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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[gigabites2]

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

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.

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

[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: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: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: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.

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:sooo...

[gandhi_2]

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

Huh?

[MightyMartian]

I'm shocked, I tell you! Shocked!

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.

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:sooo...

[Bemopolis]

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

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.

[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.

[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?

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: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.

"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.

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.

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:More proof

[Alzheimers]

Depends on the puppy.

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: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.

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

[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

umm

[superwiz]

So their ulterior motive was complying with GPL? Those sinister mofos!

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: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: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.

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...

[BasilBrush]

Copyright isn't viral. The GPL is.

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

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: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."

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: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: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: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: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...

[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.

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.

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...

[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: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: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.

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: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...

[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?

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

[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.

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: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.

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.