's historical stance on the GPL and the fact that they didn't simple release the entire driver under the GPL in the first place.

I guess we can chalk one up to lessons learned, they did the right thing, now we should move on.

Re:First Laugh

[FlyingBishop]

I think Dan made it clear, but they don't do all that is needed to reach their goal. If they did, I might be inclined to buy their product, because they would've put effort into something other than lock-in.

Re:First Laugh

[socceroos]

They are in the business making money and do ALL that is needed to reach their goal.

While that might be seen as 'expected', I cannot condone it as moral - neither should the rest of society. What I find particularly annoying is that people seem to think that if its their raison d'ter then that excuses them from wrongdoing.

Re:First Laugh

[Djupblue]

I like to talk to pretty but insecure girls on online communities, making them think I'm their friend but in reality I manipulate them to feel that they are worthless. Then I give them confirmation when they do what I want if you catch my drift.. This of course in no way makes me a "bad" person, I'm only doing this for my own gain like everybody else. At least I'm genuine. /S

Re:First Laugh

[drsmithy]

Unlike MS, Google doesn't try to force me into using any particular technology or software (or more importantly, OS).

What technology or software is it you feel Microsoft is "forcing" you to use ?

Re:First Laugh

[drsmithy]

"Microsoft originally was licensing the Linux drivers, also known as the Linux Integration Components (LIC), in a way that was in violation of the GPL. It was offering them under a combination of the GPL and a closed source license."

Of course, if we then look at what heinous violation of the GPL Microsoft were committing:

The driver had both open-source components which were under GPL, and statically linked to several binary parts.

And people wonder why companies like Microsoft don't like the GPL in the first place...

Re:First Laugh

[richardxxv]

I could have told you this, I knew there had to be an ulterior motive. In fact, I mentioned in a previous Slashdot post that, while all other contributors were praising Microsoft for its philanthropic actions in computing, to be leery. Microsoft, and Billy Gates is a bully who ought to be taken with the highest levels of suspicion for the way they treated the OS market in the 1990.

Re:First Laugh

[Sadsfae]

This would have been to their advantage because it would be very difficult to assign monetary value to something already given away for free

There are ways to gauge this, looks like it would cost 10.8 billion to create Fedora 9.

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/estimatinglinux.php

Re:First Laugh

[Eskarel]

It is a viral license. I can never understand why people dispute that, it's designed to be. Use GPL code in all but a few specific circumstances and you are required to release your product under the GPL. The license is viral because it spreads. The people who wrote it designed it specifically for that purpose, and that's just fine. Microsoft pointed that out because it's true.

There's no war between Microsoft and the GPL, I doubt Microsoft really cares one way or another about open source in and of itself. They care about open source products which are competitors to their own, and like everyone else they are trying to win, but from a philosophical point of view, well I really doubt Microsoft has any real philosophical points of view on anything much. The linux community is far more interested in the destruction of Microsoft than the other way round.

Re:First Laugh

[Eskarel]

Can someone explain how Oracle doesn't have a monopoly to protect? Aside from the fact that when they bought sun they bought up a lot of their own competition, the only database of any real consequence that is a competitor to Oracle is MS SQL, ffs Oracle owns MySQL now.

Re:First Laugh

[sumdumass]

But we aren't talking about an entire distro nor are we talking about reimbursement for the entire cost of developing. We are talking about the damage done from a temporary distribution of a single component or parts of several components against the contract terms of a license. Because it is already given away- source, secrets and all, then you would have to show how that distribution of the code damaged your ability to do the same successfully. But seeing how your own license gives everyone else that ability, it would be extremely difficult to show an actual harm. The statutory default for a copyright violation would be the worse that could happen and given a good explanation of how it was a mistake, that might not be to much either.

So the worse that could happen is a judgment of between $750 and $30,000 per any one work covered by the copyright. And if the infringement is determined not to have been knowing (the infringer wasn't aware of the infringement, the court can lower statutory damages to $200 per any one work.

Re:First Laugh

[rtb61]

Of course M$ was the most significant company to call open source advocates, Linux zealots, a cancer on commercial software, communists use open source, terrorists use open source, hackers use open source and M$ did it for years, from Gates down, as a "Marketing Tactic" and only stopped because it wasn't working, in fact it was creating permanent converts who would never go back to the evangelicals of greed at M$.

They consistently lie, out and out fabrications, that they only give up on when threatened by court actions. In fact M$ really did lead the way when it came to corporations out and out lying to customers in order to sell product and relying on lawyers to clean up the mess.

It is still a reasonable expectation that people you deal with act honestly and with integrity and when they do not, they will be crushed by the law and the courts. If a corporation acts in such a manner that they are in fact expected to act unreasonably and with a complete lack of integrity, that why should they continue to exist, of what benefit to society are they.

Re:First Laugh

[HigH5]

They didn't, because they know they would have lost badly.

And rather than looking like a looser, they call it a contribution to the community with a little PR fanfare.

Re:First Laugh

[Actually, I do RTFA]

? So what if some big company knows what I look for in google searches? What are they going to do with that information? Offer me targeted advertising? So what?

Well, suppoe that company is contracted by the federal government to make a no-fly list? Or what if they start sending unsubtle ads based on your porn preferences via the mail (oh, they got your snail mail address because they bought it from your ISP)? Or what if they use it to decide whether you get a job (again, associated you with a person via your ISP... or maybe webmail)? Or when a PI uses it in a divorce proceeding?

I have a problem with companies advertising to me, but I have a much bigger problem with any of the above, and I'm sure I could think of more if I had to.

So what if they use JavaScript? Everyone does! In fact, it's the only way to do a lot of things inside a browser, such as having maps you can click and drag.

I don't want a map I can click on and drag. I just want to see a map that shows the line between my starting and ending location. MapQuest used to do this without Javascript, until GoogleMaps made them forced to revamp their site to be GoogleMaps Lite.

Everyone does use JavaScript... now. But everyone does use the .doc format now as well. Javascript owes as much to Google's pushing as the .doc format owes to Microsoft's.

It's not like someone's going to email you stuff in a Google format and you have to use Google software to read it or else lose your job.

This already happened to me. A GoogleDocs file. Of course, GoogleDocs never worked for me, even when I allow it Javascript access, so I couldn't open it. I got in a lot of trouble.

I expect it to happen in even bigger companies in the future.

With you, it's personal. ... Was it copyrighted, or patented?

They violated a copyright of mine.

But I didn't like Google before they violated my copyright either, so it wasn't personal. I dislike them for gathering tons of information on me, for creating GoogleDocs which I have to use even though it is beyond broken, and other reasons I've outlined.

Every decade there's movement and growth in something

My point was every decade there's this growth in SaaS and cloud computing. It's more like every five years I suppose. And it never catches on. Not every decade there is a fad.

. If customers don't like SaaS, they won't buy it, and will switch vendors if they have to

Citation Needed. It's only if they dislike SaaS enough, and they understand it well enough to make that decision. And there is a reasonable competitor that offers non-SaaS.

With the way so many businesses like to lease things instead of buying them outright, even though it costs more in the long run, I really don't see why they wouldn't like SaaS

There are a lot of tax-benefits with leasing hard assets that don't apply to leasing software. That's one reason companies use cubical farms... it's only cheaper because, via strange tax convolutions, they can lease the cube farms and not buy the materials and labor to subdivide into offices.

So you like the idea of MS having a monopoly and everyone being required to run Windows, even if they raise the price to $1000/computer?

No. That's why I said nationalize it. Free to every taxpayer. With source that anyone can look at, but with a well-regulated and monitored patch approval process.

And if it's Windows, whatever. We'll deal.

You don't need to help family over phone lines. Tell them to call Dell

I like my family. I like being able to help them. It fustrates me when I cannot.

I can install

Re:First Laugh

[Actually, I do RTFA]

You don't have to use it to benefit from it.

True. But the rest of your comment focuses on improved Linux hardware support (my hardware is already supported) and hurting Microsoft. It doesn't help me to hurt Microsoft. At all. I don't hate them for no real reason.

Same in an business with say 30 000 licenses. They will evaluate OpenOffice, and ask the Microsoft sales guy: What else do you offer?

Where did OpenOffice come from? ChromeOS is all about the cloud, and GoogleDocs. And MS Office offers a lot above GoogleDocs.

Re:First Laugh

[Grishnakh]

Well, suppoe that company is contracted by the federal government to make a no-fly list? Or what if they start sending unsubtle ads based on your porn preferences via the mail (oh, they got your snail mail address because they bought it from your ISP)? Or what if they use it to decide whether you get a job (again, associated you with a person via your ISP... or maybe webmail)? Or when a PI uses it in a divorce proceeding?

This seems a little tin-foil-hattish. First, sending stuff via snail-mail isn't going to happen, because it costs too much money. With the current recession, the junkmail advertisers (which is mainly for local retail stores) are already cutting way back, and the USPS is crying the blues because junk mail makes up most of their revenue these days. Companies aren't going to start sending you porn ads in the mail, that's just ridiculous. If snail mail was somehow free (or close to it), like e-mail, you'd have a point.

As for this other stuff, it's already a risk just by having personal info out there. People are already losing out on jobs (and rightly so) because of the stupid-ass stuff they willingly post about themselves on MySpace and Facebook. But if it became known that, for instance, Google was releasing your private email to hiring companies or PIs, they'd be outed, everyone would stop using Gmail, and Google stuff would go down the toilet. Remember, companies do have a reputation to keep up. And I'm sure we here on Slashdot would be the first to hear about it if any of this happened.

I don't want a map I can click on and drag. I just want to see a map that shows the line between my starting and ending location. MapQuest used to do this without Javascript, until GoogleMaps made them forced to revamp their site to be GoogleMaps Lite.

Apparently, everyone else wanted a draggable map. I sure did. If you don't like it, find an alternate map site that doesn't use JS. If there aren't enough people like you to make it worth it for such a site to exist, then you really have no place to complain.

This already happened to me. A GoogleDocs file. Of course, GoogleDocs never worked for me, even when I allow it Javascript access, so I couldn't open it. I got in a lot of trouble.

You got in trouble at work because you couldn't read a GoogleDocs file? And GD isn't your company's official office suite? You need to find a new job, not blame Google. This is like someone sending you, for instance, a Lotus WordPro document out of the blue and you not being able to read it, even though your company doesn't use WordPro (I doubt it even exists anymore; I came across it back in the 90s). That's your company's/boss's fault for being stupid. I've never even used GoogleDocs, and don't really care to. If someone sends me a GD file, I'll tell them to re-send it in a format I can read, like PDF. If they can't be bothered to do that, then I won't waste my time with them. I'm sure my boss would back me up too. Our standard office suite is MS Office of course, so if we get stuff in another format, it would only be best-effort to read it. (Even then, we only use MSO 2003, not the latest, so I wouldn't be expected to read something in OOXML.)

There are a lot of tax-benefits with leasing hard assets that don't apply to leasing software. That's one reason companies use cubical farms... it's only cheaper because, via strange tax convolutions, they can lease the cube farms and not buy the materials and labor to subdivide into offices.

I thought it was because it's a lot cheaper to throw up some cheap fabric-covered erector-set walls instead of getting contractors in to put in studs, hang drywall, paint, etc. I count cubicle-dwellers as lucky, at any rate; my current cheap-ass employer only uses cubicle walls to separate groups of 8 people into open workgroup areas, so there's no privacy at all here. It really sucks. I doubt there's any tax benefits; they probably do it because some moron thought it'd be a great idea for everyone to have

Re:First Laugh

[Actually, I do RTFA]

People are already losing out on jobs (and rightly so) because of the stupid-ass stuff they willingly post about themselves on MySpace and Facebook.

So, because other people don't care about their privacy, I shouldn't? I don't post stupid-ass stuff on MySpace/Facebook.

blockquote But if it became known that, for instance, Google was releasing your private email to hiring companies or PIs, they'd be outed, everyone would stop using Gmail, and Google stuff would go down the toilet

It would be known too late for most people, even if it were revealed today. And it would be mail, search history, the google-analytics tracking cookies, etc.

And that's assuming it became public. I think the US Government could probably keep it quiet.

Apparently, everyone else wanted a draggable map.

Javascript was but one way to achieve this.

If you don't like it, find an alternate map site that doesn't use JS. If there aren't enough people like you to make it worth it for such a site to exist, then you really have no place to complain.

My point was that Google is forcing me to use Javascript, and not just on their site. They're pushing a technology. You're saying that technology is good... well the .doc format was far better than what it superceded. So Microsoft is(was) also good for pushing Office.

If someone sends me a GD file, I'll tell them to re-send it in a format I can read, like PDF

Except it exists in the cloud... if you cannot open it you never know you got it. Then you get in trouble for being unresponsive.

I thought it was because it's a lot cheaper to throw up some cheap fabric-covered erector-set walls instead of getting contractors in to put in studs, hang drywall, paint, etc

You'd think. But it's not. Because there are only so many cubical wall makers, and they know the value to consumers is actually higher than that of offices. Because of the tax savings.

doubt there's any tax benefits; they probably do it because some moron thought it'd be a great idea for everyone to have no privacy at work

You can lease cube farms. This is entirely deductable. Building walls is a capital investment. It has to be depreciated over X years.

Sorry, it's going to suck. Who decides how to architect it, how to maintain it, what improvements to put in? What widget library will it use? What package management system (if any)? This is called "design by committee", and always results in a pile of crap.

2/3 vote of Jobs, Gates and Linus. Any patch that 2/3 of them want gets accepted. Give them a budget to hire whatever aides they want and let them delegate their vote among their aides as they please.

Althought, I don't know

Competition is the only way to get the best results; that's why Linux is improving at such a rapid rate (granted, it had a long way to rise), while Windows has gotten pretty stagnant and is just trying to push pretty UI improvements. But even then, who decides what UI improvements to use?

Competition is why Windows has a 90% marketshare. Competition is just not technical proficeny. And a polyculture is why there is so little support for Linux, when it has the same marketshare as OSX.

And with nationalization, which country gets to control it?

The US pays all the bills of having a committee of three and their aides. Patches come from companies/individuals with a vested interest in the additions (or like open-source, altruism/fame/resume experience).

It'll be Open-Source, so I feel that other countries won't inheritly distrust it. Besides ICANN is already under US government control.

So you'll settle for mediocrity, just beca

Re:First Laugh

[drsmithy]

Silverlight exclusive deals: the only way to see Netflix movies, watch the Olympics, etc.

Sounds like Netflix and the Olympic Committe are the ones doing the "forcing".

That whole mess with Office Open XML becoming a standard, competing with ODF.

Where's the forcing ?

Continued attempts to make IE and their search engine the default. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13880_3-10277784-68.html)

That's not a definition of "force" I'm familiar with. Maybe if they were preventing you from using another search provider, you might have a point.

EOL of XP prematurely to force people onto Vista (they did backpedal that a little though).

What ? XP's lifecycle was set back in 2001 when it was first released. The only changes to that have been to extend it, not shorten it.

Re:First Laugh

[makomk]

Google might try to advertise to me, but the only ads I ever see from them are inconspicuous text ads which I just ignore, and don't take up my time or annoy me like banner ads, pop-ups, etc. do.

Google also serve obnoxious banner and Flash ads. They don't put them on their own websites, though - just third-party websites that use Google as an advertising provider. (Oh, and I don't think they're branded as being from Google, unlike the text-based ads.)

Re:First Laugh

[Grishnakh]

Yeah, that's probably from their unfortunate acquisition of Doubleclick a while ago. However, banner and Flash ads are easily avoided with AdBlock Plus and FlashBlock. I can't even remember the last time I saw a banner ad, honestly.

Re:First Laugh

[drsmithy]

You're clearly trolling, and I don't think this discussion will really go anywhere. Nobody's minds will be changed and ultimately we'll both have wasted a few minutes of our lives correcting strangers on the internet, but, that's what makes the internet so fun.

I'm not trolling, although I hold no illusions anyone's mind will be changed. My point is that when most people saying "Microsoft is forcing me to do X", what they really mean is "Microsoft is not providing me a way to do Y".

Ultimately, my question remains. In what way does Microsoft "force" you to do anything that other vendors do not ?

You can't seriously mean to tell me that Microsoft had no hand in making those sites serve exclusively Silverlight, do you you?

Of course they did, but that's no more Microsoft forcing you to use Silverlight than Coke forcing you to drink Coke when you're in a McDonalds.

They developed and forced a standard that nobody wanted onto and through a standards body while another format was already in use and arguably more "open".

How is it different to any program that supports one format instead of another ? How is it "forcing" when you can still use other formats ?

Switching out people's browsers or default search engine is clearly a powerful effect or influence on people's browsing habits.

By what measure ? Anyone who gives a damn will immediately change it back. Anyone who doesn't give a damn won't even notice and therefore their browsing habits will be unchanged.

So because they planned it in advance means they're not guilty of forced upgrades to a platform nobody really wanted or needed?

Not in the slightest. People who don't want to upgrade, are free to continue running XP.

Their customers liked XP, but they don't want to support XP.

Of course. No company wants to support old products, and I'm not aware of any that will support old products (software, hardware, whatever) indefinitely at no cost. In fact, Microsoft has some of the longest support lifecycles in the industry.

Re:First Laugh

[Elektroschock]

Of course it helps to grab market share from Microsoft because then we move towards a more competitive market. Competition == less excessive prices, less dependencies and so forth. Hardware support for Linux will also increase, when Linux has a share of 7-8% instead of 4%. Microsoft will be forces to innovate more etc etc.

Chrome OS is a lightweight Linux OS for Netbooks. Cloud in the context of netbooks means nothing more than: We don't need special native applications beyond what we can use via our webbrowser, e.g. google docs. For some users as administrations that is relevant because they don't play ego shooters during work hours anyway. We chose the cloud = we don't depend on a platform that runs natively MS Office. Of course OpenOffice.org will also run on Google Chrome OS.

Re:First Laugh

[hkmwbz]

Three bullet-points that apply as well to any corporation, ever as they do to Microsoft.

However, Microsoft consistently does "evil". Anyone who is old enough to have seen the company's history knows that. Mostly ignorant kids who don't care about history keep defending the company.

Re:First Laugh

[Blakey Rat]

However, Microsoft consistently does "evil". Anyone who is old enough to have seen the company's history knows that. Mostly ignorant kids who don't care about history keep defending the company.

Yah and anybody who runs Linux weighs 400lbs and lives in their parent's basement, right?

You've set up an awesome strawman there: if you like Microsoft you're a stupid little snot-nosed kid. Because it's inconceivable that a person could independently arrive at a conclusion different than yours.

Re:First Laugh

[hkmwbz]

When it comes to Microsoft, indeed, one has to be extremely ignorant of the company's history in order to keep defending it.

Re:First Laugh

[causality]

Can someone explain how Oracle doesn't have a monopoly to protect? Aside from the fact that when they bought sun they bought up a lot of their own competition, the only database of any real consequence that is a competitor to Oracle is MS SQL, ffs Oracle owns MySQL now.

I found this article to be helpful. Other than MS SQL it mentions IBM's DB2 server for major commercial competitors, and three open-source projects. It also mentions four "niche competitors," whatever that means (I assume it denotes marketshare).

That really doesn't sound like a monopoly to me, though I will admit I don't generally work with databases of any sort so I may have some ignorance that makes me feel that way. Whether something other than Oracle is PHB-approved in that "nobody ever got fired for buying Oracle" sort of way is another story that I'm not sure about ...

Re:First Laugh

[makomk]

I'm pretty sure the addition of the obnoxious Flash and banner ads predated the Doubleclick acquisition.

Re:First Laugh

[man_of_mr_e]

You are correct. They didn't accidentally infringe the GPL. In fact, they didn't infringe the GPL at all.

The issue, according to Microsoft and Vyatta was that Microsofts binary driver exported symbols which claimed to only be used by GPL'd code, which basically doesn't make any sense for a binary driver to do.

Apparently, Microsoft could have marked the exports correctly and this would have solved the problem, but instead chose to GPL their code which also solved the problem.

Re:First Laugh

[man_of_mr_e]

Well, as I wrote in another post, it turns out it wasn't a GPL violation at all. They simply mis-marked their export symbols as GPL only, which was a bit of a connundrum because the driver itself wasn't GPL.

Instead of recompiling the driver with the correct export markings, they decided to GPL the code, which they didn't have to do.

sooo...

[gandhi_2]

GPL is viral.

Re:sooo...

[A beautiful mind]

As viral as any licence agreement that has any terms. You could argue that the GPL is a pretty mild one when setting terms, nothing unreasonable...

Re:sooo...

[BasilBrush]

Exactly. By doing this Microsoft have added weight to their argument that businesses shouldn't use GPL because it's viral nature is dangerous. Of course it's a poor argument, but perfectly good for them to spin to suit their agenda.

Perhaps they did it on purpose.

Re:sooo...

[JesseMcDonald]

Sure, in the same sense that all proprietary licenses are also viral. The difference is that the GPL "virus" doesn't generally kill its hosts.

Re:sooo...

[Icegryphon]

oh noez, I has teh GPL/AIDS.

Re:sooo...

[gandhi_2]

I was just being a douche... (: get the facts!

Re:sooo...

[Bemopolis]

Don't give up hope — I hear they are working on a GNU vaccine.

Re:sooo...

[ozmanjusri]

By doing this Microsoft have added weight to their argument that businesses shouldn't use other people's code because copyright's viral nature is dangerous.

Fixed that for you.

Re:sooo...

[TheRaven64]

Or, more accurately, that you shouldn't use anyone else's code in your products unless you have carefully read the license and are happy to agree to all of the terms. If it's a complicated license, like the GPL or most proprietary software licenses, then you should probably run it past your company's legal department.

Re:sooo...

[burnin1965]

Microsoft have added weight to their argument that businesses shouldn't use GPL because it's viral nature

Actually it seems they have added weight to their argument that businesses should adhere to the licensing terms for the software they use. Microsoft puts massive resources into fighting violations of their licensing agreements with end users of their products and here they are caught violating the licensing terms for software they have licensed.

So in the end Microsoft should write their own code and refrain from stealing open source code if they have no intention of adhering to the licensing terms that made the open source code available. The GPL is not viral, otherwise they would be releasing ALL of their code under the GPL.

Re:sooo...

[recoiledsnake]

Sure, in the same sense that all proprietary licenses are also viral.

How are all proprietary licenses viral? If I use Visual Studio(or the command line compilers and linkers in .NET), Borland, whatever and compile statically against every possible Windows and .NET library, does my code/application become the property of MS to sell and distribute according to the terms of Visual Studio?

Re:sooo...

[Abreu]

GPL is viral.

You say that like if it were a bad thing

Re:sooo...

[professionalfurryele]

I have a hard time getting angry at Microsoft over this (plenty more things they do annoy / anger me though). They were in violation of the GPL, when they realised it they had a few options. Among those options were come into compliance, contact the copyright owner and try to make a deal or try to cover it up. Of those three options they chose the more ethical in my opinion. They almost certainly chose that option because it also made the most business sense but that is what they always do. It is what every other business does. Sun, Red Hat and IBM aren't releasing open source code for anyone else's benefit other than their own.

Re:sooo...

[Sancho]

Not really. We just want things for free. The GPL gives us things for free. Lack of copyright provides the same effect.

Re:sooo...

[binarylarry]

I think most people on Slashdot are for copyrights, but against getting FITAed by software that doesn't do what you need it to, and the vendor is the only one with the magic recipe that can fix it and doesn't care about your problem.

Re:sooo...

[Moridineas]

What does that mean? example please?

Re:sooo...

[Sancho]

Copyright isn't viral. If you integrate your code and someone else's code (to which you do not have a license), there's nothing viral about that. You simply violated copyright and neither party has rights to the combined code.

The GPL is viral, but that's ok. It's meant to be. The only problem is that the word "viral" has a negative connotation. That doesn't change the fact that the description is perfectly apt.

Re:sooo...

[dfghjk]

talk about an insight-free post...

Re:sooo...

[BasilBrush]

Copyright isn't viral. The GPL is.

Re:sooo...

[dfghjk]

Not only is that nonsense, but it hardly proves the point regarding "all proprietary licenses".

Re:sooo...

[mcgrew]

I was just being a douche

I'd rather be a dildo, myself.

Re:sooo...

[swillden]

Don't give up hope — I hear they are working on a GNU vaccine.

They were: patents. But the virus has evolved and the v3 strain is resistant.

Re:sooo...

[ildon]

Shouldn't the fact that they tried to hide the reason for their release was due to a GPL violation prove that they were NOT interested in going down the "GPL is viral!" path?

Re:sooo...

[DaleGlass]

If you do that, it's quite possible you'll end up violating a license or two, yes.

Take a good look at the .ocx and .net libraries you have on your system. It's almost certain that at least a couple of those come from some program that you installed, and that can be only redistributed by the licensee, or require paying royalties.

So yeah, if you link against those, and the company that makes them finds out, you may end up in a lot of legal trouble.

For instance, the Second Life client comes with the Kakadu JPEG 2000 image library. But just because you downloaded SL for free, and that put the kakadu DLL on your system, doesn't mean you can take that library, make an application that uses it and redistribute it. See the license. Linden Labs has paid for Kakadu, but that license isn't transferrable, so it doesn't give you the right to use it.

You really have it good with the GPL, because releasing the source works for fixing the problem. Infringe on Microsoft's copyright and it's very doubtful you'll get away so cheaply. Most likely MS will get an injuction against you, and you'll have to pull your product from sale until the case is decided.

Re:sooo...

[FireFury03]

So in the end Microsoft should write their own code and refrain from stealing open source code

They didn't steal anything, they violated copyright.

There really isn't any difference between the GPL and any other distribution licence in this regard - if you want to use someone else's work then you need to agree to the licence they provide which allows you to do so. The only real difference between open source licences and "commercial" licences in this regard is that you generally don't even get to see the source code before agreeing to a "commercial" licence so there is less scope for people to just use the code without agreeing to the licence.

Re:sooo...

[Chris Burke]

They were in violation of the GPL, when they realised it they had a few options. Among those options were come into compliance, contact the copyright owner and try to make a deal or try to cover it up. Of those three options they chose the more ethical in my opinion.

Option 4 would have been to remove the GPL code from their product and write their own. That would have been an ethical choice too.

Just pointing that out, since it's always an option and the main reason the GPL isn't "viral". A virus is something you can't just decide to remove. Nobody will ever be forced to GPL their own code.

Re:sooo...

[Lord Bitman]

GPL isn't any more viral than copyright. The only difference is that the GPL says "But I won't bother suing you if you release your code, too"

Re:sooo...

[Lord Bitman]

So if there wasn't a GPL, and Microsoft stole this code (as they did), and Novell (having no GPL to turn to for an easier solution) sued, and as part of the settlement Microsoft was forced to release the related code, would that make copyright / the court system / Novell viral?

Re:sooo...

[clampolo]

Do you really think that Microsoft couldn't rewrite open-source components of a frigging network driver if they wanted to?

No, I don't. They are too dumb to even implement DHCP properly on Vista. Piece of junk constantly trashes my router, requiring to pull the router's power and plug it back in. I also have to reboot the damned Vista machine too.

Re:sooo...

[rohan972]

The GPL *IS* viral by design.

A virus infects a host. The GPL doesn't infect your existing software. It does apply to derivative works of GPL'd code. In that case, the GPL is pre-existing and the newly written derivative code is the only thing that could be said to be invasive, if anything.

Try decompiling some MS software (non-GPL'd) and making a derivative work and see if you get less or more issues than if you had used GPL code instead. I think you'll find MS asking the courts to put conditions on you that will have you begging for something like the "viral GPL".

Re:sooo...

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

The GPL is viral, but that's ok.

I disagree. Install Inkscape on the same machine as Word, and Word will not be affected (still sick, but hey).

GPL is an extremely permissive copyright "restriction". If you want to copy the source code in your code, then you have to obey some very nice rules. Don't like it? Write your own stuff.

EULA's are viral.

Re:sooo...

[DragonWriter]

How are all proprietary licenses viral? If I use Visual Studio(or the command line compilers and linkers in .NET), Borland, whatever and compile statically against every possible Windows and .NET library, does my code/application become the property of MS to sell and distribute according to the terms of Visual Studio?

No, and if you use GCC and related tools and link statically against every possible GPL license, your code does not become the property of the FSF.

However, redistribution of "your" code that incorporates the MS-licensed code is subject to the licenses on those libraries, just as code the incorporates the GPL-licensed code is subject to that license. Naturally, the restrictions those licenses place on you in terms of what you can (or must) allow (or prohibit) downstream users from doing with the code are different, reflecting the different interests of Microsoft and the FSF.

Re:sooo...

[burnin1965]

The GPL *IS* viral by design

The use of the term viral to describe the GPL is meant to attribute the negative connotations of virii to the licensing terms.

A virus spreads, infects and causes disease in an unsuspecting host.

Source code released under the GPL does not spread, infect or disease unsuspecting hosts. Source code licensed under the GPL is used with intent.

The only way the host project could be unsuspecting would be if the source code was acquired and utilized without bothering to perform due diligence to understand the licensing terms which made the source code available. Something that seems very out of character for a multi-billion dollar corporation that continually harps on customers about licensing violations.

If due diligence is not completed and a project unknowingly incorporates GPLed code it still does not spread and infect or disease their proprietary code. The GPLed code can be removed from the project, which rather than removing a virus is more like removing a transplanted organ in keeping with your bodily allegory. Of course once you remove the organ from the body the body likely will die unless you get another organ.

If you violate the terms of the GPL and resolve the issue by removing the open source code from your project there still will be the issue of damages caused by violating the license. The damages and the body missing the organ are likely the reason corporations easily give in to the terms of the GPL, not because it is viral.

Re:sooo...

[GreatBunzinni]

The GPL is as "viral" as any other copyrighted work. After all, the author does not lose his copyright just because he authorized someone to access his work. In fact, if I happen to rip a a copy of Microsoft's Windows XP from an original and fully licensed install CD that a buddy of mine bought then Microsoft keeps his copyright not only on my buddy's CD install but also on the copy I ripped myself.

The same thing applies to any GPL software. For example, if my buddy downloaded some GPL package from the project site itself and then sent me a copy of that then the original author would still keep his copyright over my copy and my buddy's copy.

There is no mystery. Copyright sticks to any reincarnation of any copyrighted work and it lingers until the copyright is void. The copyright holder always keeps a say so on what anyone may do with his work. The only thing that differs from the Microsoft Windows XP case and the GPLed software case is that the author of the GPLed software explicitly authorizes redistribution, which is something that Microsoft doesn't do with XP. Other than that, the licenses are still valid, they apply to each and every copy made of their work and the authors still have a say so on their works.

So can we please stop with this "viral" nonsense?

Re:sooo...

[burnin1965]

They didn't steal anything, they violated copyright.

Very true, I stand corrected. But it is fun to use the same terms against those who have been wailing about stolen IP for years. ;)

Re:sooo...

[Sancho]

I disagree. Install Inkscape on the same machine as Word, and Word will not be affected (still sick, but hey).

Straw man. The GPL doesn't have anything to do with use-rights. It only deals with distribution rights for GPL software, and its viral nature only manifests when distributing derivative works.

How exactly are EULAs viral?

Argument by assertion? How are EULAs viral? A particular EULA could be viral, but in general, the are not. "In order to use this software, you must dance like a chicken for 30 seconds," is an example of a EULA. Please explain how it is viral.

Would you prefer it if we said that the GPL was a recursive, automatic program distribution copyright clause? That is to say, if GPL code is incorporated into your code, two things happen:
1) If you wish to distribute your code, you must distribute it under the GPL.
2) Anyone else incorporating your code must follow these terms.

Frankly, it sounds like pretty viral to me.

Re:sooo...

[Vu1turEMaN]

Hey while we're on this line of thought, I'd like to be a dolphin.

Re:sooo...

[FishWithAHammer]

DHCP works fine here. Maybe they should give you the freetard treatment and file it under WorksForMe, eh? ;)

What's the router model?

Re:sooo...

[mounthood]

Sure, in the same sense that all proprietary licenses are also viral. The difference is that the GPL "virus" doesn't generally kill its hosts.

Wrong! The difference is that GPL source code is irresponsibly scattered all over the web. Programmers don't lock it up like good corporate citizens. We teach our employees to cut any corner in the pursuit of profit, and that's how it should be! You can't just leave valuable Intellectual Property out in the open, that's not how its done.

Re:sooo...

[Sancho]

The same thing applies to any GPL software. For example, if my buddy downloaded some GPL package from the project site itself and then sent me a copy of that then the original author would still keep his copyright over my copy and my buddy's copy.

This is disingenuous, because it's not what we're talking about. The GPL goes above and beyond copyright by providing the right to redistribute the software or derivative works of the software under the condition that you pass along the notices you received (in the former case) or that you GPL your work and agree to the terms of the GPL (in the latter case.) That's where the viral nature comes in.

Copyright applies to the work. It's much more abstract than you're trying to make it. The pieces of paper on which a work is printed are not copyrighted--it's the work that's copyrighted. You can do whatever you like with the paper, but if you generate a new copy of the work, you're in violation.

Put another way, there's only one work, and only one copyright on it (a simplification, admittedly, but one which I do not believe tarnishes the argument.) With the derived works clause of the GPL, you may generate a new, derived work, and that work must be licensed under the GPL if you distribute it.

Re:sooo...

[maxwell demon]

Not really. We just want things for free. The GPL gives us things for free.

No it doesn't. Microsoft thought it did. Which led to their embarrassing about face. "Yay, we're doing something different, because we're Microsoft and we just like acting crazy every now and then... *ahem, cough* (also PNAMBIC)"

If you want stuff for free you need the BSD license. Whether it's what's best for you at time T is another question.

Well, if the GPL gives you something for free depends on if you are a developer or an user. If you are just an user, you indeed get the programs for free. If you are a developer basing your code on the GPLed code and distributing it, you pay with your code. If you like that price (i.e. the value you get by using the GPLed code is larger than the value of your own contribution), then go with the GPLed code. If you don't like the price, look elsewhere for code to use, or write it yourself.

Re:sooo...

[aztracker1]

Sorry, but this is inaccurate at best... IIRC v3 prevents contributors from claiming patents on submitted code. It doesn't prevent a third (non-contributing) party from claiming infringement on a given patent. Overall this aspect of v3 can be a good thing. The Linux kernel will likely never apply this license though. Also, many have changed/removed the "or future version" clause making their licensing v2 only. I don't think that v3 has had the intended effect, and will in the end not be very widely popular.

Re:sooo...

[BlueKitties]

"This is open source. Any software that uses it must also be open source." The purpose of the license is pretty easy to understand, the only reason it gets complicated is because people keep trying to find loopholes. At least that's how I see it as a programmer, I guess it might seem different in the eyes of a business executive.

Re:sooo...

[Ana10g]

I thought it had Teh berculosis!

Re:sooo...

[Znork]

1) If you wish to distribute your code, you must distribute it under the GPL.

That's not actually accurate and usually the misconception about the GPL being 'viral'. The correct formulation would be:

1) If you want to distribute the GPL code, you must distribute it under the GPL.

You're entirely free to distribute your own code however you want, the fact that you may not distribute the GPL code with it, and the possibility that your own code may not be useful without the GPL code doesn't make the GPL code more 'viral' than any other code which you do not have the right to distribute. You could base your own OS off the Windows code base and not be allowed to distribute that either; maybe you could call Microsoft and assign copyright to them to have it distributed, but the fundamental issue is the same in both cases: you can distribute your code but you can't distribute the other code without complying with the copyright holders requirements.

Those requirements may be 'anyone else must be allowed to do the same to your code as you did to ours', or 'give the code to us'. But either way it's copyright that forces you to have permission, and it's your decision to make your code dependent on someone elses copyrighted code that together form the 'viral' aspect, not the license terms (spelled out, or negotiable) themselves.

Re:sooo...

[Anonymous Coward]

No it doesn't. Microsoft thought it did. Which led to their embarrassing about face. "Yay, we're doing something different, because we're Microsoft and we just like acting crazy every now and then... *ahem, cough* (also PNAMBIC)"

If you want stuff for free you need the BSD license. Whether it's what's best for you at time T is another question.

The more likely scenario is that some stupid developer copied and pasted code because he couldn't figure out how to implement it on his own. Or some stupid developer statically linked to GPLd code. Microsoft has a lot of developers, I'm sure some of them don't bother to check license information when they search the web for help.

Poor oversight/peer review and one developer that doesn't care and boom... your entire project must now be released as open source. Seems pretty viral to me. No chance to recall and remove the code, nope... you've got to give it all away now.

Re:sooo...

[hoffmanbike]

why do dildos (dildoes?) get such a bad rap?

Re:sooo...

[amorsen]

Copyright isn't viral. If you integrate your code and someone else's code (to which you do not have a license), there's nothing viral about that. You simply violated copyright and neither party has rights to the combined code.

That is exactly the same with GPL-licensed code. The only difference is that authors of GPL software quite often drop their cases when the defendant decides to free their software. Authors of proprietary software rarely show such courtesy. Either way, it's up to the defendant to negotiate a settlement or to accept their punishment (and to lobby to get copyright law changed, perhaps).

Re:sooo...

[Anonymous Coward]

You misspelled iPhone.

Re:sooo...

[amorsen]

No. If you get caught, you would likely be forbidden from distributing it anymore, and you pay Microsoft and Borland compensation for the copies already distributed. Exactly the same happens with the GPL.

Unless you didn't distribute it at all, in which case it all depends on the EULA. The GPL allows you to do whatever you want if you don't distribute the result, by the way.

Re:sooo...

[cbiltcliffe]

"In order to use this software, you must dance like a chicken for 30 seconds," is an example of a EULA. Please explain how it is viral.

Simple.

Avian flu.

Re:sooo...

[amorsen]

Normally, DHCP servers and BOOTP relay agents attempt to deliver DHCPOFFER, DHCPACK and DHCPNAK messages directly to the client using uicast delivery. The IP destination address (in the IP header) is set to the DHCP 'yiaddr' address and the link-layer destination address is set to the DHCP 'chaddr' address. Unfortunately, some client implementations are unable to receive such unicast IP datagrams until the implementation has been configured with a valid IP address (leading to a deadlock in which the client's IP address cannot be delivered until the client has been configured with an IP address).

A client that cannot receive unicast IP datagrams until its protocol software has been configured with an IP address SHOULD set the BROADCAST bit in the 'flags' field to 1 in any DHCPDISCOVER or DHCPREQUEST messages that client sends. The BROADCAST bit will provide a hint to the DHCP server and BOOTP relay agent to broadcast any messages to the client on the client's subnet. A client that can receive unicast IP datagrams before its protocol software has been configured SHOULD clear the BROADCAST bit to 0.

That's from RFC 2131, published March 1997. Guess what? Vista apparently has a deficient IP stack which "cannot receive unicast IP datagrams until its protocol software has been configured with an IP address.". At least it sets the BROADCAST bit. It gets even stupider, because Vista actually HAS a modern IP stack, and CAN receive unicast without having an IP address. You just need to set a registry entry.

Needless to say, not every router vendor supported the BROADCAST bit in their DHCP servers. Well now they do.

Re:sooo...

[cbiltcliffe]

But it is fun to use the same terms against those who have been wailing about stolen IP for years. ;)

Fun, yes. But in the end, it makes us no better than them.

Unless, of course, we're blatantly obvious in our sarcastic use of the term.

Re:sooo...

[cbiltcliffe]

Depends.

On the one hand, they could say "The GPL is viral! Booga booga booga!"

On the other hand, they'd also have to say "We broke the law. We have no respect for other's copyrights; only our own. We only follow our legal obligations when under threat of lawsuit."

Considering how often in the past they've said that the GPL is viral, they probably figured more damage would be done by admitting the second, than the improvement in the FUD machine by restating the first for the hundredth time.

Re:sooo...

[cbiltcliffe]

In the EULA for some versions of Visual Studio (don't know about current ones, as I don't have .NET, and no plans to get it) there was a clause stating you could not use VS to develop any software which competed with Word, Excel, Office, and a few other Microsoft products.

Re:sooo...

[ukyoCE]

If you use someone else's copyrighted code, you risk a lawsuit unless you conform to their demands.

With the GPL, the demands are setup before the code "stealing" takes place: you're free to use it, but your code must also be made available.

With copyright, the copyright holder could require you to open source your code, could sue you for damages AND shut down your project, or demand huge sums of money (to avoid the suing and shutting down).

Can anyone really say with a straight face that the GPL makes it harder or riskier to use other peoples' code?

Re:sooo...

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

How are EULAs viral?

If you want to run Word, you need to accept the Word EULA and the Windows EULA and the anti virus EULA and the printer driver EULA and the, well, you get the drift. What is the percentage of EULA's you read on the total you accepted? They multiply like a disease. It's practically impossible to keep track of them, they are all (slightly) different.

Straw man. The GPL doesn't have anything to do with use-rights. It only deals with distribution rights for GPL software, and its viral nature only manifests when distributing derivative works.

Thank you. That was the point. Installing the application does not 'infect' anything. The 'viral' argument is just FUD thrown around by S. Balmer.

The only time when somebody has to apply the GPL to their own work is when they want to create derivative work. Try that with Word - and no, macro's don't count.

Re:sooo...

[Fred_A]

By doing this Microsoft have added weight to their argument that businesses shouldn't use other people's code because copyright's viral nature is dangerous.

Fixed that for you.

They did both. They also agreed that the GPL was, in their opinion, enforceable. Which is a good thing and places it on the same rank as any other license.

In the end, if you use code from somewhere else, abide by its rules. Even if you are Microsoft (possibly especially if you are Microsoft because of the huge potential backslash).

Re:sooo...

[GreatBunzinni]

No, you are wrong. The GPL does not nor it can ever "go beyond copyright". In fact, the GPL doesn't go half as far as any proprietary license goes, as it doesn't impose all those extensive usage constrictions and access limitations that companies such as Microsoft impose on their product buyers/licensees.

To make it clear for you, with the GPL, you are free to do pretty much everything you wish to do with a software package licensed under it, including redistributing copies to whoever is interested in acquiring them. It doesn't matter who copies the work, how it copies and why it copies. The communication medium is also perfectly irrelevant. If someone wishes to use a GPL software that person is free to do anything he wishes to do with his copy. That's a pretty lax copyright policy right there.

On the other hand, your generic proprietary software is armed to the teeth with a long list of absurd and ridiculous legal restrictions that forces all licensees to jump through all kinds of hoops just to be able to use it, including extremely limited versions. Proprietary software licenses such as the one that Microsoft concedes to their customers even tie down their customers to petty details such as hardware upgrades and what type of hardware you may or may not run. And let's not even talk about redistributing or having access to the source code. Those rights are, in the proprietary world, laughable and unthinkable. Since when you can redistribute any release of Microsoft Windows? You can't. And MS makes damn sure you do not by arming itself with copyright law and clauses that grant them the right to raid your business if they suspect that you are using unlicensed copies of their software. That's what going beyond copyright law is.

So please avoid accusing others of being disingenuous while claiming that GPLed software goes beyond copyright while claiming that somehow proprietary software is so free and righteous. You may claim all you like that up is down and that shit smells of roses but unfortunately facts don't go that way.

Re:sooo...

[Sancho]

Can anyone really say with a straight face that the GPL makes it harder or riskier to use other peoples' code?

I don't know. I didn't, because that's not what viral means.

Re:sooo...

[Fred_A]

The more likely scenario is that some stupid developer copied and pasted code because he couldn't figure out how to implement it on his own. Or some stupid developer statically linked to GPLd code. Microsoft has a lot of developers, I'm sure some of them don't bother to check license information when they search the web for help.

Agreed, that's probably what happened. And that can fairly easily slip through internal code review. It wouldn't make much sense for MS to have tried to borrow some GPLed code since everybody scrutinizes their every move.

Re:sooo...

[Sancho]

If you want to run Word, you need to accept the Word EULA and the Windows EULA and the anti virus EULA and the printer driver EULA and the, well, you get the drift.

What? That makes no sense. I don't have to accept any EULA except for the software I choose to use.

The only time when somebody has to apply the GPL to their own work is when they want to create derivative work. Try that with Word - and no, macro's don't count.

Are you being intentionally obtuse here?

Of course you can't create a derivative work from Word. You can with the Programmer's version of antiword, but if you do (and you distribute it), you have to license that derivative work under the GPL. Hence viral.

I really get the feeling that the connotation of the word is the problem here. Everyone jumps up against labeling the GPL as viral because it sounds bad, and once you've formed an opinion on something, it's often hard to change it.

Re:sooo...

[Sancho]

while claiming that somehow proprietary software is so free and righteous. You may claim all you like that up is down and that shit smells of roses but unfortunately facts don't go that way.

I had a pretty good and civil reply, which I deleted once I read that.

I never said anything about proprietary software being free or righteous or anything. Stop putting words in people's mouths. Your bias has just shown through, and your post has shown that you're unable to overcome it.

Good day to you.

Re:sooo...

[Moridineas]

Interesting and on its face, unlikely? I tried googling this but didn't have any luck -- do you have any more specific information or memories of when this might have been?

Re:sooo...

[Mikkeles]

Well, only among men do they. It's because dildoes are superior at their main function and also have more personality.

Re:sooo...

[ukyoCE]

Exactly, GPL-haters are trying to frame it as:

GPL = Viral = risky to use

When it's really

GPL = Viral = explicit+known requirements for use = no risk unless you're simply stealing copyrighted code and trying to get away with it

In terms of using other peoples' copyrighted code, the explicit+known requirements of the GPL are a lot less of a risk than you would run into with most other copyrighted code. Go ahead and steal some Microsoft code, for instance - good luck being given the option to open source your code and keep selling your product!

Re:sooo...

[swillden]

It doesn't prevent a third (non-contributing) party from claiming infringement on a given patent.

Of course not. How could it bind a third party who never accepted the license terms?

I don't think that v3 has had the intended effect, and will in the end not be very widely popular.

I find lots and lots of projects going to v3.

Re:sooo...

[DaHat]

>sometimes by out-and-out stealing code that was shared under a non-disclosure agreement.

Really? Care to support that assertion?

Re:sooo...

[Sancho]

Unfortunately, proponents of the GPL also see it as GPL = Viral = risky to use. That seems to be why they don't like the clearly apropos description. See ... pretty much every reply to my post except for yours.

Re:sooo...

[JacksBrokenCode]

Not detracting from your post, I agree there is always that option. Unfortunately (in the context of the discussion at /.) if they chose Option 4, there's a good chance we'd see an article here complaining that "MS would rather pull a product / waste developer hours / any option other than release GPL'd code". MS can't win here...

Re:sooo...

[sumdumass]

Actually, no. Your entire project does not need to become OSS. You can remove the offending code and take the hit on the contract violation in the license.

This won't be to much with GPLed code because as already mentioned, it's given away free. The GPL remedy is that you cannot use GPLed code so by the time you remove the code in question, you would already be in compliance with the GPL.

Giving code away is not the only remedy for a GPL violation. It's just the one they want you to use.

Re:sooo...

[sumdumass]

Finally, someone else who knows what is up.

And you put it in a way that should be easily understood by everyone.

Copyright, the way the GPL and control of code works, give the copyright holder exclusive control of the copyrighted materials. No third party license or contract can alter your control unless you explicitly agree to it. (read explicitly as knowing an action will cause another). You cannot trick someone out of their copyright or patent rights.

Re:sooo...

[IntlHarvester]

This is incorrect. There are not explict and known requirements for how one can use GPLed code, especially libraries.

Pro-GPL advocates describe how copyright's "derived work" protection can limit how people use certain libraries. But the reality is that the definition of a derived work in software is very legally complex, and even Pro-GPL advocates recommend consulting a lawyer.

Anyway, that's the crux of the "viral" argument.

Re:sooo...

[IntlHarvester]

You are confusing two points. Traditional well-understood copyright law says you can't redistribute the kakadu DLL, true.

But the FSF copyright interpretation claims that Second Life actually becomes a "derived work" of the kakadu DLL by linking to it. This is a legal interpretation that nobody in the commercial software industry subscribes to. By writing a OS X app and linking to OS X libraries, your software doesn't become the property of Apple, for example.

Re:sooo...

[Runaway1956]

Uhhh, I think the GPL was meant to BE viral. It just keeps spreading, and inoculations don't do anything to stop it. It is about as viral as copyright and patent abuse, I would say. The day that the GPL and it's mutant strains become the dominant license virus on this planet, I'll do a few "Hail Mary" and sing "Hallelujah", and I'm not even Catholic!!

Re:sooo...

[KingMotley]

Can anyone really say with a straight face that the GPL makes it harder or riskier to use other peoples' code?

Harder and riskier to use other peoples' code than say BSD? Hell yes.

Even the MS-PL is less restrictive or risky for me as a software developer.

Re:sooo...

[Chris Burke]

MS can't win here...

Yeah, no shit they can't win, because they already lost when they violated the GPL. The win/lose ship has already sailed. They were already given more consideration and benefit of the doubt than they deserve when, as usual, the copyright holder of the GPL code didn't try to extort or sue MS for damages, but rather simply tried to resolve the non-compliance issue going forward.

That MS took one of the valid, legal, and ethical approaches to resolving the issue is not to their credit, unless you're impressed by people who don't like getting in even deeper shit than they're already in. When you pick one of several offered punishments for having committed a crime, there is no "right" choice where you "win" and are no longer a criminal, like you get brownie points just for accepting the judgment of the court. Same deal here.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't? NO. Damned because you already did.

Re:sooo...

[ukyoCE]

IANAL but:

If a library can be linked to without the sourc I can't imagine you would ever need to open source other code that linked to those libraries. That means the code can link to any implementation of those libraries, whether or not the particular implementation used on a system is GPLed.

If you go in and edit the code for those libraries before compiling and linking to them, that is when (and what) would need to be open sourced under the GPL.

(again, not an expert so feel free to tell me I'm completely wrong!)

Re:sooo...

[Runaway1956]

Maybe we can clarify something here - maybe for you, maybe for me.

GPL has little concern for a corporation that downloads and uses GPL'd code. That corporation can use, modify, and use GPL'd material for eternity, and no one will care in the least. So long as this code stays inhouse, it is the property of that corporation, more so than if they had "licensed" similar software from Microsoft.

Only if and when that corporation releases their code to the public, and/or attempts to sell that code, does the GPL kick in. The moment that program crosses the line from their private inhouse servers out into "public" areas, THEN the GPL kicks in, meaning that they must document where the original code came from, who authored it, and what changes they have made to it.

The idea that enterprise operations somehow become liable for USING GPL'd products seems to me patently ridiculous. FUD, plain and simple.

If I am wrong, I certainly wish that someone would correct me, and spell out in detail what I'm missing.

Re:sooo...

[DaleGlass]

No, you're the one confusing something. I'm using SL just for the sake of example, because it's something I'm personally familiar with, including licensing-wise.

My point is that yes, linking with random files you find in Windows can get you in trouble, and it's by no means exclusive to the GPL. Proprietary libraries have plenty licensing terms that are much nastier than the GPL, which require for instance to pay royalties. You can't just go and link to that without further consideration.

You can link to OS X libraries because Apple allows you to do so. If you tried to create an application that say, reused one of the libraries found in Photoshop without Adobe consenting to it, you can bet Adobe would be very unhappy about that, and would haul your ass into court.

your software doesn't become the property of Apple, for example.

Your software never becomes the property of anybody else, even if you link with a GPL (and not LGPL) library. What the FSF thinks is that linking with a GPL licensed library without complying with the GPL infringes on the GPL, and without the GPL allowing for distribution, it infringes on the library's copyright. But everybody still owns their own stuff.

For instance, if you take my GPL licensed code and integrate it into your non-GPL application you're not following the terms, and hence infringing on my copyright. But that doesn't make your code mine, and does not give me the ability to relicense your code (as I could if I had the copyright to it).

Some projects like the Linux kernel are all full of pieces of thousands of different copyright holders and effectively can't change the license because nobody owns the whole thing. Bits are owned by many different people, some of which will never consent to a license change, or are dead.

Re:sooo...

[KingMotley]

Not "exactly the same thing happens with the GPL". See if I spend 5 years developing a program, and for some reason if GPL code happens to slip into it (junior programmer), and it gets released before the problem is found, I now have to release all the source to my entire program. 5 years down the drain because of a junior programmer. Now if it was commercial code, I will likely be warned, I can then remove the offending code and re-release. I might or might not get a fine and/or have to pay for already distributed copies, but once it's paid I can then go forward and continue making money on the program I spent the last 5 years making.

See in one case (the GPL), I've lost everything. I can no longer recoup the losses I incurred in development for the last 5 years. With a typical commercial license violation, it is a set back, but not a insurmountable one. Take for example the MSDOS 6.2 issue where unlicensed code from stacker was put into MS-DOS. If it was GPL software, the MS-DOS line would have died right there. No derivative work could be done after that point, and since Windows was based on MS-DOS, no windows, no Microsoft office. In all fairness, that would have likely killed Microsoft right there.

So no, it's not "exactly the same thing".

Re:sooo...

[shentino]

For starters (if you ever read the VS EULA), you are not allowed to compete with Access.

Re:sooo...

[hoffmanbike]

yeah.. but i'm a guy... and bought my SO one.. she was hours away and we couldn't see each other for weeks on end.... long story short... not that big of a deal...but maybe that's just me/us

Re:sooo...

[TheRaven64]

That's great, so I can incorporate GPL'd code with Apache licensed (open source) code, APSL (open source) and CDDL (open source) code, and as long as I release the result as open source then it's fine?

Glib license summaries are no substitute for reading the legalese. I sincerely hope you don't work at a company that uses GPL'd code in any of your products.

Re:sooo...

[gandhi_2]

are we talking about a douche, dildo, or dolphin? i got lost there.

Re:sooo...

[InsaneGeek]

http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/robert/weighing-in-on-the-visual-studio-express-eula-debacle.aspx

This is the only thing I can find about the EULA and VS having any contraversy. Basically the primary issue was around some bits in the license which MS said was there to prevent you from using it to work around restrictions. i.e. timebomb shareware / limited functionality software that you need pay for, etc. VS had/has different levels and a guy had written some things to extend the cheap limited version of VS to basically give it the functionality of the full version.

I've not been able to find anything anywhere relative to your acusation...

Re:sooo...

[BasilBrush]

What was that first bit again?

Re:sooo...

[IntlHarvester]

You can link to OS X libraries because Apple allows you to do so.

No, Apple doesn't assert they have the right in the first place. The Apple EULA doesn't contain any part where you are "allowed" to link to their libraries, it's just assumed you may do so.

Your software never becomes the property of anybody else

Point taken. But your example, the FSF (and nobody else) still believes a derived work is created.

Re:sooo...

[BasilBrush]

A virus infects a host. The GPL doesn't infect your existing software.

Sure it does. If I release v1.0 of my sotwar all written by me, it's all mine. If in v2.0 I copy a class out of a some GPL project into my source and compile the entire thing together and release it as v2.0, the license on that code says that my entire project, including everything that was in v1.0 is now GPL. That's viral. The license has infected my pre-existing code base.

I make no comment whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. It just is. It's ill-informed or dishonest to deny the viral nature of GPL.

Re:sooo...

[IntlHarvester]

IANAL either, but I can tell you it's some complicated legal test, not something based on specific programmer actions.

Re:sooo...

[BasilBrush]

The only way the host project could be unsuspecting would be if the source code was acquired and utilized without bothering to perform due diligence to understand the licensing terms which made the source code available.

Happens all the time. Individual programmers don't know how to code something, so they look for an answer on Google. Unfortunately the code they end up copying is from a GPLed project. Clearly the programmer made a mistake, but the company he works for ends up with their entire project, or at least the part that compiles into a single executable, as GPLed by viral means.

Of course most of the time no one in the open source community finds out, or the code is found and replaced before they do. But when they do find out....

Re:sooo...

[amorsen]

Not "exactly the same thing happens with the GPL". See if I spend 5 years developing a program, and for some reason if GPL code happens to slip into it (junior programmer), and it gets released before the problem is found, I now have to release all the source to my entire program.

No you don't. You have to pay the fine and the compensation and stop distributing your program. The GPL isn't an EULA, if you don't like it then you can just ignore it and be subject to usual copyright rules.

Re:sooo...

[sirsnork]

Actually, no. You could do exactly the same with the GPL code, remove it from the codebase and re-release. The guys involved probably won't even want the money from you, although you could admit your mistake and give them, or some charity a donation.

Re:sooo...

[anyGould]

Copyright isn't viral. The GPL is.

Exactly - Other people's GPL in your code will cause some symptoms, but you'll live.

Using other people's copyrighted material in your code will kill your company in lawsuits, so it's more like a shovel to the back of the head.

Re:sooo...

[BasilBrush]

The idea that enterprise operations somehow become liable for USING GPL'd products seems to me patently ridiculous. FUD, plain and simple.

Absolutely. That FUD is part of the "spin" I mentioned. The danger exists for companies that develop and distribute software, not for companies that just use it and modified versions of it.

Re:sooo...

[Runaway1956]

It's possible that we didn't read the same article. I guess it's just as likely that English isn't your first language. In the article posted at the top of this page, the links lead to other articles which clearly state that there was a suit filed against Microsoft. MS didn't just discover that they had inadvertantly used GPL code, and decide that the right thing to do was release their work under the GPL. There wasn't a choice of contacting the copyright owner, or trying to cover it up. The choices were, comply with the copyright, or go to court.

Compliance was cheaper than sending their law team down to some court house to haggle over the GPL.

Re:sooo...

[cbhacking]

Very few license agreements regulate what you can do with *other* software (i.e. code that isn't part of the software you just got, but interacts with it via a public API). That's what they mean by "viral," the GPL forces you to use itself on your own code just because your code interacts with your own. It's an intentionally repulsive metaphor; the GPL "infects" any code that touches its "host."

I much prefer the LGPL or other OSS licenses - including copyleft licenses - that don't attempt to regulate what other developers can do with their own code (as opposed to works derived from my code).

Re:sooo...

[burnin1965]

Happens all the time. Individual programmers don't know how to code something, so they look for an answer on Google. Unfortunately the code they end up copying is from a GPLed project.

All the time eh? Citation please.

Re:sooo...

[BasilBrush]

I'm no grass.

Re:sooo...

[BitZtream]

If GPL isn't viral then why does MS have to release anything?

Its ability to spread has a minor limitation in scope if you're careful, but its most certainly viral and thats one of the reason it exists. I'm sorry that it being viral is a bad thing to many people but either recognize it for being viral or stop trying to use its viral nature to force others to give their code out as well.

If its viral, MS has to give out the code they built with it.

If it isn't viral, MS doesn't have to.

Pick a side, but stop trying to bullshit people by playing both sides of the fence.

Re:sooo...

[BitZtream]

They may not be forced to release the code, GPL is what forces them to release the code. No GPL means no predefined rules for how it has to be handled, which means the court can pick some other way to resolve the dispute.

You don't get to say 'if there was no GPL' and then follow up as if GPL is the common law of what happens when no other contract exists.

Re:sooo...

[BitZtream]

Really? What company is making money from GPL'd code?

And don't spew any of the companies that are selling proprietary code along side GPL code, or selling services supporting GPL code. They aren't making money of GPL any more than they are making money off the janitor who cleans the chip fabrication factory.

You don't make money from GPL'd code. Thats the reality of it. You make money off some other service that you package with the GPL code. GPL'd code by itself has no monetary value at all.

Re:sooo...

[KingMotley]

Perhaps. That is not my understanding, but I am not a lawyer. That was told to me by the president of our company from our legal department, but I don't know the quality of our legal department, nor how well the information was conveyed to him and then to me. This was many years ago, perhaps more recent rulings may have changed things as well.

Re:sooo...

[FishWithAHammer]

If I'm reading that right, Vista's IP stack does it correctly by setting the BROADCAST bit, while support for the more modern method of operation is disabled for some reason or other, yes?

It sounds like the DHCP servers that don't honor the BROADCAST flag are at fault.

Re:sooo...

[hoffmanbike]

a dolphin shaped dildo

Re:sooo...

[drsmithy]

The more likely scenario is that some stupid developer copied and pasted code because he couldn't figure out how to implement it on his own.

Actually, the extent of their GPL violation was linking some GPLed code to closed-source binaries. Truly evil, right ?

Re:sooo...

[rohan972]

A virus infects a host. The GPL doesn't infect your existing software.

Sure it does. If I release v1.0 of my sotwar all written by me, it's all mine. If in v2.0 I copy a class out of a some GPL project into my source and compile the entire thing together and release it as v2.0, the license on that code says that my entire project, including everything that was in v1.0 is now GPL. That's viral. The license has infected my pre-existing code base. I make no comment whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. It just is. It's ill-informed or dishonest to deny the viral nature of GPL.

Well, there's still the little issue of self-replication to be dealt with. The thing that differentiates a software virus from other types of malware is self-replication. So unless the GPL can, from the code base you deliberately put it in, insert itself into other projects it still doesn't qualify as viral. Every instance of GPL being applied to your code requires action on your part.

BTW, your example is not quite correct. If there was code in your v1.0 that didn't make it into v2.0 and was therefore never distributed compiled together with the GPL'd code it would be unaffected by the GPL.

Re:sooo...

[BasilBrush]

Well, there's still the little issue of self-replication to be dealt with. The thing that differentiates a software virus from other types of malware is self-replication. So unless the GPL can, from the code base you deliberately put it in, insert itself into other projects it still doesn't qualify as viral.

No one is talking about a computer virus, not viral as in code copying by itself. We're talking about a viral LICENCE.

Re:sooo...

[rohan972]

No one is talking about a computer virus, not viral as in code copying by itself. We're talking about a viral LICENCE.

I didn't dispute that, nevertheless the LICENCE does not self-replicate. I used the virus vs other malware point as an example of what causes something to be considered viral.

If the GPL applies to your code, it is only due to direct action on your part, thus it is not viral. If it were truly viral it could spread to your code without your intervention.

Re:sooo...

[amorsen]

The BROADCAST was for support for obsolete IP stacks. Yes, DHCP servers should still support it, but given that noone used it, some of the newer DHCP servers didn't implement support for it. Hardly surprising.

The fact is that "A client that can receive unicast IP datagrams before its protocol software has been configured SHOULD clear the BROADCAST bit to 0." Vista CAN receive unicast IP datagrams before its protocol software has been configured, it just drops them unless a registry entry is defined.

The RFC's are based on the principle of "be strict in what you send and lenient in what you expect". Vista breaks the first rule and the various router DHCP servers broke the second.

I simply can't think of an innocent reason to have a registry entry which out to be called be_incompatible and having it default to "yes".

Re:sooo...

[cyclomedia]

Agreed, the basic principle of the GPL is "if you use my code in your code, you have to let the next guy use the code too".

There's a dead simple way for corporations to avoild the GPL and that's to write their own code instead of stealing it.

Re:sooo...

[mcgrew]

Lady, I feel sorry for you if your lovers are such assholes and are that bad in bed.

Re:sooo...

[FishWithAHammer]

I agree that that's not a good idea, but I don't think you can ascribe it to malice.

Do you know if Windows 7 exhibits the same behavior?

Re:sooo...

[drsmithy]

In fact, the GPL doesn't go half as far as any proprietary license goes, as it doesn't impose all those extensive usage constrictions and access limitations that companies such as Microsoft impose on their product buyers/licensees.

Actually it does. The GPL implies that the result of linking code against GPLed code is a 'derivative work' (what has happened in the situation under discussion). Ergo, this means the GPL "infects" anything that links against it, requiring that code to also be GPLed. This is not true of most (all ?) proprietry-licensed code.

Re:sooo...

[drsmithy]

Can anyone really say with a straight face that the GPL makes it harder or riskier to use other peoples' code?

Certainly it does, because of the way it defines "derivative work" - in particular with regards to linking.

Re:sooo...

[drsmithy]

No, I don't. They are too dumb to even implement DHCP properly on Vista. Piece of junk constantly trashes my router, requiring to pull the router's power and plug it back in. I also have to reboot the damned Vista machine too.

If a DHCP client is trashing your DHCP server, then it's not the client that's at fault.

Re:sooo...

[Lord Bitman]

GPL does not predefine how it "has to be" handled. GPL predefines how it "may be handled to avoid a lawsuit."

During a dispute, a court (or, always more likely, the parties involved) are always able to pick some other way to resolve things.

The GPL is not "viral" any more than using the copyright symbol on the title page of a book is viral. It doesn't magically cause rights to appear or vanish, it only tells people what rights exist and what you'd be willing to accept.

Re:sooo...

[cbiltcliffe]

No, unfortunately, I don't.

I can't say that I remember seeing it myself, but I definitely heard it from numerous independent sources. However, it could still be a vicious anti-Microsoft rumour started by free software zealots from before the dawn of time.

I seem to remember the implication being that it was around VS 4 or 5, but I could be mistaken.

Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[slack_justyb]

I for one welcome this news.

It shows that Microsoft actually respects the GPL and believes it to be a license that can be held up in court. Or at least, they don't want to try to test the validity of the GPL.
At any rate, it gives us some insight as to Microsoft's view on Linux, since they've been silent for quite some time about the topic.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[zarthrag]

Agreed. And in other news: Hell is still hot. I repeat, it is NOT Christmas time in hell. You can now resume hating MS.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[je ne sais quoi]

After all this noise and bullshit about how many hundreds of MS patents that linux violates, it would be rather ironic if Microsoft was found guilty of incorporating GPL code into their proprietary applications. I almost wish they would have been sued, because maybe then it would get Ballmer to STFU.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[poetmatt]

Well, you have a point, but it's not a new one. MS has always feared the GPL and they are merely doing what is in their best interest AKA licensing before they get sued. The folks who created the software could easily still sue for the time from when it was being used -> when it was licensed for damages.

Everyone has had to respect the GPL because it has already been held up in court as far back as germany in 2004 and redhat in 2006.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[Jason Earl]

Microsoft might not like the GPL, but its business relies on copyright protection. The last thing that Microsoft wants is weaker copyright protection for software.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[Darkness404]

...Sued by who? You see, the main problem with open source and people suing over the GPL is because a lot of the things that are GPL'd come from people like you and me. I know for a fact that if my code was taken by MS or any other large company the most I could probably do is write them a stern letter. Now granted, this was Novell in this case who could easily have sued MS, but for a simple programmer the fees and delays of a lawsuit against a huge company without assistance is nearly impossible.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[maxume]

The enumeration of the damages would be interesting.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[DaleGlass]

The GPL isn't getting tested because nobody's dumb enough to do so.

The GPL is the only thing that gives anybody the right to redistribute the code. So if for whatever reason the GPL was found not to apply, the code is still copyrighted, and that doesn't give them the right to redistribute somebody else's code. So at that point it turns into a very standard copyright infringement lawsuit.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[gigabites2]

Well, there is the Free Software Foundation. Perhaps you've heard of them?

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[palegray.net]

It shows Microsoft's PR department is as good as ever at taking a nasty situation where they've done something jacked up and spinning it 5,000 MPH to look like something else.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[TheRaven64]

This is why the Free Software Foundation requires copyright assignment for all GNU projects. If GNU code is incorporated into a proprietary project then they have both the standing and the means to sue.

Of course, they also grant the original author a non-exclusive, transferable, license to do whatever they want with the code, and I make any contributions I've made to GNU projects available under the MIT license too, so it's not always clear-cut as to whether something is really copied from a [L]GPL'd source...

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[swillden]

...Sued by who? You see, the main problem with open source and people suing over the GPL is because a lot of the things that are GPL'd come from people like you and me. I know for a fact that if my code was taken by MS or any other large company the most I could probably do is write them a stern letter.

You have more options than that. The FSF will in many cases step in to help, with their resources. You may want to consider assigning your copyrights to the FSF so that they have legal standing to intervene directly. They won't always be interested in helping, because their resources are limited, but I guarantee that if a high-profile company like MS was violating the GPL, they'd be all over it.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[poetmatt]

I agree. Maybe if there was some sort of copyright violation equivalent? Does the GPL have any sort of statute for fines with GPLv2 or would it be based off copyright violations?

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

his was Novell in this case who could easily have sued MS

Probably true legally, but given how deeply into MS's pockets Novell is... it seems an unlikely turn of events.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[CastrTroy]

Very true. If I post some code on my website, and display no license, then that code is mine. Nobody else a allowed to use that code for any other purpose. GPL gives extra rights to people to be allowed to use and alter that code, so long as they abide by the GPL. If you say the GPL isn't a valid license, then it defaults back to copyright, which means you aren't allowed to copy the code under any circumstances.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure we're talking about MS (www.getthefacts.com) and not about sex education (www.getthefacts.org).

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[causality]

...Sued by who? You see, the main problem with open source and people suing over the GPL is because a lot of the things that are GPL'd come from people like you and me. I know for a fact that if my code was taken by MS or any other large company the most I could probably do is write them a stern letter. Now granted, this was Novell in this case who could easily have sued MS, but for a simple programmer the fees and delays of a lawsuit against a huge company without assistance is nearly impossible.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I know much about them. Having said that ...

If I were in such a position, I would petition someone like the EFF for help. I don't think real help for something like that would be very hard to find.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[sumdumass]

FSF is powerless unless you assign them the copyright to them. They have refused in the past to even address infringement issues unless they held part of the copyright.

Some people might think that needing to assign control of a copyright to a third party is too much of a draconian situation to do anything with. This is especially true when the license changes can depart so far from the original license a product was under as was the case with the GPLv2 verses GPLv3.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm confused.

Microsoft played by the rules, and you're upset about it?

That attitude is astonishing and frighteningly common. People want so badly to have a reason to be angry that they'll get angry just at the thought of potentially losing the motivation for that anger.

So messed up. Rather than focusing on getting "Ballmer to STFU," what about encouraging Microsoft to continue doing the things people like you whine about their not doing?

Otherwise, *what's the point*?

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[Jeremy Erwin]

Agreed. And in other news: Hell is still hot.

Cocytus
I repeat, it is NOT Christmas time in hell.

Australians would beg to differ.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[schon]

The GPL isn't getting tested because nobody's dumb enough to do so.

Paging Daniel Wallace. Daniel Wallace to the courtroom please.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[maxume]

The nature of the GPL might make it a bit difficult to claim significant real damages from the copyright violation. The fact that any (qualified) individual can take the code and offer services around it probably limits the argument that the closed, violating code is eating into the copyright holders revenues.

I can't think of a situation where a company was accused of violating the GPL and then tried to reel the code back in, each instance I can think of was resolved by the company following the terms of the license (but most of the cases I can think of are hardware that used GPL code for this or that, rather than a significant body of closed code that incorporated some GPL code).

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[ari_j]

You never know. You could find a lawyer willing to handle your case on a contingency basis if you can show a definite license violation and have solid proof of damages.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[MarkvW]

You don't understand the legal system. If Microsoft wrongfully damaged a programmer by using his copyrighted code without permission and then made a lot of money from the use of that code, then the programmer holds a "chose in action." In other words, the programmer owns something--the right to sue.

That right can be assigned to others (the FSF, for example), who can sue to make them stop and/or to open their code. That right to so can, if it's got great winning potential, also be collateral for a loan.

Moreover, lawyers are drawn to lawsuits like ants are drawn to honey. They've got this thing called the "contingent fee," where they take a cut of the recovery (typically 25 to 33 percent).

It's a major Slashdot misconception that the little programmer cannot afford to sue the big company. If you've got damages (the right to recover lots of money), then you've got a case and you can get a lawyer. If you've got no damages, then you're just whining and should retire to your programming cave.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[whovian]

To me, this situation seems like a fortuitous, perhaps planned, accident. To zeroth order, if Microsoft makes the GPL look and act real, then they can claim that GPL is a competitor. If they could use that to argue they aren't a monopoly....watch out.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[causality]

You have answered your own question. You just didn't know it.

Who cares *why* they adhered to the rules in this case? Who cares *what* their PR department says?

There's more spin here in a day than any other single point on the net I've ever encountered. The hypocrisy and double-standards are appalling.

The question of "why" is much more important than you seem to recognize. I'll make up a facetious example to illustrate.

Hypothetically, if somebody goes out and kills a random person, who was no threat to him, in cold blood, then that person is a murderer and quite rightly deserves to be punished. Hypothetically, if somebody is sleeping in his bed and is awakened by an armed intruder who breaks into his home and tries to kill him, and he finds a gun and shoots the intruder to death, this is not murder but self-defense and that person does not deserve to be punished.

A person was killed in both scenarios. The only thing different is the motive for the killing. Yet one is universally condemned as wrong, while the other is generally recognized as justifiable and necessary. So is this a hypocritical double-standard?

Only by deciding "who cares why?" have you made this into an illusory double-standard.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[tepples]

MS has always feared the GPL

And it still does, except the fear has shifted from unhealthy fear (called "phobia") to healthy fear (called "respect").

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[HitoGuy]

I wouldn't. I seem to recall an old maintainer of glibc who got peeved that Richard Stallman started acting like he wasn't in charge of glibc jut because he made the mistake of putting it under the GNU umbrella. I'd say the EFF would be a better option.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[Ciggy]

Microsoft played by the rules, and you're upset about it?

Not quite...they decided to use GPL'd code contrary to the licence and so were guilty of copyright infringement (or piracy). When pointed out, they decided to obey the licence and release the code as GPL.

What most people are upset about is not that they've released the code as GPL, but the REASON they gave for doing it. To be honest they would have announced (something like):

It has been pointed out to us that we had used GPL code contrary to the GPL licence and decided that instead of pursuing another licence for the code we have decided to fulfil the obligation of the GPL licence by releasing our code under the GPL, which will benefit the community by...

However, they hushed up the fact of the GPL violation.

So the conclusion is that MS weren't interested in playing by the rules and were only forced to release the code when they were caught red handed with a copyright infringement (which is the result of ignoring the GPL).

The question that comes to me as a result of this is: how much code have they got away with using contrary to the licence of said code, ie of how much copyright infringement are MS guilty? The advantage of closed source code...

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[tepples]

Patents != Licences

Linux is distributed under the GNU General Public License, version 2. This is an explicit copyright license, and it can be interpreted as granting an implicit patent license in any GPLv2 program with more than one author: "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."

Also patents have to be enforced by the companies that own them. If they do not the patent will be invalidated.

This is true (see laches), but it's much weaker for copyrights and patents than for trademarks.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[migla]

And then there is also the Software Freedom Law Center, http://www.softwarefreedom.org/

Founded in 2005 to "provide legal representation and other law-related services to protect and advance Free, Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS)."

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I'm pretty sure we're talking about MS (www.getthefacts.com) and not about sex education (www.getthefacts.org).

It depends, are we talking about MS Exchange or MSexChange?

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[haifastudent]

I'm pretty sure we're talking about MS (www.getthefacts.com) and not about sex education (www.getthefacts.org).

Did you somehow miss the part about MS screwing customers?

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[swillden]

Bah. Who cares about petty ego issues? And the EFF has no interest in defending the GPL, so assigning to them would do no good.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[FingerSoup]

Your analogy is flawed. It implies Microsoft did something wrong. Had Microsoft "Killed in cold blood", they would have used GPL code, and tried to fight it with a patent infringement lawsuit. In this case there is nothing to defend... Microsoft was (Surprisingly) proactive in saying to themselves - "We F*#$ed up and used GPL code. Now we have to release it to the world", which is the responsible thing to do. Just because they didn't announce the "We F*#$ed up" bit, doesn't mean they didn't do the right thing.

I prefer to think of it as someone going shopping, and putting something in your pocket to hold onto, forgetting about it, then accidentally stealing it. Once they get home, they realize what they've done, so they return to the store and pay for the item before the store realized they took the item in the first place. They prevented a damage control situation because they ponied up and released the code before someone caught them.

Just because they announce that they paid for the item without the back story isn't dishonest... It just isn't relevant - because they did the right thing and released the code... As a result everyone benefits should the code be suitable for use.

Nothing would have given the FOSS crowd greater pleasure than seeing a GPL infringement claim defeat Microsoft.... It would have been bitter irony. Instead Microsoft took that prospect away from the FOSS crowd, and played by the GPL rules. Now the FOSS people are angry they couldn't wage their war. Microsoft has made a very smart political move by releasing it, regardless of what spin you put on it.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[JAlexoi]

Maybe some people live in countries that have a simple legal systems and do not need an army of lawyers to fight off anyone...
Not all programmers and GPL'ed software writers area actually americans and there is requirement to file your complaint against Microsoft in US.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[poetmatt]

good point. I think as a matter of politeness everyone wants to try to avoid the legal liabilities and would rather defuse a situation before it comes up. Maybe as well that people are super afraid of that form of copyright having to be compounded in court since judges will definitely get it *wrong* before they get it right.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[poetmatt]

Some people call it the clap, some people call it Windows.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[causality]

I think everyone, and by that I mean Western culture in general, is so focused on external behaviors and pragmatic outcomes to the point of near-obsession with them. I say that because other factors that also matter get ignored due to this fixation.

There is such a thing as doing the right thing for the wrong reason. When that happens, the good that could have become of doing the right thing is minimized. There is a universe of difference between Microsoft acting as they did because they respect the GPL and the copyrights of others as much as they respect their own intellectual property, versus acting as they did to avoid a losing lawsuit or because of political expediency. It's sort of like the difference between a man who donates anonymously to charity because he really does want to help the unfortunate, and a man who only does so when a TV camera is nearby so he can impress everyone when he doesn't really give a damn about the poor.

We keep looking for ways to pretend like that difference doesn't matter. I don't know if that's because it's hard to assign a monetary value to it or what, but it's one of the more dysfunctional traits of our culture. Perhaps for that reason, our expectations in this area are generally very low. Collectively we act like we expect to get screwed over and that this is normal unless it's is overt and doesn't come with at least a flimsy justification. The peripheral effects of this mentality are non-obvious and quite extensive.

If you must have a pragmatic reason, then know that the difference I am talking about says volumes about who you're dealing with and whether they are acting in good faith. Good faith is still considered desirable in business relationships, right? It helps to determine whether you can expect to be screwed over by some clever maneuver, such as vendor lock-in, or whether your installed software (marketshare) is to be used as bargaining chips in a game of embrace-and-extend. I think there's something seriously pathological about people who don't mind being treated as an object like this. I say that knowing that most people either aren't aware of it or don't seem to mind it as long as it doesn't create an obvious problem for them.

I know that if I were starting a business and needed software, and found that I could go with either Microsoft or some other vendor because both are equally viable for me, this would strongly influence my decision. In my opinion, I see many ruthless Machiavellian tactics, deceptive marketing (including aggressive campaigns against the very GPL they have now utilized - the word for that is "hypocrisy), and other questionable practices. Many corporations do engage in such practices but not to the degree of severity and impunity that I so often see from this one. I also see a company that goes to great lengths to avoid competing on a level playing field. I have to wonder how anyone can see all of this and still want to support them, to stick up for them as though I insulted their best friend by pointing these things out. I think they see but they do not perceive, much like people who can hear quite well but don't listen.

Now, I know it's fashionable to eschew all personal responsibility, but the truth of this is inescapable: when you purchase the products of such a company, you are sending the message that you approve of those tactics and want to see more of them. You are telling the company that it was successful because it worked on you. You are voting with your feet. If I say I dislike such customer-unfriendly tactics and then I go and advocate for Microsoft's products, then I have made a hypocrite of myself. Additionally, if I believe a corporation is unusually untrustworthy, then how could I claim that forming a business relationship with them is in my best interests?

We ignore questions like that. Then we wonder why life is less joyful than it could be, why we are not happier and more satisfied with it. We wonder why that saying "most men lead lives of quiet desp

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[socceroos]

It depends, are we also talking about Microsoft or micro+soft?

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[socceroos]

ok, so that was lame.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[DaleGlass]

In my understanding, the FSF simply couldn't sue for the infringement of a random person's license if they tried. They must have a personal grievance.

Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes.

[True Grit]

The GPL isn't getting tested because nobody's dumb enough to do so.

Paging Daniel Wallace. Daniel Wallace to the courtroom please.

#1 The basis of his lawsuits was about *price-fixing*, i.e. an anti-trust violation, not the GPL license per se.

#2 DW was a nutcase.

Basically, the GPL was not, in fact, "tested" in this case, since DW was not accused of a GPL violation, nor was he accusing anyone else of a GPL violation. No violation of anyone's copyright was alleged or involved.

The only result of this lunatic's lawsuits is that the courts agree that the GPL doesn't violate the Sherman Act, however, what some people are interested in is how it stands up to scrutiny in relation to the Copyright Act. :)

Well..

[Renraku]

The damage would have been much more severe if they had been caught/forced to turn it over to open source.

Re:Well..

[Sockatume]

They were caught and asked to turn it over to open source. Someone pointed out that the drivers mixed GPL and closed-source code and that they would have to release the closed-source components.

Re:Well..

[Anonymous Coward]

I take issue with the "they would have to release" part of your post as there is always the option to stop distributing their code altogether until the GPL parts had been removed.

Re:Well..

[recoiledsnake]

That is very true. And the court can order fines or restitution for lost sales/opportunity if the code is not to be released under GPL.

Re:Well..

[nacturation]

I can imagine how that would go:

GPL nut: "Your honor, I'd like you to impose a $1 million fine on Microsoft"
Judge: "Can you show your reasoning for such a fine?"
GPL nut: "Yes, it's for lost sales/opportunity that Microsoft has caused"
Judge: "But wait, you give your code away for free. How is it you can claim lost sales?"
GPL nut: [foaming at the mouth now] "But Micro$oft is teh evil! They're my sworn mortal enemy and must pay!!11!1!!1!one!"
Judge: "Oooookay there. I set the fine for Microsoft at three times lost revenue, or zero dollars which for the sake of this case I'll around up to one dollar. Case dismissed."

Re:Well..

[3vi1]

Just because it's available for $0 to people who follow the GPL doesn't mean that it can't be dual-licensed and included in closed source projects for a fee.

Therefore, your narrative is crap.

Re:Well..

[Pontiac]

Not exactly correct.. there is a cost..
The cost is the code MS co-mingled with GPL code.. It was supposed to be released to satisfy the requirements of the GPL.

What would be the cost to buy a perpetual unlimited end user license to that code from MS?
That would be the fine as I see it. That is what you lost when they violated the terms of the contract.

Re:Well..

[tepples]

Judge: "Oooookay there. I set the fine for Microsoft at three times lost revenue, or zero dollars"

It's not so easy to quantify lost revenue. That's why statutory damages of up to $30,000 are available in any infringement lawsuit over a copyrighted work that has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office or foreign counterparts. In addition, the GPL nut who registers each major version can still recover attorney's fees and court costs.

Re:Well..

[nacturation]

So let's say NASA buys a common steel bolt and the contract they sign says "must not be used on the space station". Later, whether intentional or not, it gets used on the space station. You would argue that the manufacturer of the bolt can sue for the cost to buy the space station?

Re:Well..

[shentino]

No because there was no clause to that effect.

The contract did not say "or else we own the station".

Re:Well..

[Runaway1956]

I can repair automobiles for free, in my spare time, for freinds and neighbors. If some creep comes into my shop, and threatens to beat the shit out of me unless I repair his broken down junk-heap, you are suggesting that I would have no legal recourse. The fact that I have given free labor to people I know and like, means I have to give the same free labor to some arrogant bully.

Makes sense to me - NOT.

Re:Well..

[nacturation]

I can repair automobiles for free, in my spare time, for freinds and neighbors. If some creep comes into my shop, and threatens to beat the shit out of me unless I repair his broken down junk-heap, you are suggesting that I would have no legal recourse. The fact that I have given free labor to people I know and like, means I have to give the same free labor to some arrogant bully.

Makes sense to me - NOT.

Here's a clue: There's nothing that's lost here except someone's concept of imaginary property and their claim of control over how you use something they freely gave away. Microsoft could use GPLv2 code inside internal, closed source projects, much like Google has been known to, and they'd be fully compliant in not providing the source code and not contributing back any changes as long as they don't distribute the software. As soon as they let somebody download the software, you think that's like an arrogant bully making you work?

Next up, you're going to claim that the RIAA is fully justified because copying music is like beating up babies.

Re:Well..

[nacturation]

No because there was no clause to that effect.

The contract did not say "or else we own the station".

And that's my point with the GPL. There's no "or else we own your code" clause.

Cue FUDSpinning

[idontgno]

about viral GPL in 5... 4... 3...

No, seriously, someone in the militantly proprietary SW camp is going to latch onto this and turn it into some kind of morality tale. "Poor Microsoft, they took the tempting bait of Open Source code and LOST THEIR PRODUCT! Don't let this HAPPEN TO YOU! ph33r teh Open Source!"

Mark my words. Expect a flood of "independent studies" dissecting this story with the intent of making Free Software look like hidden poison.

Re:Cue FUDSpinning

[snspdaarf]

Mark my words. Expect a flood of "independent studies" dissecting this story with the intent of making Free Software look like hidden poison.

Right. This is simply another case of slamming the corporate dick in the dresser drawer. It's common enough we should expect it.

Re:Cue FUDSpinning

[Em Emalb]

Poor Microsoft, they took the tempting bait of Open Source code and LOST THEIR PRODUCT! Don't let this HAPPEN TO YOU!!! ph33r teh Open Source!

I am to please. You aim too, please. ;P

Re:Cue FUDSpinning

[Ohio Calvinist]

I think the message that companies need to understand is that GPL != Public Domain. There are a lot of advantages for using GPL'ed code, but companies need to measure the risks/rewards of using GPL'ed software and how it might impact their product goals for the good or the bad because they are required to fulfill the requirements of the license, no matter how few and and inoccuous the license requirements might be. I don't think exploring that distinction is FUD, but an intellegent discourse that helps protect the vendors who utilize GPL code, their users (in the form of future releases not being interupted by legal issues) and the original developers who released their code as GPL and not public domain for a reason.

There are situations where it might be better for a company to reinvent the wheel than use GPL licensed code when you consider the long term implications of the license and the cost of compliance with the license and the risk of exposing proprietary code that interfaces with the GPL code.

I'm just glad companies are understanding they can't just copy and paste GPL code and be done with it like a fat kid in a candy store and not open themselves up to legal risks the could have avoided by not using the licensed code or using the code while respecting the term(s) of it's license.

Re:Cue FUDSpinning

[Ardaen]

Oh noes! If you write an extension to open source software you may have to release it open source! Beware! Using a shared resource you may be required to share your work in return! Horror! Don't let this happen to you!

Re:Cue FUDSpinning

[BitZtream]

I'll bite on your troll ...

Preface:
I prefer the BSD license, and I could go on for hours about the viral nature of GPL only pushing some douche bags personal agenda on others rather than actually being truly beneficial. Never once in that rant would I need to promote anything proprietary.

No one with a clue is going to rant about MS losing source code. It is however the battle cry you hear from GPL fanboys against using more open licenses like Apache/MIT/BSD, which of course is complete FUD and ignorance. You don't "lose rights to existing code", you simply aren't automatically granted rights to code you didn't create. And that is WHY you get 'GPL is a virus' comments, its supposed to be.

GPL isn't the problem here. Its just a license.

The problem is all the ideological bullshit that will be spewed by fanboys about how evil MS is and how GPL is the champion of freedom, even though it is in many cases more restrictive than proprietary license agreements, and ranks right up there as an extremely restrictive OSS license, with each revision getting more restrictive to promote Stallmans politics.

There is a reason that you see rants about GPL being viral. IT IS VIRAL, THATS THE ENTIRE POINT. If you don't like it, change it so it isn't viral. Don't get pissed off when someone points out that something you consider a 'feature' can be a fucking pain in the ass to others. Public domain has the 'feature' that anyone can use it for whatever the hell they want, and you'll find GPL zealots talking about how thats a bug without recognizing any of the benifits it provides to society as a whole. GPL is specifically designed to not play nice with a specific set of licenses, stop trying to say that anyone pointing that out is spreading FUD. Its not FUD, its the truth, and a truth that makes the license what it is.

There is nothing wrong with it being viral. Its not a secret agenda that you don't know until its too late, its up front and out in the open, and promoted as one of its strengths. That strength however is fucking annoying to a lot of us as we don't want to be forced to have all of our code fall into your agenda. So we don't, we use other code instead, or roll our own, which is really no different than what we do when we don't like some proprietary license.

I'm sorry you can't accept that GPL has things that make it an unacceptable choice to many people, but I do find it amusing that you can't accept that, yet you can't accept that other licenses are acceptable to other people.

GPL fanboys get you the responses you're talking about. Their response to this incident is what triggers companies to avoid OSS. Its not the fear of being sued. Its the fear that even though they made a bad attempt (possibly bogus/outright lie) to play by the OSS rules, they STILL get a bunch of ranting nutjobs going on about how evil they are. So lets think about it. I can just roll the code in house, and keep it closed source and take some bad press, or I can OSS it, still get the bad press, and possibly worry about a bunch of idiots getting together to sue me. I don't know about you, but I'm really not seeing why I'd want to take the risk. I get bad press either way, and if I even try to do what you want, I have more worries. The end result, companies learn very quickly to just tell OSS to go fuck off as the end users really could give a flying fuck. Its just some ranting loud mouths pushing their own political agenda, and since nothing can be done that will make them happy there really isn't
  any point in trying.

GPL isn't the problem, the idiot fanatics, fanboys and hypocrites that think Stallman is gods gift to the planet are the problem. GPL will be far better off when he's dead and gone, and his little cult along with him. These are the same people that will mod this post as a troll because it points out problems in their precious religion.

MS and Legitimacy

[nweaver]

They could have just stripped the GPL'ed code out completely, its a small part of the total code dump...

Rather, it really is legitimate but for a different sort of evil. Microsoft wants to rule the virtualization world over VMWare and Xen, and one of the things they need to support is Linux well for this market. By getting the necessary support into the kernel, even under the dreaded GPL, this furthers Microsoft's own objectives.

Re:MS and Legitimacy

[abigsmurf]

My first thought once I navigated through the maze of links to the source of this info was that people were jumping to conclusions:

"Microsoft released code that would otherwise violate GPL" = Microsoft were caught out and forced to release the code.

When this could be just as true:
Microsoft always intended to release the code so used GPL'ed code in it.

Re:MS and Legitimacy

[clone53421]

When this could be just as true:
Microsoft always intended to release the code so used GPL'ed code in it.

Interesting, but why would they want to?

Re:MS and Legitimacy

[MBCook]

If you read the story, it looks like they released the binaries to people, thus they distributed it, which means they broke the GPL.

"I was going to pay for the candy bars I was hiding in my jacket" is not a valid defense when caught shoplifting, this is the same thing.

The minute they linked in GPL only libraries, they needed to go GPL. Not later when they got caught.

Re:MS and Legitimacy

[Locutus]

they don't need to get their code "into the kernel", they just need a driver to ship with their product. Because they want customers who are installing Linux on their VM tech to be counted, they'll probably recommend these customers get the driver from Microsoft. Not that I think there's any interest by the Linux kernel people to include Microsoft's GPL'ed driver, for their proprietary VM system, into the main kernel tree.
 

This all just shows once again that at Microsoft, job one is spin/Marketing. It also shows that even with some very visible examples of mixing proprietary binary blobs with GPL'ed code, Nvidia for example, Microsoft just has little clue about OSS and GNU/Linux. No wonder they freak out over it. It's the Boogy Man from their point of view. IMO
 

LoB
 

Re:MS and Legitimacy

[Tubal-Cain]

Faster and easier to incorporated the GPL'd code, and good PR to boot.

Re:MS and Legitimacy

[Ardaen]

The minute they linked in GPL only libraries, they needed to go GPL. Not later when they got caught.

You have a point, it seems unlikely that a corporation as large as Microsoft would plan to violate the GPL like that by releasing the binaries before switching if they intended to switch.

Seems more likely that they really did get caught out, and PR decided to spin things

Re:MS and Legitimacy

[MBCook]

If they didn't offer the source, it was a violation.

They took the driver and wanted to port it to something else. In looking at that, they saw binary blobs that were being linked in. Since the source for those blobs wasn't available, but they were being linked with GPL code, MS violated the GPL.

Code was "already" GPL would mean they didn't offer to distribute, that's a violation. If they code wasn't GPL that means they linked it in with GPL code, making them bound by the license, so they needed to give up the source. That would be a violation too.

If they had an offer somewhere, "Send us an email to bob@msn.com to get the source for our blobs, which are GPLed" that would have been OK. But if that was the case, no one would be discussing this because it wouldn't have been a violation.

Re:MS and Legitimacy

[PitaBred]

If you think Microsoft always intended to release the code, you must hold a very dim view of history. Microsoft does NOT like the GPL, and they have done nothing to give us a reason to think otherwise. Really... Microsoft has pulled the football away so many fucking times... are you really that stupid, Charlie Brown? Do you give it one more go?

Re:MS and Legitimacy

[knewter]

Even assuming you are correct (they always intended to release the code as GPL), it doesn't matter. They first released the executables that linked the GPLed code without having the GPL source available for those to whom they distributed executables. That is illegal, under the terms of the license that governed the GPLed code.

If the BSA catches you without licenses of MS products, and your response is "Yeah but I always intended to pay for those licenses," what do you think the result is? It's an identical situation.

Re:MS and Legitimacy

[fredclown]

It doesn't really matter what Microsoft does. They could give food to starving children and people would say that they had an ulterior motive of keeping those children alive to get them hooked on Windows.

Re:MS and Legitimacy

[KingMotley]

I think any Linux kernel people that aren't interested in being able to run or run well under the most popular VM technology should move on to simpler things because they obviously aren't very bright. Not being able to run linux that way will hurt whom? I'm sure Microsoft execs are losing sleep right now about thinking how linux can't run well or at all under their hyper-v/virtual pc.

Re:MS and Legitimacy

[Locutus]

I would not doubt that some of the Linux kernel people are more than happy to help VMWare out with their drivers but are they all they keen on moving VMWare drivers into the kernel? I believe there was talk about some kind of common hypervisor interface but that's about it. KVM is the open source hypervisor for the Linux kernel. I'm thinking that you are under the illusion that MS VirutalPC is the most popular VM tech and from the numbers I've seen, VMWare still owns that market. And yes, it is very likely that Microsoft execs are losing sleep over Linux and how well Linux runs on their VM tech. The reason is likely because customers know when it runs poorly and will put Linux on it's own hardware because of this and when this happens, using an open source VM like KVM or Xen is likely or even a multiplatform one like VMWare. This leaves Microsoft Windows as either only hosting its own Windows in VMs or Windows getting moved into the Linux hosted VM platform. The tricks and lies they pulled with this GPL'ed driver and press release shows they are putting effort into this.
 

Ok, you can stick your head back in the sand now because this was all probably alittle bit too scary for you.
 

LoB

Re:MS and Legitimacy

[mister_playboy]

... and they would be right.

Re:MS and Legitimacy

[prockcore]

Microsoft has been distributing GPL source (via Windows Services for UNIX) for well over a decade now.

They have literally never given us a reason why they wouldn't respect the GPL.

Re:MS and Legitimacy

[KingMotley]

I'll just concede for simplicity and say my statement should have read "a very popular VM technology" instead of "most". "most" is arguable, but for the purposes of this discussion "very popular" will suffice just as well.

Windows currently dominates the desktop market, I doubt there is any confusion there. In THAT segment, where it would be highly beneficial to expose a large number of windows users to linux, it is likely that a user would use a Microsoft VM technology (Hyper-V, Virtual PC, etc). The fact is that many linux distros work like CRAP under some VMs, including Virtual PC and even the open source virtual box. Anything that can be added to the default linux distributions so that when they are installed under a common VM, and actually work correctly would be highly beneficial to the linux community.

Ok, you can go back to your anti-MS trolling now.

Re:MS and Legitimacy

[Locutus]

the drivers mentioned are for the Hyper-V system of Windows Server and not VirtualPC desktop virtualization software. I will agree that on the Windows desktop that it would benefit both customers and Linux if when Linux ran in the virtual machine, it ran as fast as possible.
 

This is about Hyper-V in Windows Server so none of that really matters regarding benefiting Linux. They did this because if they didn't, server admins would put Linux on the hardware and stick Windows on it's own box or go with another VM technology which is what they were doing before Microsoft bought the VirtualPC software from Innotek.
 

LoB

Re:MS and Legitimacy

[KingMotley]

I had incorrectly assumed that the integration components would work under both Hyper-V and Virtual PC. At least at the current time, that is incorrect, so as you have stated, the importance of these drivers is not nearly as high as I thought.

Still important for those shops that already have Windows Hyper-V servers running, and they would like to be able to consolidate (or add) linux on them as well as their Windows servers. It may or may not be typical, but the only company that I have hands-on experience running virtual servers is/was using Virtual Server 2005 R2, and have likely upgraded to Hyper-V by now, and they aren't likely to switch to another platform just because linux doesn't (didn't) run well on it. They would be more likely to just flat out deny any purchases that required linux because of it. Considering they had just completed a server consolidation, trying to get a server that couldn't be run on their virtualized hardware would be next to impossible. Yes, this was a Fortune-50 company.

That Was Close!

[eldavojohn]

Whew, for a second there, everyone was scratching their heads wondering if Microsoft had something up their sleeve. Not so, apparently.

Personally I'm glad they can go back to making themselves obsolete and unneeded. We would forever be stuck with them if they slowly open sourced parts parts of their operating system like Adobe's doing with its Flash SDK. Really the situation is win-win in my mind: If Microsoft doesn't open source code and work with developers, the developers are just going to roll their own or go elsewhere. Conversely, if Microsoft open sources some of its stuff (like, truly opens it up with GPLv3) then we get to meet them halfway and maybe they'll be a valuable part of the community (supress laughter, it may happen yet). Granted, they've been very creative with things like the MsPL but people see through those ruses pretty quickly.

They're faking their embrace of open source now but open source is actually affecting them. This seems to be tacit acknowledgment that they need to support this on open source; no more "la la la I can't hear you!" It's a choice Microsoft can make soon now: relevance or extinction. Marketing can only keep them in the game for so long.

Re:That Was Close!

[cbrocious]

"Granted, they've been very creative with things like the MsPL but people see through those ruses pretty quickly." Yes, total ruse. Except that the MSPL is an OSI-approved open source license. There's plenty to bash MS on, the MSPL isn't one of those things.

Re:That Was Close!

[maxume]

When I slowly die, I want it to be in the way where I slowly get healthier.

While Microsoft has about the lowest relative share of the market they have ever had (since they became dominant anyway), they also have the largest absolute market that they have ever had (especially if Windows 7 shows the launch of Vista to be a hiccup and you hand wave a little for the poor economic climate).

Re:That Was Close!

[causality]

"Granted, they've been very creative with things like the MsPL but people see through those ruses pretty quickly." Yes, total ruse. Except that the MSPL is an OSI-approved open source license. There's plenty to bash MS on, the MSPL isn't one of those things.

What I'm about to say is equally true, whether the MSPL is better or worse (according to any metric) than the GPL.

If Microsoft wanted an OSI-approved open source license, the shortest distance between point A and point B would be to go ahead and use the GPL. That's easier and less expensive than paying your legal team to draft an entirely new license.

What they wanted was to establish an incompatibility with the GPL. Since they are different licenses, it's quite unlikely that you can legally release software that includes both GPL code and MSPL code. So FOSS developers have to pick a license. If the MSPL becomes adopted, then what will inevitably happen next is easy enough to foresee: a fractured, divided FOSS community. This is an age-old strategy known as divide-and-conquer. It will be heralded by misguided people who welcome this new era of "openness."

Just to quickly describe a scenario: MSPL need not take over and fully replace the GPL for this strategy to be effective. It only needs to be a significant enough minority that the mixing of licenses interferes with one well-known project, or for two prominent members of the community to butt heads over it. Then Microsoft can portray the community as incoherent, marked by infighting, and otherwise "not professional" and not something businesses should take seriously.

Re:That Was Close!

[aztracker1]

Have you *read* the MS-PL license? It's essentially a BSD License with a nuclear deterrent clause (regarding patents). Basically, you can use this however you want, as long as you don't bring a patent suit against us for this code. It's actually much simpler, and fairly similar to the GPL v3, but even more libre in terms of use within commercial products. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that MS-PL is probably compatible with GPL v3 (In terms of using MS-PL code in a GPLv3 project, not vice-versa).

Re:That Was Close!

[VGPowerlord]

If Microsoft wanted an OSI-approved open source license, the shortest distance between point A and point B would be to go ahead and use the GPL. That's easier and less expensive than paying your legal team to draft an entirely new license.

You should have told this to the developers of Apache, Python, Perl*, and PHP about this revelation! After all, none of them use the GPL, but all of them have their own OSI-approved licenses...

Like it or not, the GPL is not a one-size-fits-all license.

* Perl is dual-licensed, but I included it on this list anyway, because its Artistic license is OSI-approved.

Re:That Was Close!

[makomk]

The MS-PL is part of a family of Microsoft licenses, though. It's closest relative is the MS-LPL, which is like the MS-PL, but you're not allowed to use the software on any platform other than Windows. Microsoft's motives aren't exactly pure in this case.

Trusting MS

[Opportunist]

will have squandered this opportunity to build trust, something which is sadly lacking in most people's dealings with Microsoft

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... umm... you won't get fooled again, or something like that.

Trust is hard gained and easily lost. MS has shown no sign that they deserve to be trusted. They may be a business partner, but make sure you treat them like you would a business partner in renaissance Italy: Buy from them, exchange money and goods, but never hug them or a dagger will be in your back, never join them for lunch for the chance to be poisoned is far too great.

Before someone goes "business is not friendship". Indeed it's not. But there are various grades. I deal with companies where I don't need a contract because I know them and I know they will honor the contract we agreed on. I believe them if they say the check's in the mail. I grant them a delay in payment if they need to pay a few days later for tax reasons. Likewise, I get the same if necessary.

MS won't make it on that list. When they invite you to dinner, it's not because they want to show you how much they value you as a parner. They usually bring along a dagger or the more modern version, an adhesion contract.

Re:Trusting MS

[Anonymous Coward]

An adhesion contract? Sounds like a sticky situation.

Re:Trusting MS

[AndrewNeo]

+1 Groan

Re:Trusting MS

[VGPowerlord]

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... umm... you won't get fooled again, or something like that.

The quote from Mr. Bush is "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you. If fool me, you can't get fooled again!" Although I prefer the embroidered version.

Re:Trusting MS

[Opportunist]

I implicitly trust everyone to honor a contract he has with me unless given reason to believe otherwise. The Prisoner's Dilemma "perfect" solution (comply and copy) works well in an environment with a limited amount of possible partners (it fails when you can't copy your partner because you only play every partner once or a limited amount of times, in which case defecting by default is the winning strategy).

Though I tend not to copy, I tend to avoid playing again altogether.

Doing the right thing, but stupid publicity stunt

[javacowboy]

Microsoft did the right thing. They made a mistake in using GPL code, but were proactive in solving the problem and meeting their legal obligations by releasing all of the source. Other companies in similar situations, such as (if memory serves) Cisco with the Linksys router GPL code fiasco, needed to be prompted by actual legal action by the FSF to release their source code.

What gets me is how Microsoft tried to exploit the situation by using it as a marketing opportunity. They should have been honest and stated the real reason they released the source under GPL to begin with.

Huh?

[MightyMartian]

I'm shocked, I tell you! Shocked!

Re:The people who don't trust MS

[Iberian]

I trust Microsoft to make money. Knowing that makes it easy to know where they are going. Google makes money too but only on adwords so the rest of their offerings are a bit harder to decipher.

How is it an Ulterior Motive?

[Stu1706]

How is it an Ulterior Motive? Microsoft is a corporation driven by money and profits. They will not do anything to help any one they see as potential competition. We have seen this time and time again. How could anyone not living under a rock, not see this coming. It would be like putting a Nike symbol on a car. It does not make it a shoe and you should know better too. If you believe anything Microsoft has ever done has been for the good of anyone except Microsoft you...... It would not matter what I say there, you would have to be living in your own crazy little world anyway.

Re:How is it an Ulterior Motive?

[Locutus]

so why is 99% of the press so ignorant of this fact and merrily continues regurgitating the marketing drivel Microsoft sends them day after day? They have been the mouth piece of their deceptions for 20 years. I also think that the business methods Microsoft uses for profit are what are so distasteful and are what rile up many in this community. They lie, cheat, steal, stab in the back, etc, etc, etc. Yes it is all in the name of making profits for them but when they keep doing that crap on my doorstep, you bet I'm going to tell them to get the f''ck off my property and smack them from then on at any chance I get. There's nothing wrong with making a profit, there is something wrong doing it by telling the world their _horse_ is better and faster than anyone else's and then shotting everyones horse when they step up to challenge that declaration.
 

They play dirty and have so for decades. WTF do you really expect of anyone but the completely naive?
 

LoB

Re:How is it an Ulterior Motive?

[BitZtream]

so why is 99% of the press so ignorant of this fact and merrily continues regurgitating the marketing drivel Microsoft sends them day after day? They have been the mouth piece of their deceptions for 20 years.

Because their other source of information is a bunch of loud mouth fanboys who explode when you ask them a legitimate question about their stuff as if you just did their mom in the ass with no lube. If their choice in information is someone who seems civilized at some company, or Stallman and his cult following, it would really be bad journalism for them not to listen to the MS shills. Its also rather annoying to listen to almost any GPL fanboy since they tend to be so narrow minded and religious about it that they stop making sense very early in the conversation.

Re:How is it an Ulterior Motive?

[Locutus]

this reminds me of a conversation with a guy I met at a bar who just graduated from college and was talking about tech and Microsoft stuff. He had no clue about how many times Microsoft was in court on anti-trust issues, had no idea how many technologies they sucked up and got sued for after the companies failed from lost revenue/customers. Just plain naive of all of what's gone on in the last 20 years of Microsoft's monopolistic protection schemes. For the longest time he had this look on his face like I was nuts and lying. But then he heard some names he'd heard of, noticed the timing seemed right and I guess he started understanding I wasn't just making this all up. He said, "Wow, I had no idea they did all that to get where they are." When I say some of this to people with little to no clue at all about tech and they literally laugh and think I'm just a Microsoft hater. So it's amazing what even a small clue can do to understanding what is real and what is fake. Too bad the press people are just so ignorant of what's going on or went on. Otherwise, they might not think everyone who gets down on them for reprinting Microsoft's lies is a nut case.
 

LoB

Good business

[redelm]

Frankly, I'm pleased at this explanation. I'd very much rather MSFT accept the GPL and OpenSource as a sound business concept than merely out of some arbitrary corporate policy decision. Which could easily be reversed in the continuous "Change" ego-stroking.

Here, it appears that in spite of their best efforts and doubtless strong admonishments that GPL code found its' way into a key product. Good. They've learned they can't be completely leakproof. So will have to comply. Underforce is fine, because it is the most certain and sincere.

As for "trust", what a load of BS! Shareholders generally cannot even trust their Boards nor employees who by law and custom are supposed to look out for their interests. Why should the rest of us expect any better?

Trust is only a precursor to betrayal like Google. Trust is neither required nor desired in business. Much more reliable to trust persuit of self-interest. Business is not family life. There are no bonds of affection. Delusional to pretend there are. And stupid to lean on these bonds too hard anyways.

Re:Good business

[swillden]

Trust is neither required nor desired in business. Much more reliable to trust persuit of self-interest. Business is not family life. There are no bonds of affection. Delusional to pretend there are.

That's crap. Trust is essential in smooth business dealings. You can do business with a business partner you can't trust, but it's a hundred times harder. The contracts get horrendously long and complicated, the oversight creates huge overhead and the experience ends up being really unpleasant for all of the people involved. And if you end up in court... that's a huge time and money sink.

So businesses like to establish long-term, amicable relationships with business partners exactly so that they can rely on trust, to loosen up the contracts, smooth out the communication and be able to have confidence that the other party will make good on their promises. Good businessmen understand the limits of trust, but they also understand its advantages. Why do you think business partners eat together, play golf together, etc.? It's precisely to build personal human-to-human relationships to build the trust that's necessary to doing business together effectively. Even better is the experience of doing business together for years, with a joint understanding that both sides will benefit if the relationship continues to be healthy.

This notion is taken to an extreme in the Japanese "Keiretsu", but it's a common feature of nearly all businesses that are successful in the long term. Partnerships matter, and they're built on trust.

Re:Good business

[rliden]

Trust is neither required nor desired in business. Much more reliable to trust persuit of self-interest. Business is not family life. There are no bonds of affection. Delusional to pretend there are.

That's crap. Trust is essential in smooth business dealings. You can do business with a business partner you can't trust, but it's a hundred times harder. The contracts get horrendously long and complicated, the oversight creates huge overhead and the experience ends up being really unpleasant for all of the people involved. And if you end up in court... that's a huge time and money sink.

So businesses like to establish long-term, amicable relationships with business partners exactly so that they can rely on trust, to loosen up the contracts, smooth out the communication and be able to have confidence that the other party will make good on their promises. Good businessmen understand the limits of trust, but they also understand its advantages. Why do you think business partners eat together, play golf together, etc.? It's precisely to build personal human-to-human relationships to build the trust that's necessary to doing business together effectively. Even better is the experience of doing business together for years, with a joint understanding that both sides will benefit if the relationship continues to be healthy.

This notion is taken to an extreme in the Japanese "Keiretsu", but it's a common feature of nearly all businesses that are successful in the long term. Partnerships matter, and they're built on trust.

I think this is a load of crap. Trust is built on well defined business contracts and agreements. Partnerships matter, and they're built on mutually aligned self-interests.

Re:Good business

[redelm]

No. I would not hold keiretsu up as a model to emulate. Far too inefficient, all these familial ties. Slows down innovation and the deadwood piles up.

"Trust" is a dangerous concept because it is most likely to fail just when it is most needed. Long contracts are pitiful protection. Far better is to arrange things so the prize seized by defection is small compared to the value gained by continuing.

Too good a deal is no deal at all.

Re:Good business

[swillden]

Trust is built on well defined business contracts and agreements.

Those are necessary, but not sufficient. There's always a way to weasel out of your obligations to some extent, if you really want to.

Re:Good business

[philipgar]

Funny how your notion of trust sounds like self-interest to me. Both sides are better off by not trying to screw over the other... Doesn't take a genius to see that. The companies are trying to maintain their standing with another company. It's in their self interest to maintain themselves as being trust worthy. However, this isn't always the case. If the company wasn't worried about the repercussions of doing something, or the relationship no longer was economical to them, don't think the "trust" that you have in them means anything. It's purely self-interest that motivates them, and often trust is part of self-interest. In the words of Robert Heinlein: "Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage."

Phil

Re:Good business

[Yogiz]

Here, it appears that in spite of their best efforts and doubtless strong admonishments that GPL code found its' way into a key product.

Haha, yeah, into the Linux kernel. Seriously, if I didn't get everything wrong, the software was a driver for the Linux kernel that would make Linux run better in VMs on Windows.

As another poster mentioned, it's quite possible, that MS wanted to release it under the GPL the whole time and thus used components from another GPL project. If their driver wasn't GPL, it could not be merged into the Linux kernel and MS would get nothing out of it.

unlike other companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike almost every major consumer electrocnics company which freely uses OS and:

Fails to disclose
Failes to release
When confronted, does not release everything
releases everything but then goes on to the next product where it fails to release

Seriously, what is so surprising about a company (any company) trying to turn a situation to their advantage. I mean, seriously, who really cares

Re:unlike other companies?

[prockcore]

Thanks. No one was ranting on Slashdot about "ulterior motives" when TiVo, EeePC, Cisco, Skype, Sony, Atari, or Verizon violated the GPL.

Re:unlike other companies?

[agnosticnixie]

Odd, I recall much complaints about the first three (Asus was slapped on the hand, then released the source, although with a single enormous zip archive on a slow server :p - Tivo, I'm not sure, and Cisco was served by the FSF, all of which made /. news iirc)

MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[KW802]

If Microsoft had disclosed that they released the code to avoid a violation then the anti-Microsoft crowd would have proclaimed that Microsoft was only releasing the code because they had to, not because they wanted to. No matter the course of action Microsoft could have taken, they still would have been criticized.

Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be at least a little better than having everyone think that AFTER developing a bunch of conspiracy theories to explain Microsoft's ulterior motive. Also along this line of thinking: Microsoft did, at least, a lot more good by releasing their code via GPL than simply re-writing their proprietary versions of the same code... It save them money and contributed to the open source community. Whatever their motives, everyone wins.

Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[noidentity]

That's because either way they're doing the same thing, Extend, Embrace, Extinguish. So you mean, they're damned if they do, and damned if they... do. People never learn with politicians, but for some reason they can still learn (and have) with computer software companies.

Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[MightyMartian]

If Microsoft had disclosed reasons why, I doubt it would have been that big a deal. Lots of companies, including big corporations like Microsoft, utilize GPL and other open source licensed code. It's not exactly something amazing, other than the fact that a several years ago, Gates made some rather moronic comments about open source.

But trying to spin a relatively minor licensing screwup as some brand new day of Redmond-Open Source relations was idiotic. It does indeed evaporate some of the good will. The problem is that Microsoft is run by marketing types, and marketers are a fundamentally depraved and immoral lot. The engineers, I'm sure, would just have said "Hey, we used some GPL code. Now that we know we violated the license, we're making it right by releasing all the code we through into it." But marketers, a foul and vile subspecies, have this blasphemous need to spin things, and in the process, just as often show just how lacking in any kind of ethics this particular disgusting occupation is.

Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[rattaroaz]

If Microsoft had disclosed that they released the code to avoid a violation then the anti-Microsoft crowd would have proclaimed that Microsoft was only releasing the code because they had to, not because they wanted to. No matter the course of action Microsoft could have taken, they still would have been criticized.

In other words, when you do something begrudgingly, you don't really get credit for being a good guy. That seems right. If you think a corporation doing something just to avoid a lawsuit -- and marketing it as a proactively good thing like Sam Ramji was doing -- is right, then we must live on different planets.

Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[blueZ3]

Yes, they are--because they made a mistake. When someone screws up and admits it, they take flack (appropriately) for their error. That's the way the world is. You don't get a free pass with your mea culpa.

But putting spin on the mistake to make it seem like they're doing something good isn't the same as admitting to a actual mistake. When someone screws up and admits it, we criticize the mistake. When someone screws up and then tries to make it look like they did something wonderful, that deserves another level of criticism. In my opinion, they would have looked like they were "forced" to release the code if they'd done so without the spin, but they look worse because they released the code and tried to spin it.

And you have to wonder what genius in Redmond thought that this was a good idea... how it it not obvious that this would eventually come out and their spin would be shown for what it is.

Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[Locutus]

Whatever their motives, everyone wins.
 

A win-win and Microsoft plays that hand? I think _that_ is why they didn't do it that way. They will do anything to not give any amount of credibility to a targeted competitor and GNU/Linux is very well targeted by Microsoft. It does seem this was rushed to some extent or they just didn't consider all their options carefully enough or they would have rather made this look like a forced issue because of a developer or two didn't watch what he/she was doing and grabbed someone else's code. GPL'ed code. Playing it as something it wasn't within todays web of communications was dumb. It just does not play out like the old days where the PR lies hit the press and it was months before any retraction or counter point could/would be published. I'm surprised they are _that_ out of touch.
 

Spinning this as a sign of trust and friendship was just lame and I'm wondering if Microsoft's marketing capabilities aren't starting to slip to the level of their OS building abilities.
 

LoB

Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[malevolentjelly]

Here is what Microsoft said in the initial press release:

Q: Why release the code?

A: Because we have utilized Linux code, Microsoft has an obligation to open source the device drivers. This is the process outlined by the Linux community.

Q: Why open source the code?

A: Because this is a requirement of the community, and critical in ensuring that as the Linux Kernel evolves, and as Hyper-V evolves, that the Hyper-V Linux Device Drivers evolve as well.

Source: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/microsoft-linux-hyper-v-drivers.html

So... when was there a cover-up? Seems to me like it simply wasn't reported because no one considered it relevant to report, given that it was in the press release.

It's not something you brag about, just a reality. They wrote some linux drivers, and that's a huge waste of time and resources to maintain in a closed source fashion unless you have a really good reason (like Nvidia, who have to re-engineer much of X to allow modern graphics technology in Linux).

It's rare that Microsoft should have to touch GPL code for any reason, but now that they have to for Hyper-V, they're adhering to the GPL. At one point does this story become sinister or scary?

Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[migla]

"No matter the course of action Microsoft could have taken, they still would have been criticized."

Probably true, and I guess it can be annoying on some level that people might not see facts for their zealotry (Damn freedom mongers!).

However. I see no way for microsoft to ever be "good". To paraphrase:

M$: "Do you expect me to comply with the GPL?
migla: "No, mister Microsoft, I expect you to die!"

Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[OfficeSupplySamurai]

Absolutely. In fact, what is being claimed is that Microsoft released under the GPL, and even though they didn't want to do so, they claimed that they did want to. So what? The fact remains that they are in full compliance with the GPL license, and contributed to open source.

How can people claim that Microsoft is doing this to show how the GPL is a terrible viral license? If they wanted to do that, they would have said so, or it would have been they who claimed that they had to release the software under the GPL. The simple fact remains that Microsoft's own statements regarding this cast open source in a positive light. How so many people can just ignore this boggles the mind.

Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[Nicoleslaw]

No matter the course of action Microsoft could have taken, they still would have been criticized.

Very true, but after all this is Microsoft we're talking about. They have created a pretty bad image for themselves after all these years of general nastiness. I don't think it's surprising that there is a general distrust for anything they say among those who support the GPL and FOSS. As far as I'm concerned they have made their own bed and now they get to lay in it.

Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[Sam Ramji]

This is the only post so far that seems to have gotten it right.

We've done this pragmatically, have identified the reasons in detail, and have nothing to hide. We believe that of the range of open source licensing options for this code, the GPLv2 was the right one. Our decision was not based on any perceived obligations tied to the GPLv2 license.

This was a project we began in October of last year, and which we have been working on ever since.

Our diligent adherence to the standards of the Linux kernel community, including the license used, the process, and the changes we are now seeing we need to make to the coding style of the source code, are driven by our goal of having the code accepted into the kernel. This will make it far easier for any developer who wants to modify their distribution to run on Hyper-V, for solutions providers to modify and support these features, and for customers to obtain Hyper-V support for their Linux distribution of choice. We have been endorsed by both Greg K-H and Jim Zemlin for the approach we've taken, and we believe that this process will be good for Hyper-V's capabilities and customer adoption.

Sam
sramji@microsoft.com

Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[Sarten-X]

Subtle word choice bothers me even more than outright lies.

What would be less misleading is to say that the obligation comes from the legal use of the GPL, not the "community". The Linux community isn't requiring Microsoft to release the source. It's copyright law doing it, and that's a good thing.

A better-written statement, that wouldn't generate so much hatred, would be something like:

A: Because this is a requirement of the the license covering the code we used, and ...

It's accurate, gives a nice nod to the community (in the people-who-care sense, not the we-love-everyone-so-everyone-should-love-us sense), doesn't make the entire statement sound like a marketing scheme.

Now, I'm not really opposed to Microsoft in general, but I'm not a fan, either. Things like this, which seem to be purely a marketing move, make me skeptical. Why would Microsoft release something actually valuable, when they're sitting on a large pile of worthless things that could be released first, like QuickBasic and old versions of DOS?

Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[malevolentjelly]

Why would Microsoft release something actually valuable, when they're sitting on a large pile of worthless things that could be released first, like QuickBasic and old versions of DOS?

QBASIC and DOS are not being contributed to an existing GPL-based platform. They're essentially dead legacy code. I think the easiest way to explain that would be that the drivers Microsoft is contributing aren't being pushed forth because they're useless or outdated, but because they're useful. It seems to me that they're leveraging the open source development model to improve interoperability and streamline the development process since they're contributing to a GPL platform.

It's about using the right license for the right scenario in the same manner that you wouldn't bring a croquet mallet to a baseball game. A binary driver distribution model the realm of the GPL is contrary to the linux development model and would not save anyone time or money. There's simply no reason to swim up river, in this case.

This is an example of functionality being added to the linux kernel that is mutually beneficial to both platforms because it's improving linux as a guest in Windows' hypervisor solution. So, what Microsoft is giving away IS valuable, but moreso because they're submitting it as a kernel component, not merely on its own.

In short, it's an asset for both platforms *because* it's open source.

Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[Tweenk]

like Nvidia, who have to re-engineer much of X to allow modern graphics technology in Linux

The real reason is that they probably don't own all the code in the driver. Replacing large parts of the X stack had some merit in the past, but right now they are far behind ATI and Intel for this reason - for example they do not support XRandR 1.3, so everyone needs to use their stupid utility in order to configure dual monitors.

Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[malevolentjelly]

The real reason is that they probably don't own all the code in the driver. Replacing large parts of the X stack had some merit in the past, but right now they are far behind ATI and Intel for this reason - for example they do not support XRandR 1.3, so everyone needs to use their stupid utility in order to configure dual monitors.

Yeah, it's definitely a trade-off. But at the same time, they also have a better solution for memory management than DRM in the DRI stack. This means they will have better GL performance... they also offer some video decoding/playback acceleration in certain players. Nvidia's drivers have been able to offer an excellent experience on Linux for much longer than DRI has been really functional or usable, but it's probably about time they start conforming to some of the standard features modern X is offering, like XRandR as you mentioned.

Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[Sarten-X]

They're required by law to give it away. That's what this entire news item is about. They aren't the ones who 'chose' the GPL. They used GPL code first, so their additions must be GPL, as well. The only other choice is to write the whole thing from scratch.

As for the almost-worthless legacy code, that's exactly my point. It doesn't contribute to an existing project that competes in any (significant) way with a current project.

In the case of these drivers, they make Linux a better option as a guest OS. That means there's probably at least one lost Windows sale because a business can use Linux instead. This is not good for Microsoft, but necessary, since they used GPL code. The sale is less valuable to them than the cost of writing the entire program themselves.

Contrarily, legacy code does not affect any current Microsoft markets. The closest relative to QuickBasic that I know of is VB.NET, which is more or less like comparing the Concord with the Santa Maria. Each is great in its time, but it's hardly a fair comparison.

Rather than applying their marketing ability to a mistake, covering up their legal requirement with statements of interoperability and choice that they didn't really have, Microsoft could easily just release their worthless code. The release of anything, no strings attached, would drastically improve Microsoft's reputation with the Linux community, without hurting their bottom line.

For an example of what such "useless" acts can do, take a look at Bethesda's release of Daggerfall as only being freely-available. It saw a Slashdot article, with almost entirely favorable comments.

Microsoft has not done this, so I will continue to remain skeptical of any good intentions. We've all heard the lies, and I, for one, am sick of words. I want action, brought about by a desire to connect with the community, not the threat of a lawsuit.

Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[malevolentjelly]

In the case of these drivers, they make Linux a better option as a guest OS. That means there's probably at least one lost Windows sale because a business can use Linux instead. This is not good for Microsoft, but necessary, since they used GPL code. The sale is less valuable to them than the cost of writing the entire program themselves.

They used GPL code in order to write Linux drivers, though. Windows Server's ability to hypervise Linux is actually a feature, since many enterprises are mixed environments. Nobody wants to adopt a Server platform that doesn't play well with the rest of the infrastructure. Some organizations actually make use of Windows Server with Active Directory to augment the authentication structure of existing UNIX/NFS systems, for instance. In the server market, companies might still have a web server, a file server, a mail server lying around running Unix that they don't want to eliminate. Maybe it works for them. It's better for Microsoft to be vetting Windows Server for mixed environments, which are an important component of the enterprise market. It also means that the company's guest Linux systems can utilize an existing UNIX configuration while benefiting from Windows Server's security model. What it offers is flexibility.

I mean, I'm not sure what "entire program" you're referring to here when you say they would have to "write the entire program". Linux drivers tend to leverage GPL'd code, especially if they're to be properly integrated into the Linux kernel. These components have always been slated for integration into a linux kernel in one way or another, previously as binary drivers, so this submission makes perfect sense for Microsoft fiscally.

This is an example of Microsoft doing with the Linux platform the same thing every other developing party does with it, making it work for their usage scenario. In this case, Microsoft is leveraging it as a integratable guest OS option for customers. This code release will save everyone time and money, so I am simply stating that it isn't penal in nature--there was no threatened lawsuit. This whole article on Slashdot is really just an intentionally sinister angle on a hypothetical conflict that did not occur.

The release of anything, no strings attached, would drastically improve Microsoft's reputation with the Linux community, without hurting their bottom line.

Microsoft has been contributing slightly to the open source community through PHP and Apache already, but we are indeed talking about no-strings-attached GPLv2 kernel code here. I would also argue that, through Novell, the Linux community has benefited greatly from Mono/C#, which is quickly becoming one of the most popular solutions for developing linux desktop apps.

Besides this, Microsoft as a publically-owned corporation generally maintains the viability of its own platform, not competing ones, so the lack of prior contribution to Linux is not mysterious nor malevolent.

Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[Sarten-X]

Windows Server's ability to hypervise Linux is actually a feature, since many enterprises are mixed environments.

Yes, it makes Linux better. This isn't in doubt. The slight hit to Microsoft comes from a lost sale of Windows for a guest OS, but it's countered by a customer (who, hypothetically, MUST have a perfect Linux guest) being able to use Windows as a hypervisor.

When I say "entire program", I'm referring to the entirety of what Microsoft made to make Linux work better as a guest (which I'm assuming is everything released in these past few days)

As for the other projects, Microsoft does have a obvious stake in both PHP (improving IIS's performance and market) and Mono (improving the same for C# and .NET). Apache's license, unlike the GPL, allows them to use any technology in their own software. Funding Apache becomes a gamble on the foundation producing something useful in the future.

I have yet to see a contribution from Microsoft that didn't appear selfish. That includes these recent events. I realize that being a corporation they're only concerned with their bottom line, but it seems to me that having fewer unhappy potential customers would lead to higher profits.

Perhaps I'm just ignorant, and hatred is a new business strategy.

Re:The people who don't trust MS

[jedidiah]

Well, that whole nonsense about VFAT is nothing to take lightly.

If Microsoft could, they would gladly sabotage my ability to use
Linux. They would gladly sabotage my ability to easily use my
digital camera, my video camera and my personal media player.

I should be free to completely ignore Microsoft if I want to.

This is what seperates them from Ford, or McDonalds, or Campbells
and generates a lot of the ill will that some people like to
demonize others for.

Glad I saved making any comment 'til now

[erroneus]

I had question about what would drive Microsoft to doing that. After all, they did borrow quite liberally from BSD code for various things including the TCP/IP stack. But the stuff that was contributed back wasn't "huge" by any measure that I could tell. Now if they open sourced MS Office or Windows XP, THAT would have gotten my attention.

But I'll offer this. Let's give Microsoft credit for owning up to and respecting the terms of the GPL even if they weren't completely honest about their motives. They did the right thing which is also somewhat unusual for Microsoft. It may have been a baby step instead of a leap in the right directions, but it was still a move in the right direction.

Re:Glad I saved making any comment 'til now

[Locutus]

Sorry but they probably know the OSS lawyers are not going to allow being _gamed_ like the DOJ lawyers. They get no credit for using the GPL in my book because they were legally bound to do that. They may have had choices though and those were to combined proprietary and GPL'ed code in the driver, or GPL the driver all the way up to the Hyper-V. Mixing proprietary code in a blob in the driver could have opened them up to very close scrutiny of the binary blob and possibly prolonged the discussion along lines they don't want to tread close to. Their Hyper-V is proprietary so why not just throw the whole driver over the wall as GPL and figure out the best way to spin it? Trying to make it look like a favor was how they chose to do this. So what's that saying about telling lies? Once you start the lies just keep getting bigger and bigger and less believable or something like that. Take a guess where we are.
 

LoB

Shouldn't this be seen as a good thing?

[brennanw]

If they really did release the code to avoid litigation, then Microsoft is not contesting the validity of the GPL. Wasn't one of their previous tactics to attempt to portray the GPL as an invalid license? I suspect this argument will be harder to support when they release code in order to stay in compliance with its terms.

"Built trust???"

[Joey Vegetables]

Trust must be earned. IBM, the Microsoft of an earlier era, has abandoned many of the anticompetitive and fraudulent actions of its past, and thereby helped to earn trust and respect. Microsoft could do the same, at very little cost or risk to itself, in various ways. For instance, it could agree not to sue reimplementers of .NET (Mono, etc.) and SMBFS/CIFS (Samba, etc.), or list the alleged "patent problems" with Linux that it has claimed in the past. But half-hearted measures such as releasing software under the GPL when it legally was required to do so, or the very limited promises it has made surrounding .NET, don't quite cut it for me.

Re:"Built trust???"

[mcgrew]

My problem with Microsoft isn't their business practices (it would be if I were their partner of competetitor), it's their software design and overall philosophy: "Do it the Microsoft way or no way. We have a monopoly so the customer doesn't matter."

From their changing each version of almost any product as to cause one to need a complete retraining, to their lack of quality control, to their onorous "activation" and the need to type in a long string of alphanumerc characters just to install an OS, to Active-X and non-standards compliance... the list goes on. I avoid Microsoft whenever I can because I, personally, don't like their products (Excel is an exception; but maybe it's only good because the others are so gawdoffal bad).

If they'd change the attitude they have towards their customers, I might become one again. If you like their products, give them your money and enjoy. I'll continue to run Linux and curse the necessity of using MS at work. I'm glad I have no need of a spreadsheet at home, maybe one of these days I'll fire up the OO spreadsheet just to see how it compares.

Re:"Built trust???"

[UnknowingFool]

My problem with Microsoft isn't their business practices (it would be if I were their partner of competetitor), it's their software design and overall philosophy: "Do it the Microsoft way or no way. We have a monopoly so the customer doesn't matter."

Well, the problem with that is MS has never considered you or other end users as their customers when it comes to Windows. OEMs are their customers: Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. While they sell Windows at retail, that's a small number compared to OEMs. In order to get the volume discounts, one stipulation that OEMs have to make is that they handle support of Windows. So MS washes their hands of most responsibility if they don't release quality code. It's not like OEMs have much choice. With Vista that came back to hurt them as OEMs (at the demand of their customers) wanted to continue XP instead of installing Vista.

Re:"Built trust???"

[malevolentjelly]

For instance, it could agree not to sue reimplementers of .NET (Mono, etc.)

You mean like in their irrevocable covenant not to sue?

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx

Re:"Built trust???"

[Joey Vegetables]

Unfortunately, this promise covers only part of what is needed to implement .NET. This is fairly typical Microsoft behavior IMO. The form of what they appear to be offering is quite acceptable. Unfortunately, the substance is not. Much like their publication of APIs and other specs: at first glance they often appear impressive and even comprehensive, but just a little digging reveals just enough bugs, omissions, and errors to make the whole thing useless.

Re:"Built trust???"

[Blakey Rat]

My problem with Microsoft isn't their business practices (it would be if I were their partner of competetitor), it's their software design and overall philosophy: "Do it the Microsoft way or no way. We have a monopoly so the customer doesn't matter."

You're not a Microsoft customer. (Likely.) OEMs and large corporations are Microsoft customers. Oh, there is a tiny group of people who go out to a retail store and buy a copy of Windows, but they are extremely few and extremely far-between.

From their changing each version of almost any product as to cause one to need a complete retraining,

So you're upset at Microsoft for improving their product? Do you take the same attitude towards other products that are improved?

"Damn these new Chevy cars! Crumplezones, air bags, they keep changing things around! They should just keep making the Chevy Vega until the end of time!"

I mean, you might have some valid gripes about Microsoft, but "changing their product" surely isn't one of them. It's called "improvement." Oh, and all of Microsoft's competitors do it, too!

to their lack of quality control,

Hard to judge this one without any examples.

Vista is a higher quality product than XP, which is a higher quality product than 98. I don't know exactly what you're griping about in regards to quality control, but each version of Windows is more stable and less buggy than all versions that preceded it. (Except perhaps Windows ME.)

to their onorous "activation" and the need to type in a long string of alphanumerc characters just to install an OS

That's a non-issue for Microsoft customers, since Microsoft customers have their products pre-activated. (Remember: Microsoft sells to OEMs and large corporations; you're neither.)

to Active-X and non-standards compliance

They've downplayed ActiveX as much as possible while still retaining backwards-compatibility. It's actually extremely difficult to run ActiveX applet on IE7 and IE8.

IE8 is on-par, standards-compliance-wise, with all other modern browsers.

Things have changed since 1999, you know.

I avoid Microsoft whenever I can because I, personally, don't like their products (Excel is an exception; but maybe it's only good because the others are so gawdoffal bad).

Actually Excel is pretty bad in many, many notable ways. Of all Microsoft products, I wouldn't list Excel among their best. (Most popular? Yes. Best? Not by a long shot.)

I'm glad I have no need of a spreadsheet at home, maybe one of these days I'll fire up the OO spreadsheet just to see how it compares.

Like all OO products, it lacks enough critical features that you'd soon get pissed at it and go back to Microsoft Office.

Re:"Built trust???"

[malevolentjelly]

Unfortunately, this promise covers only part of what is needed to implement .NET. [fsf.org] This is fairly typical Microsoft behavior IMO. The form of what they appear to be offering is quite acceptable. Unfortunately, the substance is not. Much like their publication of APIs and other specs: at first glance they often appear impressive and even comprehensive, but just a little digging reveals just enough bugs, omissions, and errors to make the whole thing useless.

Would you like to be more specific? The FSF is an anti-Microsoft political organization, not a reliable technical resource.

As far as I can tell, this is simply a political argument pushing for a branded license provided by the organization making these claims.

Please quote a neutral and non-biased source that is not acting out of economic self-interest.

Re:"Built trust???"

[JAlexoi]

To be technically correct. IBM never abandoned anticompetitive measures. Most of them were taken away by the market position of IBM and near crash in the beginning of the 90-ies. Just look at the mainframe market now. IBM did abandon fraudulent activities.

Re:"Built trust???"

[mcgrew]

Microsoft Office doesn't come pre-installed, Office users ARE their customers, but the same attitude towards OS customers goes for Office customers, too. And I bought my copy of XP in a box; I haven't bought a whole computer since 1989 when I was running (iirc) DOS 3.1.

I was a customer, not any more. Microsoft could win me back, but I doubt they will. They (and a lot of game companies) remind me of the major record labels - no respect for their paying customers.

Re:"Built trust???"

[mcgrew]

You're not a Microsoft customer.

I haven't bought a whole computer since 1989 and have bought OSes from them all that time. And all Office users are customers; MS Office doesn't come preinstalled on computers.

So you're upset at Microsoft for improving their product?

No, I'm upset that they change WITHOUT improving. For instance, in IE the options menu item has been in file, edit, viw, favories, and tools. This is NOT improvement; it's a degradation that makes a product you're use to less useable.

Damn these new Chevy cars! Crumplezones, air bags, they keep changing things around! They should just keep making the Chevy Vega until the end of time!

No, it's more like "Damn the new Chevys, they swapped the gas and brake pedals around again!"

Added functionality is a good thing, but moving crap around like they do just gives the appearance of improvement without actually improving anything.

each version of Windows is more stable and less buggy than all versions that preceded it.

Agreed, they're improving, but how buggy and unstable is your car? Occasionally there are recalls, but with software (not just Microsoft, either) the attitude is "shove it out the door, we can issue a patch later". I find this practice abhorrent. Like I said, it's not just Microsoft, it's tha whole industry's prevailing attitude.

That's a non-issue for Microsoft customers, since Microsoft customers have their products pre-activated.

See that's the problem - I am (or was) a customer, buying an OS in the box. They and you both consider me, who shells out over $100 for a product, not a customer, and you nor they can see anything wrong with this.

Things have changed since 1999, you know

They didn't change until they were forced to. Things didn't change much at all in regards to their browser from 1995 to 2005.

Actually Excel is pretty bad in many, many notable ways.

I agree, it's far from perfect, but it's head and shoulders above Lotus or Quattro. Which spreadsheet do you use?

Re:"Built trust???"

[Blakey Rat]

And all Office users are customers; MS Office doesn't come preinstalled on computers.

No it doesn't, but 99% of Office copies are purchased by OEMs or large corporations.

See that's the problem - I am (or was) a customer, buying an OS in the box. They and you both consider me, who shells out over $100 for a product, not a customer, and you nor they can see anything wrong with this.

You're the 0.01% of Microsoft's customers. They don't really care about you. I'm sorry to break this news to you.

Agreed, they're improving, but how buggy and unstable is your car? Occasionally there are recalls, but with software (not just Microsoft, either) the attitude is "shove it out the door, we can issue a patch later". I find this practice abhorrent.

I'd rather have feature-full software that crashes once a month than wait an additional 2-3 years for Microsoft to iron out *every* crashing bug, and then never install new hardware (since Microsoft hasn't had a chance to vet the drivers, they could be unstable.)

In short, I understand the trade-off and I'm taking it. Everybody else seems to agree with me, since the trade-off is pretty goddamned popular.

Like I said, it's not just Microsoft, it's tha whole industry's prevailing attitude.

If you're not griping about Windows specifically, and "that whole industry" (presumably meaning software), why the hell are you shoving that in an anti-Microsoft screed? It comes across as "damn that Microsoft, they're on-par with other companies in their same industry! Bastards!" Ridiculous.

Windows has always been less buggy and more stable than any Linux distribution I've tried, and I've tried several on several different pieces of hardware. Apple *might* have them beat, but since Apple doesn't support the hardware I prefer to run (netbooks, tablets, and cheap-ish desktops with good video), Apple's a non-option as far as I'm concerned.

Re:"Built trust???"

[mcgrew]

You're the 0.01% of Microsoft's customers. They don't really care about you

That's why I'm no longer a customer.

Windows has always been less buggy and more stable than any Linux distribution I've tried

I've tried several distros, never had a single app crash on any of them, let alone the OS. The only problem I had was with Suse; the s-video out on my video card sent garbage to the TV set. But the fault there is with the hardware, not Linux.

Re:"Built trust???"

[Blakey Rat]

I've tried several distros, never had a single app crash on any of them, let alone the OS.

Bullshit. Well, possibly not, maybe you just let the computers sit there doing nothing.

Here's a recipe for an instant Linux crash about 50% of the time, from my experience:
1) Install Linux on a computer capable of sleep mode
2) Put it to sleep
3) Wake it up

Vital information not given

[abigsmurf]

All the information about this story is in 3 pages, all of which seem to link to each other as a source. There's a very fuzzy picture about what went on. Big questions I have about the story:

The issue appears to be that there were drivers linked to open source code. Which exact binaries, which GPL'ed code?

What are the timescales? Was the discovery of GPL'ed code made before or after MS released the code? If before, how long before? It's not clear on any of the pages.

Was the GPL'ed code able to be licensed through other means? Is there a possibility they decided to make this GPL'ed code a while ago and decided to link to other GPL'ed code because of this?

I don't mind doing a bit of my own research to get the full facts of a story but having to read 3 vague blog posts and still coming out non the wiser is irritating.

Re:Vital information not given

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Answers:

Q: Which exact binaries, which GPL'ed code?
A: They previously released kernel modules that were half and half. Half GPL'd Microsoft code, half binary blob.

Q:Was the discovery of GPL'ed code made before or after MS released the code?
A: Before. They were approached silently and with out fan fare by Novell and correct the situation by releasing all of the code for the driver.

Q:Was the GPL'ed code able to be licensed through other means?
A:Well, you only have so many choices when you write a driver for Linux. I'm sure they could have argued like others have that their driver was not a derivative work of Linux, and just submitted a binary blob. The fact that they tried to have it both ways indicates that they didn't think this was the case.

Q:Is there a possibility they decided to make this GPL'ed code a while ago and decided to link to other GPL'ed code because of this?
A: Probably not. The driver was all their code, they specifically chose to put the GPL on only part of it.

Windows Services for Unix

[kervin]

So what exactly is the problem?

Microsoft has released software under the GPL because they had to before. For years now actually, since they distribute the Windows Services for Unix.

Do you think other companies that comply with the GPL do so because they like the license?

Re:Windows Services for Unix

[DragonWriter]

Do you think other companies that comply with the GPL do so because they like the license?

Yes, because (a) they prefer the terms, (b) they prefer access to an audience who intends to link with other GPL code, and/or (c) they prefer the ability to legally incorporate existing GPL code themselves. All three amount to reasons to like the license.

Not "sadly" or surprisingly

[Idaho]

Trust in dealing with Microsoft is not sadly lacking.

It is understandably lacking for anyone who has been paying any attention at all to Microsofts history.

Re:Not "sadly" or surprisingly

[lamadude]

Something sad can still be understandable

Re:More proof

[Alzheimers]

Depends on the puppy.

Re:The people who don't trust MS

[LingNoi]

As a contributor to many GPL projects I would welcome any open source patches by Microsoft. They're a big company that could contribute a lot to Linux or its applications. Unfortunately there are many linux users who contribute nothing but hate which is why the public image of open source and free software has been ruined.

It doesn't matter if you're white, black, rich, poor or even Microsoft. All that matters is the code and the fact that Microsoft is using the GNU GPL license. Since they have contributed a plugin to moodle and this patch to the linux kernel they can no longer claim some of the things they previously did about the GNU GPL. It's also a selling point to anyone trying to convince higher ups to use open source software "even Microsoft contributes code to GPL software".

The doom and gloom in not only this article, but in the other two about when Microsoft first made the contributions are imaginary. I can't understand why people would want Microsoft to stop making open source contributions. The reasons for those contributions are unimportant as EVERYONE has a motive for contributing code to a GPL project.

Fishy...

[mhkohne]

I'm supposed to believe that Microsoft couldn't replace a couple of drivers with code of their own, and thus ended up open-sourcing a large codebase to comply with the GPL? Sorry, no.

Everything Microsoft does is about making money. They open sourced this code because they believe they can use that in some way to make a buck. End of story.

Re:Fishy...

[mcgrew]

Everything Microsoft does is about making money

Everything any corporation does is about making money. Wanting to make money isn't the problem, how they go about doing it is.

Re:The people who don't trust MS

[Americano]

I should be free to completely ignore Microsoft if I want to.

How exactly are you not "free to ignore Microsoft if you want to"? I haven't bought a Microsoft product in about 3 years now, and haven't once felt like I was missing out on something. I have a perfectly capable computer system, digital camera, video camera, and personal media player at home with absolutely no Microsoft software on it and no Microsoft hardware in it. What exactly are you unable to ignore about them?

This is what seperates them from Ford, or McDonalds, or Campbells.

You're as free to ignore Microsoft as you are to ignore Ford, McDonald's, or Campbells. Buy a Honda. Eat at Burger King. Buy Progresso soup. Buy a Mac. Assemble a Linux system.

You're investing way too much of yourself in worrying about Microsoft. There is no nefarious secret plan in Redmond to destroy Jedidiah's computer.

Mod parent up

[Lonewolf666]

I'd do it myself (currently having mod points) but the following comment seems more important:

The typical Microsoft EULA is more complicated than the GPL, and contains a lot more points that seem designed to screw the customer over. So Microsoft is at least the pot calling the kettle black ;-)

Re:Mod parent up

[Repossessed]

Agreed, it took me 3 hours to read the EULA on my xbox (or rather xbox live), I still don't understand some of it.

Re:Mod parent up

[Ardaen]

I still don't understand some of it.

I'm pretty sure that's the point. I get the feeling many EULAs are designed to be hard for the end user to understand.

Re:Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

To sum up most EULAs:

- Any rights you think you have, forget them
- We own your product and by using it own you
- I our product happens to kill you, you probably deserved it
- The Lube is free so please assume the position

Re:Mod parent up

[cripeon]

- The Lube is free so please assume the position

You get free lube?! Where do I sign up?

Re:Mod parent up

[maxwell demon]

It takes 20 minutes to pick a random number between 1 and 8?!

Yes. After all, if you just "randomly" say a number, it's not realloy very random. Therefore you'll have to resort to a truly random process. Since few people carry perfect octaeders with them (and AFAIK there are none supplied by McDonalds), the best choice it to toss coins.

Now you might think that tossing coins three times should be enough, because every toss gives you one bit. But that's not true: There may be a bias in your tossing, and who tells you that the coin you chose really is fair? Therefore you should make a protocol which as far as possible eliminates any non-randomness.

The first step is to remove a possible simple bias by tossing the coins two times, discarding the tosses if both results are equal, and taking the second one otherwise. This alone increases the average number of tosses by a factor of 4 (a factor 2 because you have two tosses for one result, and another factor of two because half of your tosses are invalid).

However, that's not enough: There might e.g. be a systematic drift in the probability (for whatever reason). Therefore you should repeat each toss series, but this time choose the first result instead of the second if the two tosses disagree. Since now you may have conflicting results, you repeat that procedure for the conflicting bits to decide which one to choose. This gives another factor of 4.

All together you now have 48 tosses. But that's still not enough: To make completely sure that your results are random, you should also determine the order of the bits. There are 6 different permutations; since 6 is not a power of 2, in order to chose the right permutation, you apply the following protocol: Double-toss the coin four times. If the result is not 2 bits each repeated two times, discard the result and start over. Otherwise, there are exactly 6 possible combinations, thus determining the required permutation of the bits previously obtained. Note that on average, you'll need 32/3, i.e. almost 11 tosses to determine the permutation. Together that's almost 59 tosses to randomly select one number. Assuming you need about 20 seconds per toss, you indeed get an average of about 20 minutes for your choice.

SCNR :-)

Re:Mod parent up

[thisnamestoolong]

I think it's more like Wesley Snipes calling Kenny G black...

Re:Mod parent up

[Repossessed]

You get free lube?! Where do I sign up?

Try your nearest voting booth.

umm

[superwiz]

So their ulterior motive was complying with GPL? Those sinister mofos!

Re:umm

[weicco]

Good point. The question is is there any other way to prevent GPL violation, when using GPL'd code, than license your code under GPL? I think not.

Re:umm

[Todd Knarr]

There is in fact another: don't distribute the implicated code. If you aren't redistributing then you don't need the rights the GPL grants you merely to use the code yourself (copyright law itself grants you all the rights you need).

Re:umm

[weicco]

Yes I considered that but it doesn't feel right to me. You've used and redistributed GPL'd code (with your code), then you notice that you aren't in compliance with the GPL you stop distribution, rip off the GPL part, rewrite it and get back to the business. Sounds fine but still you have used someone's code against his/her will. The right thing to do, in my mind, would be to apologize and go GPL all the way. One's rights should be honoured.

If you notice beforehand that the code is GPL'd then it's a totally different story of course.

Lack of Trust

[CannonballHead]

squandered this opportunity to build trust, something which is sadly lacking in most people's dealings with Microsoft.

This sentence could have been much broader and still been accurate. Something like:

squandered this opportunity to build trust, something which is sadly lacking in most people's dealings.

Re:More proof

[mcgrew]

How about this puppy?

Extraoridnary lengths

[Junior J. Junior III]

For Microsoft, complying with the law *is* going to extraordinary lengths to engage with the open source community.

Re:Extraoridnary lengths

[thethibs]

What law?

The admitted this...

[entrigant]

... in the press release. Did anyone actually read it? There was a little faq, and one of the questions was why. The answer was cause the GPL says so. That this is shocking to anyone is amazing. Who cares? They provided GPL'd code so linux can run in their hypervisor. Good for them.

Re:Doing the right thing, but stupid publicity stu

[Americano]

What gets me is how Microsoft tried to exploit the situation by using it as a marketing opportunity. They should have been honest and stated the real reason they released the source under GPL to begin with.

What you (and pretty much everybody else in this thread) is hoping for is for Microsoft to self-flagellate - something along the lines of: "We're so bad, we suck, we fucked up beyond comprehension, we hope the GPL community can somehow find it in their hearts to not destroy us to the 10th generation. We're stupid-bad-wicked-naughty-horrible-ugly-halitosis-having troglodytes, we're going to commit mass suicide in the hopes that someday history will forget what terrible people we were." This is not going to happen.

No matter how you slice it, it's good for the GPL & open source. Either Microsoft has conceded that the GPL is legally enforceable and thus must be taken seriously, OR they have decided that they want to play ball with the open source kids, and are using this as the first step in a new direction towards working with open source developers & projects. You can win thoroughly while still allowing the loser to retain some shred of their dignity. Attempting to back Microsoft into a corner over this in an attempt for some silly "PR victory" would be counterproductive.

But of course, current_year++ always seems to be the year of the Linux Desktop... so perhaps counterproductive strategy is just the way open source rolls...

Re:Thats stupid. They couldve recoded it if they w

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The only ones putting a spin on things are the counterculture media sites like Slashdot and the Register. They are so desperate to make out anything Microsoft does as evil that they have to invent this "ulterior motive".

Microsoft is a huge company with a lot of money. They create entire operating systems, productivity suites and video games. They could have easily written a damned network driver.

Re:The people who don't trust MS

[burnin1965]

MS can never build bridges with many of the software red loons who frequent this site.

Once bitten twice shy.

And the irony, you consider a multi sourced market where the actual producers of the licensed source code retain their copyrigths versus handing it over to a single corporation to be communist, "red", and a single sourced monopoly controlled market to be free market capitalism. And copyright holders protecting their licensed source code are insane, "loons", while a fat ageing corporate officer jumping around on a stage in front of subordinates to the point of causing bodily harm and proceeding to limp around the stage is sanity.

Yeah, there are loons here its just not who you think it is.

Open Source Isn't The Only Way To Break Copyright?

[TwinkieStix]

Microsoft claims that the creators of open source software are at risk of a lawsuit due to copyright violations, yet here they seem to be indicating that commercial software creators are at the same risk if they choose to violate those same copyright laws.

Re:The people who don't trust MS

[Abreu]

The whole point is that if MS started suing people over the VFAT filesystem you would not be able to use a digital camera, MP3 player, etc. in Linux

Viral

[Sloppy]

Let me get this straight: if I create a derived work of someone else's code and obey a condition for getting permission to do that, then the person whose work I built on, gets tagged with the derogatory word "viral."

But if I try to create a derived work of someone else's code, but just can't get permission at all, because the original creator doesn't want to share or "promote the progress of the useful arts and sciences" then no derogatory term applies.

Right?

Re:Viral

[ezzzD55J]

No.

Viral was about the license.

If you want to get all technical about it, the creator already HAS "[promoted] the progress of the useful arts and sciences," by creating something, which copyright law then
"[secures him] for limited times [..] the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries".

And more to the point - there are more permissive licenses. Personally I like BSD and equivalents. Certainly no derogatory term would apply there as far as I'm concerned, certainily not 'viral.'

Re:The people who don't trust MS

[Locutus]

they have never built any bridge they did not line with explosives and hold the button firmly in their own hands. So dah, you're just stating the facts since in 20 something years, they've given nothing anyone but the blind could trust. Thanks for the chuckle though, now go back to your Microsoft platform and close your eyes to reality... crap, an AC.
 

LoB

MS, A Money Making Business

[blueZhift]

No real surprise here. Microsoft is in the business of making money, so if everyone remembers this in dealing with them or any other profit driven company, then we'll be well prepared for this behavior. Open Source is seen by MS and others as a threat to their profits, so many avoid it. But in the tech world, that is getting increasingly harder, and more foolish to do. So avoiding a profit sapping lawsuit is probably a good move. Yeah they could recode, but in this case it was probably easier (and cheaper) to just comply with the GPL.

Re:MS, A Money Making Business

[Just Some Guy]

Microsoft is in the business of making money, so if everyone remembers this in dealing with them or any other profit driven company, then we'll be well prepared for this behavior. Open Source is seen by MS and others as a threat to their profits, so many avoid it.

So is my boss, but we're still pro-F/OSS. The two aren't mutually exclusive, except maybe for legacy entities like Microsoft without a significant hardware business to fall back on.

Re:Just when I considered...

[CannonballHead]

paying for my copy of windows this time round

Yeah, that will show them. They violated the GPL. The proper response, after getting mad them for violating GPL, is to violate THEIR licensing. That will show them that businesses should be trustworthy and should do the lawful and right thing! .... [/sarcasm]

Re:The people who don't trust MS

[Americano]

At that point the Linux people are free to ignore Microsoft, and roll their own Digital cameras, MP3 players, etc. which are compatible with Linux and which do not infringe on Microsoft's (or anybody else's) patents.

"I want / need to use the FAT filesystem," is not sufficient reason in the eyes of current law to allow you to violate patents. I agree that the patent system needs to be reformed, but as soon as you say, "IF the patent system worked the way I wanted it to," you have invalidated your legal argument.

Using a different filesystem format internally may make it difficult for these devices to interoperate with other operating systems, but there's no reason that FAT *must* be used on these devices. The choice of patent-encumbered FAT was a trade-off between perceived risk of lawsuit and benefits of interoperability with many other devices. Choosing to assume that risk means that you have to be prepared for the consequences if someone decides to make a stink.

Re:Thats stupid. They couldve recoded it if they w

[FireFury03]

Microsoft is a big enough company that if they really felt that GPL was a problem, they could easily get 1 or 2 of their 50,000 odd developers to recode the little driver that was GPL'd.

Obviously they were fully aware of the implications of using it, and decided to instead of recoding the one driver, to publically release the entire thing under the GPL. That's hardly an "ulterior motive"

I'm not sure it's that simple. AIUI they had already released the driver under a combined licence, so were already infringing copyright. IANAL, but I'm not entirely sure that they could just cease distributing the code since it is already "out there" now - they probably _had_ to relicence the code they had already distributed to be legally in the clear.

Re:The people who don't trust MS

[geminidomino]

Would you drive your car across a Microsoft-built bridge?

With a remote control. *I* want to live to see the future.

Re:The people who don't trust MS

[Tetsujin]

Would you drive your car across a Microsoft-built bridge?

The car part of the analogy makes sense to me, but I can't relate to bridges at all!

current_year++

[Tetsujin]

But of course, current_year++ always seems to be the year of the Linux Desktop... so perhaps counterproductive strategy is just the way open source rolls...

Are you aware that (current_year++) has the same value as (current_year)?

Though, on the other hand, (current_year == current_year++) is not necessarily true...

Re:current_year++

[Americano]

I'm well aware of how postfix increment & decrement operators work, if that's what you're asking. But since I wasn't attempting to write syntactically correct & logically complete source code, I'm left wondering what your point is, other than to show off that you've taken a programming course somewhere along the way?

Re:current_year++

[Tetsujin]

I'm well aware of how postfix increment & decrement operators work, if that's what you're asking. But since I wasn't attempting to write syntactically correct & logically complete source code, I'm left wondering what your point is, other than to show off that you've taken a programming course somewhere along the way?

No need to be so serious. I'm just joking around.

It just seemed like what you were actually saying with that shorthand didn't fit your intent. But then again - maybe I'm the one who got it wrong - if one assumes that this year, not next year, is the one perpetually identified as "the year of..." I would have thought the claim would be "next year", though - "this year" is too tight of a deadline. :)

Re:The people who don't trust MS

[jdoverholt]

"That whole nonsense about VFAT" probably refers to this. Most digital cameras use VFAT for the memory card. Most phones, too. It may not be Microsoft code making it work, but it seems to be their intellectual property—for the time, anyway.

Still ignoring them?

Re:Just when I considered...

[geminidomino]

I think you missed GPs sarcasm.

The giveaway being that "3 generations of windows" is, using the average, is about 13 years...

Poor Microsoft is widely misunderstood.

[Anonymous Coward]

"... squandered this opportunity to build trust, something which is sadly lacking in most people's dealings with Microsoft."

Awww... Microsoft is just misunderstood. People expect Microsoft not to be evil, but evil is their business plan.

Interesting.

[jskline]

If Steve Ballmer is still at Microsoft, everything they say and do is a lie!

Changing the Leapords spots? Shirley you jest...

[Almost-Retired]

What I read into this is the M$ understands just how futile it is to try and attack the gpl in court because they have looked at the record, and have found no winners.

To me, this instance gives the gpl at least as much legal clout as any court ruling ever will. And other wannabe thieves of our code have been put on notice that if M$ knows its futile, the rest had better get their house in order too, making it quite a bit easier for the FSF to gain compliance with the license.

As for M$ changing their spots to stripes, chuckle. ROTFLMAO even. Not bloody likely, as a couple of my British friends would say. No matter what color they attempt to paint themselves, they still have the mentality of a 2 bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.

--
Cheers folks, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

It's 20 degrees in Hell

[tepples]

And in other news: Hell is still hot.

As I type this, Hell, Michigan is 68 deg F (20 deg C). What's "hot" to you?

Re:The people who don't trust MS

[Americano]

I just checked, and yep, I'm still ignoring them.

If they force other manufacturers to drop FAT support, that doesn't affect my existing devices; At the point I'd replace them, if FAT wasn't an option, that wouldn't really ruin my day at all. I don't run Windows, so interoperability with Windows isn't a concern of mine at all - I have no problem formatting an external drive or a thumb drive in an incompatible format for Windows.

If you *want* to ignore them, then you *can* ignore them. MSFT is not coming around door to door, confiscating your devices.

Re:Doing the right thing, but stupid publicity stu

[RandomFactor]

The GPL doesn't require no-spin honesty about the motives behind a party honoring terms of the license. Only that they honor them.

Re:sooo...funny

[AliasMarlowe]

We teach our employees to cut any corner in the pursuit of profit, and that's how it should be! You can't just leave valuable Intellectual Property out in the open, that's not how its done.

Nice try. Now tell that to the RIAA or MPAA, so they can go hide their intellectual property where we can't see/hear it.

Sometimes SLASHDOT is worse than FOX NEWS

[razathorn]

Generally speaking, FOX is the one who likes to take stories and spin them in the worst possible light to forward their own agenda. I can see now that SLASHDOT does the same thing. How on earth do you equate Microsoft following the rules of the GPL as something bad? How on earth did we get here? Seriously -- there's now going to be a lack of trust?! Are you kidding me? Because they provided a prettified PR statement to go with it? This says *nothing* about their stance on linux -- it says something about their integrity as a company that obeys software licenses. We now have definitive proof that Microsoft at least works within and respects the GPL, but somehow today is a day of mistrust?

Simply amazing. I can only imagine what the folks at MS are thinking right now who see this article. I bet their not thinking "gee, that went well -- let's do it again!"

This like shooting the publishers clearing house folks on your door step when they bring you the big check -- "Thanks, but get the heck off mah properta!"

Re:Sometimes SLASHDOT is worse than FOX NEWS

[shish]

How on earth do you equate Microsoft following the rules of the GPL as something bad?

Because they only did it after being forced to, not of their own free will?

Also, why are you capitalising "slashdot"? It's not an acronym, and it's somewhat odd to yell random words in the middle of regular sentences o_O

Re:Sometimes SLASHDOT is worse than FOX NEWS

[steltho]

How on earth do you equate Microsoft following the rules of the GPL as something bad?

If you were to read TFA, you would know that Microsoft was not following the rules of the GPL. They only released the code because they were caught violating the GPL. So, while they are currently in compliance with the GPL, it was never really their intention to be. This is why people are so upset.

Re:Sometimes SLASHDOT is worse than FOX NEWS

[FrankDrebin]

It's true that slashdot has had some amateurish editorial standards. But unlike FOX NEWS, slashdot is more about comments rather than the stories themselves. And from from nearly two million users, with a distributed moderation system, anonymous commenting, and no editorial censorship. It's not perfect, but it's probably a reasonable first-approximation of the zeitgeist. Comparing FOX NEWS to slashdot is like comparing some kind of car to another completely different kind of car.

Re:Sometimes SLASHDOT is worse than FOX NEWS

[dcam]

It was clear from the original article that Microsoft was complying with the GPL. What has changed is that they lied about their reasons for doing so. The original story was one of Microsoft contributing to GPL software for the first time, implying openness. This story shows that Microsoft was merely doing so because they were forced to do so.

Re:[citation needed]

[Sockatume]

Yeah, it'd be much better for my case if that was in the fucking article.

Damage is Damage, even if the code is Free.

[ciroknight]

Companies have tried the "You give your code away for free. How is it you can claim lost sales?" defense before. They've failed. Just because the code is free, does not mean the services attached to that code is and the maintenance of the code certainly isn't. The ability to quantify the damage done is always a bit of a black art, even in the commercial case, which is why governments typically setup default awards.

Microsoft simply saw an opportunity to spin this situation from "We're violating someone else's copyright and going to get reamed for it if someone catches on" to "Oh now we support Open Source Software, please ignore the millions of dollars we've spent on campaigns such as "Get The Facts", the Halloween Documents, and the fact that we've fought tooth and nail against several antitrust lawsuits regarding interoperability (which we are trying to obtain by patching the Linux kernel) and lost."

Now will you believe me about Mono!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft agreed not to pursue patent claims on the Mono architecture because they very much want Linux users to use it, and hopefully grow to depend on it. They did not do it for the goodness of mankind.

The MonoCulture is smeared with slime and if you let it, it will stick.

Peace.

Re:Thats stupid. They couldve recoded it if they w

[amorsen]

but I'm not entirely sure that they could just cease distributing the code since it is already "out there" now

That can happen in copyright violations where the GPL isn't involved too, and indeed it's common in many kinds of law suits that the defendant is unable to undo the harm he did. Monetary compensation is often used instead.

Try to do something good and....

[nashv]

So, what you're saying is , a multi-billion dollar company, who can hire people to write entire operating systems, that work with myriad hardware, and in this particular instance, hired people to write server-grade virtualization code, couldn't manage to write a network driver by themselves and so decided to break away from the norm in the company and release their entire code base under GPL - a community that includes fanbois who think MS is evil. Are you nuts, man?

Mod parent up...

[argent]

Even if the absolutely worst case was true, and MS didn't even thing about the GPL code until they were challenged, releasing the code flat out under the GPL seems to be a better-than-average response.

OK, there's big companies with better open source policies, but they've still come an awful long way.

No... not really...

[SplatMan_DK]

I am not trying to deffend Microsoft here - but there is a simple question you need to ask yourselves:

Do you REALLY think that the ONLY reason for the release of the code under the GPL was the issue of this single driver?

Personally I find it hard to believe that a company with such massive development resources at its disposal would not simply fix the issue in another way (for example by simply writing a new driver for the job?).

Perhaps Microsoft did have an ulterior motive with their GPL release of the code. Fine. But I honestly find it hard to believe they would release 20.000 lines of Hyper-V code just because they goofed up with a static link on a single driver. If they didn't want to release the code, they wouldn't have. Trust me.

So sure: perhaps there was ulterior motives. But I can hardly believe this simple driver is the answer.

IF there is an ulterior motive it is probably something else...

- Jesper

Re:The people who don't trust MS

[jedidiah]

> At that point the Linux people are free to ignore Microsoft, and roll their own Digital cameras,
> MP3 players, etc. which are compatible with Linux and which do not infringe on Microsoft's (or
> anybody else's) patents.

And people wonder why Microsoft and their shills inspire hatred.

VFAT should be the posterboy for the insufficiently novel patent.

What other unjust/abused laws would you like to make excuses for today?

What GPL is all about

[JAlexoi]

I believe the whole idea behind GPL was exactly that - making sure others release their source code.
So a sunny day for GPL.

Re:The people who don't trust MS

[Americano]

And people wonder why Microsoft and their shills inspire hatred.

I'm not sure who you're referring to there, as I am neither a shill for Microsoft, nor affiliated with Microsoft in any way. As I already explained, I haven't bought a Microsoft product in at least 3 years, possibly a little longer, and am quite contentedly using all of the types of devices you named.

VFAT should be the posterboy for the insufficiently novel patent.

If "if's" and "but's" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a wonderful Christmas.

A court has disagreed with your assessment of VFAT - dislike that decision all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you may be sued if you infringe on their patent, and if you make business plans that open you up to a lawsuit, you should not be particularly surprised if one is leveled against you.

If you don't want to risk a lawsuit, you avoid infringing, even if you really really wish that the patent decision were different.

I've said elsewhere in this thread that I agree that the patent system needs an overhaul. But the fact of the matter is, the patent system today is the world we live in. While working for reform, you either take judicious risks knowing you may be sued, or you do your own (novel) thing and avoid the risk of a lawsuit.

Re:The people who don't trust MS

[jedidiah]

This isn't about "Windows interoperability". My original post on the matter
should have made it plain to anyone. Now if you use your computer like a
glorified vt-220 terminal that's your business. Many of are a bit more
ambitious in our computer use. Some of us would prefer not to be forcibly
turned into the technological equivalent of the Amish.

Patent abuse makes this a very real possibility.

On the one hand, a proper industry standard might help. Then again it might
be subject to the same patent stupidity. Plus you would have to deal with a
dominant vendor content to exploit the status quo. FAT has been used as a
defacto industry standard by everyone from Atari to Sony for at least 25 years
now.

Obviously, Microsoft is not content to allow free reuse of the Linux kernel.

They spread patent FUD about the kernel and sue those that use features that
have been built into the kernel for a very long time.

Accidents Happen

[medv4380]

If someone accidentally linked to GPL'd code and didn't realize the rules they were supposed to be playing by then someone will probably be fired. However, ever since MS decided it had to play with Red Hat and others for the virtualization market it was bound to happen. How long could they play nice and not have to link to the GPL code. They may have thought they could keep it a secret, or maybe they thought they could get around it in the end. I would hope the driver code would be of use to others outside of the Virtualisation field like Wine but I doubt they are of any value outside of their intended environment.

Will it work for shoplifters?

[Runaway1956]

Especially at Christmas time, there are often charitable organizations set up near Wal-Mart entrances, and other shopping centers. So, I go in, and shoplift a bunch of stuff, but the manager is eyeballing me. As I exit, he follows me to the parking lot. Solution? I throw all the shoplifted stuff into Santa's collection box!!! Everyone will see me as a HERO because I donated so much stuff to the needy!! There's really no need to mention that all the stuff I donated was stolen, LMAO

Re:The people who don't trust MS

[jedidiah]

Don't kid yourself. You're a Microsoft shill.

It's hard not to be while you are gleefully declaring Linux users scofflaws.

Re:Doing the right thing, but stupid publicity stu

[Chris Burke]

No matter how you slice it, it's good for the GPL & open source. Either Microsoft has conceded that the GPL is legally enforceable and thus must be taken seriously, OR they have decided that they want to play ball with the open source kids, and are using this as the first step in a new direction towards working with open source developers & projects.

Well, since they didn't release the source until they were contacted and told they were violating the GPL, I'm guessing it's the former! And of course they knew all along that the GPL was legally enforceable, though a somewhat moot point since if it wasn't, that wouldn't leave them with any license to use the copyrighted code.

Re:The people who don't trust MS

[Chris Burke]

And how is getting caught violating the GPL, and only then complying with the license so as not to get sued, supposed to earn my trust?!

If that's your and MS' idea of building bridges, then damn fucking right I'll never trust them because they'll never be worthy of trust! Only idiots would trust someone who builds bridges like this.

Linus responds to the Microsoft contribution

[digipres]

Over at http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7439/ Chris Smart has a short article on the subject in which he publishes an interview with Linus Torvalds about this issue. Linus is generally in favour of including the Microsoft driver code.

Sketchup runs ok in Wine

[Taxman415a]

Sketchup runs reasonably well in Wine though it's not perfectly easy to set up and it still works best with Nvidia cards apparently. That said, Google could do a proper port to Wine like they have in the past, or better yet a native port so that it runs without issues. But if you'd like to use it, go file some Wine bugs on anything that doesn't work for you.

Indemnification against Microsoft software

[cenc]

I would like to announce that we will provide 100% indemnification against any company that uses Microsoft Products. If you use MS products or software built and run on top of MS products, you open yourself up to the possibility of liability for violating the GPL and related open source licenses, along with many other yet unknown IP technologies that are possibly stolen or built on invalid patents and violate third-party copyrights.

For a small monthly fee of $10,000,000 US, I will protect any company or individual that chooses to use such risky closed source products from the possibility that they will get their ass sued for violating public IP rights.

For a small additional fee of $10,000,000,0000 US a month I will also provide a full protection of damage caused by running MS related products while connected to the internet that such products may cause against third-party companies resulting from virus, instability, hacking, security breaches, and just bad design.

We provide special discounted rates on our insurance policies to any company or individual that certifies that they have completely wiped all MS products from their hard drives, including a complete 0 and 1 wipe, and have now installed Linux or similar open source products in full compliance with all GPL and similar public licenses. This special one time rate will cost you $0 us a year for life as long as you continue to run open source products and only open source products on your network.

     

well then

[Eil]

I take back all the nice things I said about them yesterday.

Re:The people who don't trust MS

[Abreu]

I haven't bought a Microsoft product in at least 3 years, possibly a little longer, and am quite contentedly using all of the types of devices you named.

Please enlighten me and tell me which digital camera brand does not use the FAT filesystem in its memory cards.

Re:The people who don't trust MS

[Americano]

Sure, just as soon as you can enlighten me with the case numbers of court actions that Microsoft has filed against individual users of cameras that use the FAT filesystem?

Re:The people who don't trust MS

[Abreu]

Answer my question and don't change the subject, please?

You said you were using digital cameras and mp3 players without using the FAT filesystem.

Please state brand and model of the digital camera you are using to achieve this.

Re:The people who don't trust MS

[Americano]

No, what I said is I haven't bought a Microsoft product in 3+ years. If you're declaring that "using a FAT filesystem" constitutes it being a Microsoft product, then does that mean every Linux distribution that implements this filesystem is also a Microsoft product?

Be careful with your stretches, they may lead you places you don't wish to go.

I'm not changing the subject, either, for what it's worth. This whole ridiculous line of thinking is that Microsoft is somehow out to get YOUR camera and mp3 player. So I asked you to please point out a single case where Microsoft has gone after a consumer for using a device which uses some sort of "unauthorized" FAT filesystem on it. You can't, but that doesn't stop the alarmist idiots from spouting off about how Microsoft is out to destroy every peripheral on earth.

Judge Tinder indirectly helped by SCO FUD

[KWTm]

Everyone has had to respect the GPL because it has already been held up in court as far back as germany in 2004 and redhat in 2006.

Thank you for those links. The one to Red Hat leads to: http://www.businessreviewonline.com/os/archives/2006/03/gpl_gets_court.html which pointed to http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/WallaceFSFGrantingDismiss.pdf, in which Judge Daniel Tinder affirmed the validity of the GPL against Daniel Wallace's claim that it was anti-competitive.

In doing so, his decision referenced Jason B. Wacha, Taking the Case: Is the GPL Enforceable, an article in SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. [Vol. 21] by the VP and Head Lawyer of MonteVista software. I found that article via Google; it's a step-by-step clear and concise rebuttal of 10 common claims against the GPL's validity. Mr. Wacha references the SCO vs Linux case several times.

By essentially launching a lawsuit against Linux, SCO has mobilized enough of the F/OSS community and legal IT community that enough literature was generated to be acknowledged by a US Federal Judge and to firm up the GPL's defenses and establish its validity. Thanks, SCO! It's nice to see Microsoft dollars make a real contribution to improving our world!

Re:How does this explain the Moodle plugin?

[makomk]

Microsoft are trying to push their web services like mail and document sharing to colleges and universities. The Moodle plug-in is related to that; it integrates Microsoft's webmail and other services with Moodle, making the Microsoft services a better choice for educational institutions.

mod parent up

[photonic]

Parent is the head of MS's open source lab and is actually mentioned in the summary. (Or it is his secretary/PR guy, but who cares, this user seems to have inside information, see users history.) Even if you do not agree with him, I guess his answer is somewhat relevant to the discussion.