SFLC Says Microsoft Violated the GPL

After Microsoft donated driver code to the Linux kernel under the GPLv2, stories surfaced that they had done so under duress of already being in violation of the GPL. Microsoft quickly denied that any GPL violation was a driver for their decision to donate the code; the company's senior director of platform strategy, Sam Ramji, said at the time: "Microsoft's decision was not based on any perceived obligations tied to the GPLv2 license." Now the Software Freedom Law Center confirms that Microsoft was indeed in violation of the GPLv2 when it distributed its Hyper-V Linux Integration Components without providing source code. Community members led by Greg Kroah-Hartman contacted the company and coached them through the process of getting compliant. Microsoft now says that they had already been on the path for several months toward releasing the software under GPLv2 before Kroah-Hartman got in touch.

Comments

crow

[Anonymous Coward]

it's what's for dinner!

I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[eldavojohn]

So I downloaded the Hyper-V Linux Integration Components from Microsoft and unpacked the exe. I was prompted with this agreement:

MICROSOFT SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS

MICROSOFT WINDOWS SERVER 2008

HYPER-V LINUX INTEGRATION COMPONENTS

PLEASE NOTE: Microsoft Corporation (or based on where you live, one of its affiliates) licenses this supplement to you. You may use it with each validly licensed copy of Microsoft operating system products software (for which this supplement is applicable) (the âoesoftwareâ). You may not use the supplement if you do not have a license for the software. The license terms for the software apply to your use of this supplement. Microsoft provides support services for the supplement as described at www.support.microsoft.com/common/international.aspx.

After it unpacks, I get an RTF named "Linux ICs for Hyper-V" and LinuxIC.iso ... no source code. Anybody know where said source code is? Because when I do a search on their site, I'm not finding it.

Sure, it may have contributed the source code to some repository somewhere but I think the GPLv2 says you need to provide it if you are distributing. Which is what they're doing. Pretty obvious violation right there. Also, when you distribute it, you should have a copy of the GPLv2 license with it. I can't find a trace of it when I get the iso from them ...

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[leuk_he]

Well, it seems you did not download the gpl version, but an old version. I am unsure where you can find the gpl version.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[sunny256]

PLEASE NOTE: Microsoft Corporation (or based on where you live, one of its affiliates) licenses this supplement to you. You may use it with each validly licensed copy of Microsoft operating system products software (for which this supplement is applicable) (the ÃoesoftwareÃ). You may not use the supplement if you do not have a license for the software.

(Emphasis by me.) Addidionally, if this is GPL, as they say, they can't demand that you have a MS Windows license to use the software. When you've got a copy of it, you're free to use it as much as you want, with or without a MS Windows license.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[ComputerDruid]

It's easy to find. It is posted on the linux kernel mailing list as well as in several git trees from kernel.org. Where all kernel patches belong. See http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/20/167 .

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[eldavojohn]

It's easy to find. It is posted on the linux kernel mailing list as well as in several git trees from kernel.org. Where all kernel patches belong. See http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/20/167 .

Thanks for the link and I am aware of that. I guess I was wondering how they found themselves in compliance with Section 3 of the GPLv2 and I think this is where the article and SFLC are coming from:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

What I'm trying to say is I'm not seeing any of this and when I actively look on their site for it, nothing comes up.

So I grab GPL code, modify it and upload it to some remote unnamed repository with a license and go about my business releasing it under my own license as a binary on my site? I don't think so.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[init100]

1. Violate the GPL
2. Make sure that someone drags you to court for the violation
3. Start crying how the GPL is a communist cancer that should stay away from corporate source code to avoid "infection"
4. ...
5. Profit!

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[Repossessed]

You can put any license you want on the binaries and still comply with the gpl as long as the sourcecode is available, compilable, and has no such restriction.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[NickFortune]

You can put any license you want on the binaries and still comply with the gpl as long as the sourcecode is available, compilable, and has no such restriction.

That doesn't sound right. From the GPLv2:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

And then later:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

So, no. There are limits on what further restrictions you can impose, and restrictions on actually using the software would seem to be among those disallowed.

Of course, if you take the view that running the program is not covered by the licence, rather than specifically granted (the language seems ambiguous to me, but IANAL) then we could get into the weird situation where you had the right to copy and distribute it, but not to run it. I'm sure someone will tell me why that isn't the case.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[mysidia]

That's not true. The GPL only permits you to redistribute binaries under the terms of the GPL. It does not grant permission to distribute binaries under a different license, doing so would be a violation of MS had to follow the GPL.

However, Microsoft cannot be in violation of the GPL with regards to their own binary drivers, unless they included GPL code in them.

If Microsoft developed the drivers / integration components themselves, then they own the copyright.

The only issue some people may want to claim is that the binaries dynamically link against code in the Linux kernel.

Meaning when a user loads the code into their kernel, the user will be modifying the kernel, thus creating what some free software developers call a 'derivative work' subject to the GPL. And (therefore) the theory goes, the binary driver is subject to the Linux kernel's copyright, even when distributed on its own.

This is by no means a proven or generally accepted legal theory, but it is one held by the Free Software Foundation, and at least some Linux kernel programmers.

If you subscribe to this Legal theory, then MS distributing drivers except under the GPL would be a violation of the GPL with respect to the Linux kernel.

If you don't subscribe to this Legal theory, you may hold that when the 'user does linking', this doesn't count as the author of the driver distributing a derivative work. In that case, drivers could be issued under any license the developer so desires, and they could use any binary trickery needed whatsoever to allow it to be loaded into the kernel, without needing to GPL the driver.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[SkipFrehly]

So if Microsoft weighs the same as a duck, then it's GPL compliant?

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[johnncyber]

No if it floats like duck, then it's GPL compliant.....or a witch, I am not sure.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[Jurily]

So I grab GPL code, modify it and upload it to some remote unnamed repository with a license and go about my business releasing it under my own license as a binary on my site? I don't think so.

That's the viral nature of GPL: once they get it, they're stuck with it. They can't put their own license on it, no matter what they do elsewhere.

I think we need a lawsuit to sort this out. And for the patent threats, of course :)

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[Svartalf]

Uh, no, you can't.

Binaries are governed by the terms of the GPL just as the source is- unless you're the sole rights holder for the source code (Microsoft ISN'T...), they can't license under anything other than the GPL, no matter what they might say. Adding additional terms or taking them away is only allowed for the original rights holder- and you're bound to the terms they set aside for you. Since this is the Linux kernel they cribbed from- GPLv2 is the only license they can really use at that point.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[Repossessed]

The first bit relates to your rights if you do not accept the GPL.

The second bit has these key words. "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."

As long as I give you the source code you're free to exercise any rights the GPL preserved for you.

Lets do a fake example. Here's a special copy of XChat. To use it for more than 30 days you have to pay me 30 bucks. You may not remove the drm that enforces this.

Here's the source code for the special copy I gave you , you can use this as you see fit, including removing the DRM, recompiling, and redistributing without the above restrictions.

In no way does this scenario restrict the rights that the GPL guarantees for you.

(It occurs to me a no redistribution term on the binary may be disallowed).

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[eht]

Source code is in the correct place, send them a letter asking for it and they send you back a copy of it, they're not obligated to provide a copy on the web.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[mdwh2]

It obviously restricts his rights if he can't use it beyond the 30 days. The fact that he might be able to get round it is neither here nor there - you've still imposed an extra legal restriction (if it didn't matter, then why would you have the restriction there?)

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the viral nature of GPL: once they get it, they're stuck with it. They can't put their own license on it, no matter what they do elsewhere.

If GPL is viral, than so is copyright. If I take someone else's source code, use it without a license in my own program, and distribute the new source code, everything that uses that code could potentially be a violation of copyright. Similarly, if I distribute a movie that someone else holds the copyright to without a license, me and everyone else who distributes that movie has violated copyright. And if I distribute Microsoft Windows without a license, the BSA will most certainly take me to court and press for criminal charges. It's not the GPL that's viral, it's copyright law. GPL simply provides a fair set of rules by which you can use another person's code. If you don't like the license, write your own code.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[alexhs]

Funny, Microsoft did the steps in reverse...

5. Profit!
4. ...

3. Start crying how the GPL is a communist cancer that should stay away from corporate source code to avoid "infection"

That was in 2001.

2. Make sure that someone drags you to court for the violation

That was in 2003. Not directly but supposedly partly founded by them.

1. Violate the GPL

That is in 2009.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[wastedlife]

This.

Too many people seem to think that GPL is a trap to get you to release their precious code. However, it only requires them to release their code if it contains GPL code. At its heart, it is like saying, here is my code, I grant you a license to use, modify, and distribute as much as you would like. My payment is that you need to distribute the entire source, including your own changes.

The bottom line is, if you don't want to be held to the GPL license, either work out a different license with the copyright holders, or write it yourself. If you want free code from someone else with little to no restrictive licensing, use BSD-style licensed code or public domain code.

In my opinion, writing and using GPL code makes more sense from a business perspective than BSD, because you get a community of free and paid developers to add to your own, and other businesses need to release their improvements so that you can use them as well, protecting your ability to compete.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[metrix007]

You only have to make the source available.

This does not have to be on the website. It can be via a CD mailed out to you.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[shentino]

The binary is a derivative work of the source.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[schon]

This does not have to be on the website. It can be via a CD mailed out to you.

Yes, that would be 3(B), which the author said he couldn't find. Since you seem to be implying that it's there, perhaps you could provide a link for us?

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[molnarcs]

Actually, loading binary drivers dynamically is ok. In theory, loading a binary driver into the kernel can be regarded as creating a new derivative work, however, you can still legally use the kernel if you don't plan to distribute it. That's how actually binary drivers like NVidia's and ATI's work. Statically linking binary code with GPL code is a different matter, however, and I think this is what actually happened here.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[sumdumass]

If the code is in the kernel tree, wouldn't the exception apply?

However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[sumdumass]

They are obligated to make it apparent on how to get the source code though. If they chose to mail the source upon request, then they needed to include that written offer with the binary to make it obvious.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[neural.disruption]

First of all: Microsoft OWNS the copyright so they can change the license for whatever they want, whenever they want, GPL does not imposes restrictions on ownership;

Second: They released a first driver as not being GPL, and then they released it as GPL, but there is nothing in GPL that says that former versions of the code have to be GPL(that would be stupid), only derivative ones;

Third: I remember again they own the code (until someone proves they do not at least), GPL cannot, and does not, restricts ownership, and as a owner they can do anything they want, even change to other license;

Fourth: If Intel decides that their processor implementation is GPL would that mean that every program made for an Intel processor would have to be GPL by "Freedom Advocates" reasoning, because it would be a derivative work of the processor.

I rest my case, freedom is about choice, it is not about senseless whining and forcing others to do things your way, so if you embrace this kind of thinking stop calling yourself freedom advocate and start calling yourself totalitarian.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[wastedlife]

Whoops, this:

My payment is that you need to distribute the entire source, including your own changes.

should say this:

My payment is that if you distribute, you need to distribute the entire source, including your own changes.

The GPL does not require distribution of changes if I modify but do not distribute.

Also, I am unsure of how internal distribution is mandated. For example, if I deploy a modified Debian or Ubuntu as a desktop OS for workstations in the company I work for, do i need to deploy a copy of the source code on each machine or include a copy of the license with a form for requesting a CD or DVD of the source code?

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[Chyeld]

If they were in violation of the GPL, then they most certainly did not know the copyrights, which makes the rest of your comment about as relevant as Paris Hilton at a Mensa meeting.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, it may have contributed the source code to some repository somewhere but I think the GPLv2 says you need to provide it if you are distributing. Which is what they're doing. Pretty obvious violation right there. Also, when you distribute it, you should have a copy of the GPLv2 license with it. I can't find a trace of it when I get the iso from them ..

Wrong. The GPL v2 states only that you must provide source code, if you're distributing, when the source code is requested. They don't have to make it publically available, and the GPLv2 expressly allows them the right to charge you for the overhead of mailing the source to you, upon request, on a DVD, or CD, or even in a book.

This is why the community doesn't get taken seriously in the real world. You don't even know the terms of your own license, yet you nevertheless cry violation, when there's no grounds for it. You searched their site. So what? DFid you actually contact Microsoft and request the source code?

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Thank you for the most brilliant and succint refutation of the "viral GPL" nonsense I've ever seen.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[dyingtolive]

He can still use it. The only DRM that is in it is that every 30 seconds, it starts to flash goatse on the screen for 5 seconds while playing the badger song at top volume.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[neural.disruption]

Yes, "if they were".

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[Chyeld]

No offense dude, but unless you are attempting to do a mock Austin Powers skit where you pretend to be oblivous to the obvious clues in front of your face, you are just being highly dense. Did you even read the TITLE of this article, much less the summary or the article itself?

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[Windowser]

Because when I do a search on their site, I'm not finding it.

I mean, you used Microsoft's search, what did you expect ?

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[drsmithy]

However, it only requires them to release their code if it contains GPL code.

The problem is that "contains" is overarchingly defined by the FSF. So your code, which you wrote, suddenly becomes a "derivative work" because you happened to link it against a GPLed library (which is what happened with Microsoft's drivers in this case).

*That* is the problem/concern with the GPL. It takes two *very* different scenarios - actually copying (/"stealing") someone's actual source code vs just linking against some compiled binary - and lumping them together as the same thing.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[mrchaotica]

Well, it seems you did not download the gpl version, but an old version.

Sorry, but copyright law doesn't work that way. Even if they do abide by the license when they release a new version, the old version is still a separate work (according to the law) and still in violation. They need to either release the source code for the old version too, or quit distributing it.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[mrchaotica]

In theory, loading a binary driver into the kernel can be regarded as creating a new derivative work, however, you can still legally use the kernel if you don't plan to distribute it. That's how actually binary drivers like NVidia's and ATI's work. Statically linking binary code with GPL code is a different matter, however...

To further clarify, even statically linking is okay if the end user is the one doing it. Statically linking non-GPL code and then distributing the result is the only thing disallowed.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[mrchaotica]

Also, I am unsure of how internal distribution is mandated. For example, if I deploy a modified Debian or Ubuntu as a desktop OS for workstations in the company I work for, do i need to deploy a copy of the source code on each machine or include a copy of the license with a form for requesting a CD or DVD of the source code?

It depends how the company is legally organized. Deployment to computers owned by the company and used by W-2 employees is definitely not "distribution", deployment to computers owned and used by 1099 independent contractors definitely is "distribution," and I'm unsure about other permutations.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[mrchaotica]

...send them a letter asking for it...

Is the address to which the letter should be sent included with the binary distribution?

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[wastedlife]

I have very little programming experience, so perhaps I am missing something. How are Microsoft's drivers in this case different from, lets say, Nvidia's linux drivers? Honestly curious.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[wastedlife]

I can see this being a pretty big headache for lawyers. For example, what if the computers are owned by the company, but used as a kiosk for customers, or if independent contractors use them? Then again, I don't think I have ever seen a GPL violation go to lawsuit without a big effort on the part of the copyright holder to get the offender to comply beforehand.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[mrchaotica]

First of all: Microsoft OWNS the copyright so they can change the license for whatever they want, whenever they want, GPL does not imposes restrictions on ownership;

If it were a stand-alone program you'd be correct; however, this particular code is a derivative work of the Linux kernel. As such, Microsoft is restricted to releasing only under the GPLv2 because they share the copyright with Linus and a whole bunch of other people.

Note also that this is even the case if Microsoft holds the copyright on every individual line of code they're distributing (as if it were to be linked by the end-user, for example) -- the code as a whole is still "tainted" by the fact that it's designed to be assembled along with non-Microsoft-copyright code into a derivative work. Although it might be difficult for us techies to understand how this can be true when it's not reflected within the code itself, copyright (and law in general) can and does often make distinctions based on "whys" instead of "whats."

In order to argue that the code is not a derivative work of the Linux kernel, it would have to be capable of substantial stand-alone use (or perhaps use in combination with some other unrelated software, such as the Windows NT kernel). And the key word there is "substantial" -- sticking in a trivial main() function for debugging purposes doesn't cut it.

Finally, keep in mind that all this is a consequence of copyright law itself, not something imposed by the GPL and unique to it.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[mrchaotica]

I can see this being a pretty big headache for lawyers.

I wouldn't call it a "headache;" this is exactly what lawyers do for a living! It's probably the sort of thing they'd call "fun," in the same way that hardcore CS geeks get their kicks pondering the Traveling Salesman Problem. Plus they get paid for it.

Besides, it's really an issue of corporate law (not copyright) anyway, since the only question is how the entities involved get arranged into legal "persons."

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[msuarezalvarez]

nvidia's linux drivers are not linked to any GPL code (as far as we know, that is!)

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[wastedlife]

I guess I just do not understand what constitutes linking that requires you open your own source as well. If I write a program that contains the following:

Check for GPL-licensed 'library'
If available, run 'library' and get output
Use output in own program

Would this require the rest of my program to be released under the GPL?

It seems to me that a lot of closed source applications require open-source libraries, like CutePDF. Or is Ghostscript LGPL?

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[w0mprat]

(Emphasis by me.) Addidionally, if this is GPL, as they say, they can't demand that you have a MS Windows license to use the software. When you've got a copy of it, you're free to use it as much as you want, with or without a MS Windows license.

Actually they can. You can't use the software as intended without Windows. Therefore you need a proper licence for Windows else your a pirate.

If the purpose of the software is to interface with a restricted licence software package (windows) then they have every right to make the licence statement, because you still need the valid windows licence for windows. The except is where you have the GPL code included in a linux distro but are not actually utilizing as intended.

Obviously quite problematic.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[w0mprat]

It obviously restricts his rights if he can't use it beyond the 30 days. The fact that he might be able to get round it is neither here nor there - you've still imposed an extra legal restriction (if it didn't matter, then why would you have the restriction there?)

The actual software code - by design - is restrictive. The DRM code itself is GPL ... that's like a self-licking ice cream. The restriction is a behaviour of the software which the GPL seems to not cover... yet it has the same effect of posing a legal restriction. I can't make sense of that in legal terms (but IANAFL). Can someone enlighten? If the Author said you can donate $30, which gets you a support package, or you are free to circumvent the DRM, thus not contradicting the GPL?

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[chromatic]

[Your] code, which you wrote, suddenly becomes a "derivative work" because you happened to link it against a GPLed library (which is what happened with Microsoft's drivers in this case).

Your code doesn't become a derived work. The resulting binary becomes a derived work.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[mysidia]

Loading drivers yourself is fine. It's building and distributing binary drivers that can be dynamically loaded that may be at issue.

Generally, to build your dynamically linkable drivers, you needed kernel headers available, and possibly source code, that services to define the interface and include things like the "kernel version" magic string.

So does using #include definitions to make kernel APIs available count as including kernel code in your driver?

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[neural.disruption]

They wrote code that uses GPLed source, does that means they do not own the code they've wrote? No, the article does not says they copied all the code it says they've used some portion of GPLed code. My comment is about ownership not copyright.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[dryeo]

What if you want to use the code with something like wine? Or reactos? Both of which are not (I believe) licensed by Microsoft. At that I do have an implementation of the Microsoft API's here that are cross licensed (supplied by IBM)

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[dryeo]

This raises the question of whether headers are copyrightable. I've heard arguments both ways with the more common one being that they are just a description of how the code operates and non-creative, much like a phone book.
Unluckily this is a question that even individual judges might answer differently.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[baboo_jackal]

Oh where is a True Internet Lawyer when we need one?

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[Novus]

The trick is to wrap the library in a separate program. CutePDF can use a GPL Ghostscript without being GPL itself by starting it as a separate process and passing files, standard input and command-line arguments to it and getting files and standard output/error back out. That way, CutePDF doesn't need to include any part of Ghostscript.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[wastedlife]

So using the "#include" mentioned by the AC above in your main application would require that your application be GPL as well, while creating a separate app to include the library would make it so that only the separate app to load the library need to be released as GPL? It does seem a bit heavy-handed to require this for libraries, but I'd assume that is why many libraries are released under LGPL or another less restrictive license. Thanks!

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[harryjohnston]

Note also that this is even the case if Microsoft holds the copyright on every individual line of code they're distributing (as if it were to be linked by the end-user, for example) -- the code as a whole is still "tainted" by the fact that it's designed to be assembled along with non-Microsoft-copyright code into a derivative work.

I thought it was a dynamic library? In that case, the "derivative work" only ever exists as a transient copy in RAM, making this theory seem doubtful.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[mrchaotica]

In that case, the "derivative work" only ever exists as a transient copy in RAM, making this theory seem doubtful.

See, this is exactly what I meant when I said "it might be difficult for us techies to understand how this can be true when it's not reflected within the code itself!"

Remember, this is a legal issue, not a technological one. It doesn't matter if the derived work doesn't physically exist at the time of distribution because the law also considers the intent of the people who wrote the software. If they intended for the code to be linked (only) with the Linux kernel, then it's legally defined as a derivative work of the kernel whether such linking actually occurred or not!

It's just like all those various proposals to try to circumvent copyright law by breaking stuff up into little pieces and distributing the pieces separately. The fact that each individual piece is small enough that it's distribution should count as Fair Use is irrelevant; if you intend to re-assemble the pieces you're still committing copyright infringement.

The bottom line is really simple: it's pointless to argue whether something is or is not copyright infringement based on technological distinctions, because the law simply does not care.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[harryjohnston]

I'm sorry, but unless you can point to a specific case that sets a precedent, I don't believe that this is more than speculation.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[harryjohnston]

Further to my previous reply, it should be noted that this theory itself depends on a technological distinction, unless it is claimed that any program running on Linux is required to be GPL. The distinction between a dynamic kernel library and an ordinary program is a techological one.

Also, this theory would make Windows device drivers and other kernel code, such as anti-virus software, a derivative work of Windows; it would make plug-ins a derivative work of web browsers; and, well, goodness knows what else.

Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them

[Novus]

I'm still not a lawyer, so I don't guarantee the accuracy of any of this.

The GPL explicitly states that running a program is not within the scope of the licence. The FSF believes that combining code to run in the same address space makes them a single program but starting another program doesn't make your program a derivative work of that program. The FSF is not likely to say that something non-free is allowed unless it is.

One important distinction is whether the program uses any of the library's implementation; for example, CutePDF contains nothing of the innards of Ghostscript (which is distributed separately) and can use any other PostScript to PDF converter that can be called as a separate program in a similar fashion. If there is nothing of Ghostscript (or whatever) in your program, there is no copyright case either. Whether including a header file from a library (and linking dynamically to a user-provided copy of the actual library) actually includes anything copyrighted in your program is ultimately a matter for the courts, but it is more likely to make your program a derivative work if it contains descriptions of data structures used by the library.

Re:Old news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, there's always time for anti-microsoft stories.

GPL2

[TechForensics]

Microsoft now says that they had already been on the path for several months toward releasing the software under GPLv2 before Kroah-Hartman got in touch.

Yeah, right.

Re:GPL2

[arndawg]

What's so hard to believe? Making it easier to run linux under hyper-v is in Microsofts best interest. If the components needed is integrated in vanilla linux kernel that's great! I hope vmware and citrix can do something similar. I don't really want to be bothered with vm-tools when i'm using a CLI only install. Maybe i've misunderstood but whatever.

Re:GPL2

[Fringe]

Microsoft now says that they had already been on the path for several months toward releasing the software under GPLv2 before Kroah-Hartman got in touch.

Yeah, right.

I believe Microsoft on this one... because IF they hadn't already been working on a GPL source release, the MS response to legal threats and letters is to dig in their heels. When I was at Microsoft (I'm feeling much better now!), legal would have us avoid doing anything that looked like agreeing with the premise of such a letter, which means we weren't allowed to comply with the letter request once it hit legal until legal drew up contracts and such, even if the same actions were already in our development plans..

Re:GPL2

[Svartalf]

That's because he worked for them. While I won't say I would trust them on things (mainly because I've been close enough to be working for one of their Enterprise Partners at one point)- I can see someone at the grunt level trusting them after a fashion.

However, having said this, I think their perspective is a bit skewed- right up until prior to this little release and their other one they were mouthing off about GPL being a cancer, etc. and we were guilty of patent violations, etc.

This all isn't in keeping with their company line up to this point- and companies typically don't change this much this fast. Ever. I doubt that they're telling the truth here on this- as much because of what they've done in the past and how radically different it is from what that was.

Re:GPL2

[kscguru]

This all isn't in keeping with their company line up to this point- and companies typically don't change this much this fast. Ever. I doubt that they're telling the truth here on this- as much because of what they've done in the past and how radically different it is from what that was.

Never forget that Microsoft does not act as a single, intelligent creature with one purpose. Microsoft is a large fiefdom. There is one king (Balmer) who doles out responsibility to a small army of dukes, earls, counts, and such (vice presidents), each of whom have their own agenda (amass the most resources, either by raising revenues or stealing from each other). Linux is a very annoying enemy to one of the dukes, and is a strategic ally of a count.

It is entirely possible for one part of Microsoft - probably the Windows Server marketing organization - to be spewing anti-GPL filth while at the same time another part of Microsoft - the hypervisor engineering team - is working very hard to interoperate with Linux because the lack of that integration is killing them in the marketplace against VMware. I would be more surprised if Microsoft didn't manage to act like a schizophrenic. Microsoft as a whole doesn't give a damn about Linux; it's one or two parts of the company that feel strongly one way or another.

Re:GPL2

[mrchaotica]

It is entirely possible for one part of Microsoft - probably the Windows Server marketing organization - to be spewing anti-GPL filth while at the same time another part of Microsoft - the hypervisor engineering team - is working very hard to interoperate with Linux because the lack of that integration is killing them in the marketplace against VMware.

The only trouble with that theory is that the only way for the hypervisor engineering team to know about the lack of integration killing them in the marketplace to begin with is if the Windows Server marketing organization told them about it, and that means the marketing group would have to be schizophrenic within itself!

Blatant lies

[erroneus]

Usually, companies with lawyer armies are rather careful about the words they allow released to the public. They'll get all symantic and never say anything that they can be nailed for later. But they denied being in violation publicly and are proven to having been in violation. Okay, I guess I do see where they have weasel room -- "we were already on the path to being compliant before this guy helped us." Really? But their "donation of code" to the GPL2 was anything but "their idea."

Re:Blatant lies

[Antique Geekmeister]

I believe you meant to say "getting all Symantec". It's much funnier that way, and takes advantage of your partial spelling of 'semantic'.

Your honour

[Norsefire]

I had been on the path for several months of buying a legitimate copy of Windows before Microsoft's lawyers got in touch. Honest.

Re:Your honour

[CarpetShark]

I had been on the path for several months of buying a legitimate copy of Windows before Microsoft's lawyers got in touch. Honest.

Really? Why? ;)

Re:Your honour

[Mozk]

This is unrelated to the parent, but I would just like to bitch to the editor here:

Microsoft quickly denied that any GPL violation was a driver for their decision to donate the code

When you're talking about driver code, saying that something was or wasn't a driver for a decision is just fucking confusing. I had to read that sentence three times before I understood it.

Surprising, actually.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm actually pretty surprised by this news. It is well known that MS hates the GPL; but they are a big company, with a nontrivial legal team, and they know that the GPL has, thus far, held up in court.

Surely legal would have thrown a screaming fit if they tried to release anything that constituted a clear licence violation. In practice, copyright holders of GPL licenced stuff have been mild and cooperative about this sort of thing, generally aiming at compliance and occasionally fairly small damages; but they are under no legal obligation to do so, and MS has very deep pockets, which would bring the lawyers swarming if they were in clear violation.

Are they trying to provoke a test case, or did they just fuck up?

Re:Surprising, actually.

[Svartalf]

They just effed up. There's no "test case" to be had. The way that the GPL works is a derivative works and publication license.

What that means is that releasing your modifications to the code so licensed and the means for which you used to build binaries from it is the royalty payment for being able to use it. Without such payment, you aren't licensed to produce derivative works or publish complete copies. In the act of making a copy and giving it to someone else, you're publishing.

There's nothing unreasonable/illegal about the royalty payment being required, so there's nothing really out of the ordinary for courts to "invalidate". If it's able to be invalidated, each and every rights deal for book, music, video/movie, or software publishing deal is equally invalid.

Not even MS wants to go there.

Re:Surprising, actually.

[Locutus]

the problem is that Microsoft does not act like a company under any kinds of anti-trust constraints. So when some project grabs some GPL'ed code and uses it in their project, it is very unlikely that their lawyers got involved at all. It was only after someone found something in the binary code which triggered the findings outside of Microsoft that GPL'ed code was inside their driver code.

What I would like to know is how exactly did this code get in the driver to begin with. What I'm talking about is the process the development of the driver went through where nobody else recognized the issue of embedding GPL'ed code within a software module without taking this up with someone who knows what it really means. Are their developers that clueless and/or do they really work individually in such a vacuum that they don't do peer reviews or use any kind of review process? It sure would explain how this happened and would probably explain why their software generally sucks until a half dozen iterations or so. It still tends to suck but it just sucks less and people I know expect things like crashes and reboots. I saw someone talking about a .NET project and a bug causing crashes in the application and then told the group that if it happens to them, reboot Windows and it'll go away.

LoB

Re:Surprising, actually.

[nametaken]

My understanding was that the GPL only really required you to provide the source if asked to provide it, at a minimum.

Isn't this saying that they did exactly that?

Re:Surprising, actually.

[david_thornley]

Not quite.

For GPLv2 (which is the license here), you can provide the source exactly like the binary (include it in the package if it's a physical package, or in case of a downloadable product have the source available next to it), or include a written offer. You can't be entirely reactive and wait for somebody to ask; you have to provide the source or inform users that they can ask.

Re:Surprising, actually.

[shutdown -p now]

I'm actually pretty surprised by this news. It is well known that MS hates the GPL; but they are a big company, with a nontrivial legal team, and they know that the GPL has, thus far, held up in court.

I doubt MS legal would let it slip through, but what it could be a subcontractor job (much like the infamous Zune bug was).

Re:Surprising, actually.

[spitzak]

This is a binary module for Linux, it is impossible to write it without using GPL code. Microsoft was well aware of this.

I'm fairly certain that the people writing it intended to release the code as GPL, they knew it was necessary, and they certainly wanted it added to the main kernel source tree (as otherwise generic copies of Linux would not run under their VM). The explanation that they were working on releasing it as GPL is probably true. They probably "forgot" at some upper level, I would not be suprised if there was more pressure to do the right thing from the lower engineers who did this work than from the FSF or other outside groups.

The huge news is that Microsoft was not forced to release every single bit of source code to Windows despite the fact that they used GPL code. This directly refutes all their claims of "cancer" and shows that they directly lied in their earlier statements.

Re:Surprising, actually.

[drsmithy]

What I would like to know is how exactly did this code get in the driver to begin with.

Well, you could try, you know, *researching*.

This saga started when one of the user's on the Vyatta forum inquired about supporting Hyper-V network driver in the Vyatta kernel. A little googling found the necessary drivers, but on closer examination there was a problem. The driver had both open-source components which were under GPL, and statically linked to several binary parts. The GPL does not permit mixing of closed and open source parts, so this was an obvious violation of the license.

So the problem was not, in fact, that GPLed code had become "embedded" in Microsoft's code, the problem was that they statically linked their code to some GPLed module.

Seeing as how, in the commercial software world, linking to other code is generally not something to be overly concerned with, it's actually not unreasonable to think that this was an innocent mistake by the developers responsible.

Re:Surprising, actually.

[Locutus]

the part about generic copies of Linux not running on their VM has me wondering how come so many get this wrong. These drivers are about improving the performance via optimized drivers, not getting Linux to run in the virtual machine. If that was really the case, you would have to ask yourself, how good of a virtual computer is it really.

LoB

Re:Surprising, actually.

[Locutus]

reading that I still don't get what they did, "The driver had both open-source components which were under GPL, and statically linked to several binary parts".

It says it has "both" so then they had GPL'ed some of their code, but not all, and also statically linked it all to GPL'ed libraries is what I get from that. Are they really so care free with other peoples software that licenses don't matter? If it said they just linked to the GPL'ed libraries then I could see the error or ignorance of the LGPL and what all that fuss had been about. But it sounds like they used GPL'ed code or included it as source also linked to GPL'ed libraries and must have added some of their own code to connect to their proprietary VM's virtual hardware.

Sorry, you almost had me convinced of a mistake but it looks like they had to know they were dealing with the GPL. Ballmer and other MS execs yell about this stuff all the time so their developers are clueless? Nope, don't buy it. Good try though.

LoB

Re:Surprising, actually.

[drsmithy]

reading that I still don't get what they did, "The driver had both open-source components which were under GPL, and statically linked to several binary parts".

It seems fairly obvious that they distributed binaries compiled from their code statically linked against some GPLed library.

Are they really so care free with other peoples software that licenses don't matter?

When you come from pretty much anywhere else except the GPL, linking against libraries is not something to be overly concerned about. That is, after all, pretty much the whole point of shared libraries in the first place.

Sorry, you almost had me convinced of a mistake but it looks like they had to know they were dealing with the GPL. Ballmer and other MS execs yell about this stuff all the time so their developers are clueless? Nope, don't buy it. Good try though.

Right. Because obviously in a company with tens of thousands of employees, everyone from the CEO to the janitor is going to have the same worldview.

As already mentioned, the restrictions the GPL imposes with regards to "derivative" works are quite unusual in the software development world. It is not at all unreasonable to think the typical developer who might never, ever have been involved with GPLed code before, and may not understand the potential ramifications of doing so.

Re:Surprising, actually.

[spitzak]

I thought it was required.

I don't see any problem with requiring certain drivers to work under a VM. The VM is in fact a piece of hardware. You don't expect a random piece of hardware to work without a driver, it would only work if it emulates a common piece of hardware that there already is a driver for, and considering the requirements of a VM are probably vastly different than an actual piece of hardware that is not using the CPU and underlying operating system to do it's work, I would certainly not be suprised at all that the driver is required.

Will there be any action against Microsoft?

[jkrise]

For failing to release the code under GPL for a period of 5 months after they were notified of the violation? Will the SFLC do anything about it?

Re:Will there be any action against Microsoft?

[mdwh2]

Note that even if they release the code, that doesn't help them - they've still violated copyright law. Just as if someone is sued for sharing mp3s - saying that you'll stop won't help you.

Why aren't they being sued for $150,000 per violation?

Re:Will there be any action against Microsoft?

[jamesh]

For failing to release the code under GPL for a period of 5 months after they were notified of the violation? Will the SFLC do anything about it?

Who would that benefit, aside from the lawyers?

Re:Will there be any action against Microsoft?

[silent_artichoke]

Why aren't they being sued for $150,000 per violation?

Gentlemen, start your FTP clients!

Re:Will there be any action against Microsoft?

[molnarcs]

They won't. It has always been the policy of the FSF to try to work out GPL violation problems behind the scenes, then if it fails, go public (unless the public finds out first about the violation) and finally seek legal remedies. I don't know any cases that reached this final stage.

What really bothers me is the marketing spin they put on what is essentially complying with copyright laws. "Today, in a break from the ordinary, Microsoft..." yada yada - break from the ordinary my ass! This is what happened:

• Code was found in violation of the GPL by Stephen Hemminger - the main engineer at the open-source networking vendor Vyatta

• Hemminger approached Greg Kroah-Hartman, who agreed that there is a problem and worked behind the scenes to rectify the situation.

• MONTHS later Microsoft ended its copyright violation by finally releasing the code and complying with the GPL.

Then they went on with another spin:

"We arrived at the decision to release the drivers to the community under the GPLv2 through this process. Both Greg K-H and Jim Zemlin of the Linux Foundation have reiterated that this is the same process that other companies follow when deciding how to release new device drivers to the Linux community."

This is so typical - there are some half-truths in there. It is the normal process the FSF has pursued for getting violators in complience with the GPL, however, it is NOT the NORMAL process for those companies or individuals who genuinely want to donate code to the FSF or the linux kernel. "Today in a break from the ordinary..." yeah, well you can say this is a break for the ordinary, for usually it takes far more time to get Microsoft to comply with laws and regulations. 5 months only - amazing!

Re:Will there be any action against Microsoft?

[FrankieBaby1986]

I personally, would have a warm, happy feeling inside knowing the tables were turned for once when it comes to copyright bullshit.

Re:Will there be any action against Microsoft?

[spitzak]

Because the copyright holder can say "I will ignore your copyright violation if you do this..." and they agreed. "this" is typically "release the source code" in GPL cases, but it does not have to be. It could instead be "pay me $10000" or .

The fact that the typical settlement in GPL cases is equivalent to what the infringer could have done earlier to avoid breaking the copyright is confusing people here. The settlement could be anything that the copyright holder demanded and the infringer agreed to.

I think a copyright holder could still sue for money if they wanted to. But it has to be somebody who actually contributed code that was used by this module, not just a random Slashdot poster. The case would be pretty hard because it is now clearly established that a whole lot of other copyright holders agreed to accept the source code release as settlement.

does it matter?

[R.D.Olivaw]

Yes, it's less spectacular if they've done it only because they were in violation but I think they should be applauded either way.
In the worst case, it shows that they are willing to play by the rules. They didn't try to take it as far as they could. They found out the violation and promptly fixed it.

Re:does it matter?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm guessing that, when using proprietary components or libraries from third parties, MS "plays by the rules" slightly more carefully...

Re:does it matter?

[Norsefire]

If someone had been distributing pirated versions of Windows and only stopped 5 months after they had been contacted by Microsoft's legal team, would Microsoft applaud them?

Re:does it matter?

[Bluebottel]

True. But we want to be better than microsoft, not like them.

Re:does it matter?

[A beautiful mind]

This reminds me of the old joke some former ex-communist block countries have.

So Lenin is working in his study and suddently he realises there are kids playing football outside his window. He opens the window and shouts: "Get the fuck out of here stupid spastic kids!"

This proves conclusively what a good man Lenin was, he has to be applauded as such. He after all could have ordered the kids to be shot dead, no?

Re:does it matter?

[jkrise]

Maybe, but why is Microsoft (Sam Ramji) trying to take credit by making a good-sounding statement? If MS' legal team catches a Windows pirate and he reforms after 5 months, will they be applauding said pirate?

Re:does it matter?

[Allicorn]

Marketing works like magic fairy dust that companies can sprinkle on their spokespeople so that whatever words they try to say, only praise for the company comes out.

They try to say "We were stupid and fscked this right up - boy howdy - yep - you got us. Whoops!".

But what you hear coming out of them is just a weird, squeaky weasel-voice shouting "Hooray for us!!!"

Re:does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing Lenin with Stalin you ignorant fuck.

Re:does it matter?

[salesgeek]

They found out the violation and promptly fixed it.
In fixing this, they took the fist step in finding out that giving customers freedom is not the killer of business models.

Re:does it matter?

[noundi]

Are you serious? This is not about morale, this is about making money. If MS feels that it's OK to violate a license for profit then I encourage everybody to violate the licenses of MS for profit, be it monetary or not. If the opponent breaks the rules then you better break them to at least the same level, or you'll find yourself as the underdog. Why is it so difficult for people to understand business?

Re:does it matter?

[Svartalf]

Are you kidding? They get sued over crap like this all the time.

Re:does it matter?

[Svartalf]

They found out the violation and took 5+ months to fix it.

Fixed that for you. Nearly half a year for something they did screw up on isn't "promptly".

Re:does it matter?

[EvilBudMan]

Hell no, and did we surrender to Germans at Perl Harbor? Hell no! No surrender to M$. That's what I say.

Re:does it matter?

[noundi]

I meant morals, check your qwerty keyboard. E and S are close. Anyway you're being an idiot by just contradicting what I said without any substance. If you really think morals or ethics have anything to do with corporations then you really are naive. Not just MS, any corporation.

Re:does it matter?

[unfunk]

I'm giving up the opportunity to mod what will undoubtedly be a trollfest in this article's comments so I can post this.

I think that this is a positive sign from Microsoft. For years they've been going on about how the GPL is a virus and communist and will be the death of us all.
Now they've released code under it. It doesn't matter that they had to, it matters that they did it. They undoubtedly had a team of lawyers looking at their options before doing this. If they were of the viro-communist mindset toward the GPL before this, they certainly aren't now. The lawyers must have told Microsoft that if they decided to play the "GPL is invalid" card, it would have been a very long and hard battle for defeat.

Re:does it matter?

[CrimsonKnight13]

Hell no, and did we surrender to Germans at Perl Harbor? Hell no! No surrender to M$. That's what I say.

I greet you, traveler from some unknown alternate universe. Where I come from, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor & the US survived it.

Re:does it matter?

[Runaway1956]

Be applauded? Willing to play by the rules? Sorry, don't expect a lot of us to jump on that bandwagon.

It's been shown clearly that MS hijacked GPL'd code, and that they only released their code after being threatened with a lawsuit over their improper usage of that code.

I'll hold any applause for Microsoft until they actually release something new and useful. There are already good useful virtualization softwares out there. Releasing a driver that enables their virtualization to compete with the VM's from which they hijacked code isn't very commendable, IMHO.

Various people have given us analogous situations - seems to me, a classroom of kindergarten kids fits. Little Mikey Soft is bigger than all the other K kids, so he takes toys from them. When teacher intervenes, Mikey returns some toys, saying that he was going to return them anyway. We applaud Mikey, ignoring the fact that he has taken toys from all the other kids all year long, and refused to return any of them until now. I suspect that the only reason Mikey returned a toy THIS TIME, is that his daddy was standing in the door holding that infamous paddle. That 3 foot long paddle, with embedded glass particles, and holes drilled in it.

Fuck Mikey - hammer his ass!!

Re:does it matter?

[Lostlander]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_resistance

Is it really so hard for people to understand that "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind."

Sinking to the level of another only lowers one's self.

Re:does it matter?

[noundi]

Violence? That's a bit harsh. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be rules. I'm merely saying that I will follow those rules when everybody else does. I know what you're thinking, "if everybody thought that way then there would never be any progress." And of course you're right. The point is that if everybody thought that way then I guess everybody is OK with both scenarios, as long as everybody is on the same terms. Corporations systematically cheat the system, this is hardly any news. Why should I, or anyone for that matter, draw the shorter straw? The whole point of the rules are to make sure that nobody ends up drawing a shorter straw. Until that's fixed it's merely an illusion for the gullible.

Re:does it matter?

[molnarcs]

Applauded for what? Complying with copyright laws? Are you serious? When did we get to the point where we applaud someone who DOES NOT BREAK the law? Well, I know, we're talking about Microsoft here..

On a separate note, they DID try to take it as far as they could, putting a massive marketing spin on the whole thing. I don't believe they could have gone farther than that in the current situation. They have been under legal pressure for quite some time now, I don't think playing hardball would have gained them anything at this point. Not to mention that they've been trying hard to reshape their image since the Vista flop.

Re:does it matter?

[EvilBudMan]

No we didn't, did we, so I say fight. Read on.

I'm on a roll, yee ha.

M$ started out as the good guys. In fact they were all good except one who fell to the dark side. Soon others followed. Now, those in the light there are few. They are mostly machines now. Not much human left in them. Then the rebels went out onto the internet to hide. We'll the dark lord wanted this real bad. Everyone had to use Windows 3.1 back then. Then the dark Windows 95 came out and it looked like another rebel OS. The rebels attacked, but the dark lord paid little and by changing a trash can to recycling one. They still seemed good to many. Then the mighty rebel Netscape tried to fight at first and then they ran after IE was given away with windows 95 for free.

Now, fast forward to today, their empire is a paper tiger just ready to be blown away by a strong wind. Now, meanwhile our hero...We'll did you think I was gonna tell it all. You gotta pay to read the book.

Re:does it matter?

[Turiko]

the fact hat MS will sue you with a bunch of over-paid lawyers over their products. If you then say "they did the same", it'll get wishked away. The only thing that can be done is for the GPL patent holders to sue MS.

Re:does it matter?

[Runaway1956]

I don't exactly see anyone advocating that we take MS to court, and completely destroy them over this code. Linux isn't in the business of "embrace, extend, extinguish", after all.

I do hear voices - and I join with them - loudly proclaiming that MS is a bunch of dishonest, thieving douchebags, and that they deserve no credit, and no respect, for releasing the code in question AFTER they were busted for stealing code that was already GPL'd.

If/when the fanbois and MS marketing department stops trying to sing hosannahs to the great Microsoft Machine, then maybe those of us who are more honest will quiet down. If MS had been even trying to "play by the rules", they would have assigned a team to work with other open source people to get it right a year (or more) ago. Not after they were busted! Certainly not after they release statements proclaiming open source to be a cancer!

Re:does it matter?

[idontgno]

And if the Japanese had used jets instead of prop-driven airplanes, I bet they would have made a "Whoosh!" sound as they raced overhead.

Re:does it matter?

[Chris Burke]

I think that this is a positive sign from Microsoft. For years they've been going on about how the GPL is a virus and communist and will be the death of us all.
Now they've released code under it. It doesn't matter that they had to, it matters that they did it. They undoubtedly had a team of lawyers looking at their options before doing this. If they were of the viro-communist mindset toward the GPL before this, they certainly aren't now. The lawyers must have told Microsoft that if they decided to play the "GPL is invalid" card, it would have been a very long and hard battle for defeat.

Microsoft may have said things to the effect of the GPL being possibly invalid, but there's no way they actually believed it. It's not like they only had their lawyers look at the license when they discovered they were violating it. If there was any actual hope of getting the license invalidated, then they would have created a test case scenario long ago. But no matter how much FUD they spout in public, when push comes to shove MS, like everyone else but a couple crazies like SCO, quietly moves to comply rather than fight a legal battle they know they won't win.

So I agree that this is a positive thing -- it's going to be harder for MS to spout anti-GPL FUD, and hey now there's more GPL software out there which is nice. But I don't see how this is a positive sign from Microsoft. I'd bet you anything this was simply a screw-up on their part, and they never had any intention of giving the GPL validation (which it theoretically shouldn't need, but practically speaking it can use). I don't see how complying with a license rather than fighting a legal battle they can't win and which would only make them look worse represents a sea change in their corporate mentality.

Re:does it matter?

[thetoadwarrior]

A lot of people get Lenin confused with others. Some think he wrote "Hey Jude" since it was about his kid but it was actually McCartney.

Re:does it matter?

[salesgeek]

How many years late was Microsoft _____ (too titles to name) again?

Six months isn't what you want, but I never thought I'd live to see MS release GPL code.

Re:does it matter?

[nowayout99]

Someone call the Waaaambulance. MS violated the GPL. The GPL! How dare they.

Re:does it matter?

[drsmithy]

Is it really so hard for people to understand that "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind."

It is when the logical conclusion is actually "an eye for an eye will leave the perpetrators and their victims blind".

AGAIN?

[hntd]

Truthfully, I enjoy bashing Microsoft as much as the next person, but is it so bad that I think we should move on from this whole GPL violation and look to the submission that Microsoft made to the linux kernel? I mean com'on, they acted accordingly to their violation and donated the code to the community, who cares why they did it. Can we please move on as a culture?

Re:AGAIN?

[Josh04]

I agree. This has been a terrible set of articles which makes the community as a whole look like a bunch of irrational, immature children. Microsoft finally did what Slashdot has been demanding they do for years, and somehow this too is a 'bad thing'. This is worse than the articles complaining that IE6 was finally being put down.

Re:AGAIN?

[gbjbaanb]

Can we please move on as a culture?

I think we can only do that when we remove the innate tendency of certain organisations and groups to "spin" the truth in ways that suit their public image.

(and no, I'm not bashing MS here, but politicians, marketeers, salesmen, and lawyers too!)

Re:AGAIN?

[Josh04]

"remove" vs "innate", eh?

Re:AGAIN?

[Sinbios]

Newbie bashing? Poor form, Anonymous Cowardon. Just because you've been around longer doesn't make you better!

Re:AGAIN?

[Svartalf]

The only gripe I have is with the spin they're putting on it.

They screwed up.
They should OWN UP to it.

There'd be a bit less acrimony if they'd quit going "but we didn't...", when they know and we know they did.

Re:AGAIN?

[DMalic]

What? I'm not entirely sure you understand how copyright law works. "So, I finally went and did what the RIAA had been demanding for years! I bought some music!" "No, you bought some music after you realized you were about to be sued for running an illegal FTP server." "You're being immature and irrational!"

Re:AGAIN?

[Josh04]

I'm not entirely sure you understand how reality works. The code was based on the GPL; the code was released. Somehow, Microsoft is _still_ a villain. I don't get it.

Re:AGAIN?

[Josh04]

To clarify; no court case was involved, no real legal threats were made. Your analogy is completely ridiculous, being slow in complying with a code disclosure clause and, erm "running an illegal FTP server" are so dissimilar as to be ludicrous.

Re:AGAIN?

[DMalic]

What? Microsoft distributed code they did not have the legal right to distribute. It's very laudable that the company later came into compliance with a license which would give them the legal right to distribute that code, but that belated action does not legally excuse the original violation. Nobody is threatening the company.

Re:AGAIN?

[Runaway1956]

Donated?

I'm terribly sorry, but that one word pretty much screws your post, and your attitude. MS "donated" nothing. They were caught redhanded with their hands in the cookie jar. They were threatened with legal action, so they paid for the cookies, in the currency damanded by their victims.

The seperate issue of examining that code? Go for it. A lot of people are examining it right now, I suspect. ;)

Re:AGAIN?

[rliden]

This is because there are many people it seems, including slashdot itself, who don't want Microsoft to comply with the GPL. They don't want Microsoft to encourage open development. There is blood in the water and it's a "news" feeding frenzy. There is no win. There is nothing Microsoft can do that will make them happy. If Microsoft released their entire codebase, re-licensed under GPL 3, tomorrow it still wouldn't be good enough. If Microsoft went away tomorrow it wouldn't change how some people feel; they would just find another "evil entity" as the new target.

What purpose is there is trying to work together, promote interoperability, and offer choice? I'm beginning to see that there is no reason. This isn't about open software and making sure developers aren't shut out. It's about revenge and crushing the opponent so they can be on top. It is disappointing to say the least.

Re:AGAIN?

[Chris Burke]

They violated the GPL. That is a bad thing.

Complying with the license rather than trying to fight a legal battle they would certainly lose is not a good thing, it's a neutral thing. You're not being "good" when you serve the jail time the court sentences you to. You're not being "good" when you screw a supplier out of money you owe, then agree to pay them that money when you get caught. You don't get brownie points for doing what you are legally obligated to do to correct your mistakes!

So, net result: bad thing.

"Microsoft finally did what Slashdot has been demanding they do" -- what rubbish. They did it because if they didn't, they were going to get sued and this would have become an even more high-profile clump of dirt on their face. Now they can play it off to the gullible like they're being magnanimous, rather than be dragged kicking and screaming to the inevitable conclusion.

I don't remember Slashdot ever demanding Microsoft screw up and unwittingly violate the GPL, forcing them to either cripple their own product by removing the offending code or releasing the source.

Re:AGAIN?

[Yogiz]

I'm pretty sure they released the code under GPL before anyone threatened them with legal action, no?

Re:AGAIN?

[Runaway1956]

Absolutely NOT. The moment they were discovered to be using GPL'd code without properly licensing, the "threat" was there. Their lawyers knew it - that's the purpose of having lawyers.

If you mean, "Was it necessary to file papers in court before MS complied?" then the answer is "No."

Obviously, Ballmer and company would have used delaying tactics while consulting with the legal beagles, but the beagles almost certainly said, "Steve, no matter how many chairs you throw, if we fight this, we will lose."

The code was released under duress, as opposed to freely being offered. After the fact, the damage control people are trying to put a nice graceful spin to the story. And, people just lap it up. MS History teaches us better.

Re:AGAIN?

[noidentity]

This has been a terrible set of articles which makes the community as a whole look like a bunch of irrational, immature children.

Why did you insult children? You could have just written "a bunch of irrational, immature adults".

Re:AGAIN?

[ion.simon.c]

*points*

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1316985&cid=28854409

Educate thyself.

Re:AGAIN?

[Yogiz]

Wait a second. Didn't the whole story start with Microsoft releasing the driver with the violation story coming after? I mean they certainly did infringe on GPL but it seemed to me, that they decided themselves that they should release the thing before shit hits the fan. Could you cite anyone who threatened them before the release?

Re:AGAIN?

[Runaway1956]

http://www.sdtimes.com/link/33641

Linux kernel driver team leader Greg Kroah-Hartman, who had been tipped off by Linux contributor Stephen Hemminger, informed Microsoft about the violation in March, according to Ramji.

Hemminger, a principal engineer with the open-source networking software maker Vyatta, wrote in his blog that he contacted Kroah-Hartman with the expectation that Kroah-Hartman could "could prod the right people to get the issue resolved."

But Ramji said Microsoft was going to release the code under the GPL anyway. "Hank Janssen [a Microsoft engineer] came up with the idea of submitting the code to the kernel months before Greg [Kroah-Hartman] contacted us," he said. "We built a plan based on the value of supporting as many Linux distros as possible. Hank proposed the GPLv2 as the vehicle."

Microsoft did not make its decision based on any perceived obligation, he said. "We considered a range of options, and GPLv2 was the best because it is the license the community used."

"It seems to me that Sam [Ramji] is likely correct when he says that talk inside Microsoft about releasing the source was under way before the Linux developers began their enforcement effort," said Bradley Kuhn, a policy analyst and tech director at the SFLC.

"However, that talk doesn't mean that there wasn't a problem. As soon as one distributes the binaries of a GPL'd work, one must provide the source for those binaries, so Microsoft's delay in this regard was a GPL violation.
______________________

So, you see, MS didn't approach Linux first. Instead, Linux approached MS to inform MS that there was a problem. Everyone gets to spin the story as they see fit, and MS is highly experienced with spinning stories. But, bottom line was, Linux community had to make the first move to protect GPL'd code. That cannot be disguised with anyone's spin. Note, especially, the first paragraph, near the end: "In March".

Fail

[Noxn]

Shouldnt they like, KNOW they had to give us the source? Dont they have 3 megatons of lawyers? Did ANYONE read the licence? No. Of course not. Why should they.

Re:Fail

[noundi]

Don't be silly. They knew. Employees at MS aren't retarded and probably almost everyone there knows about the GPL. They just chose not to follow it. It was a choice, not a mistake. For those of you whom a) never worked a day in your life, b) just plain gullible, this is how corporates work in the real world.

5 words for Microsoft

[dkh2]

Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!

Yeah, like anybody really believes they have been for several months on the path toward full GPL v.2 compliance.

Re:5 words for Microsoft

[dkh2]

If we couldn't laugh about it we might have to cry. After all, Microsoft has a laughable history of spinning its FUDspeak and other P R chatter to make themselves sound all honorable and altruistic.

For years Microsoft pushed its own non-compatible JRE with the spin that "customers want a choice." Really? I just want it to work and the non-compatible MS JRE doesn't help that happen.

I could go on for hours...

Re:Doubtful

[mdwh2]

Just out of interest, how many copyright violations have been successfully challenged and won?

Fixed that for you. Why should the licence matter, when they didn't follow it? And the answer to your question is: lots.

The Kettle and the Pot

[hackus]

So, seems like Microsoft for SEVERAL MONTHS has been on the GPL path to compliance?

I would like to point out, that if you pirated several Microsoft so called "Intellectual Property" binaries and eventually paid for them all, you would land in court with some fairly large fines.

Furthermore, this idea that companies cannot show source code for violations in the GPL rules seems a bit, well, warped.

This loop hole allows companies to hide behind IP rules, to protect their violations of copyright.

It is well known that Microsoft is in the HABIT of taking OTHER companies/individual works and using them for thier own gains, fairly shamelessly in some cases, and in others covertly.

-Hack

Re:The Kettle and the Pot

[I'm not really here]

Actually, if you are a large corporation with say 7,000 desktop licenses for XP, and you are found by Microsoft to have say 7,500 copies deployed, you will not find yourself in serious legal trouble. You will find yourself with a strongly worded letter that basically says "Pay us or we'll see you in court."

The GPL community members basically did the same thing. MS was in violation, and were told "Pay us or we'll see you in court." The payment in this case isn't monetary, but is a royalty payment of giving the source code plus improvements back out for free to anyone who asks.

To sue Microsoft now would be the equivalent to having a company that realizes it is out of compliance with Microsoft's license, buy the necessary licenses to get back into compliance, and subsequently get sued for being out of compliance. It just isn't good business, and Microsoft knows that. The GPL community needs to know that too.

What anyone who holds copyright wants is for those that violate copyright to provide payment equal to the lost revenue from non-compliance. In the case of a Microsoft license, that equals paying for the license. In the case of the GPL, that equals 'paying' for the license by releasing the source code. Microsoft has paid in full by releasing the source code. This is a time for positive reinforcement "Thanks, MS, for the code. Let's keep this going for everyone's benefit!" not negative reinforcement "Thanks, MS, for the code, but it was too little too late. Notice how when you don't comply, we sue, and when you comply, we sue. So keep complying, or we'll sue." The second reaction doesn't make much sense, does it? It's not likely to encourage Microsoft to continue giving to the GPL community.

Re:The Kettle and the Pot

[spitzak]

Lovely spin there, mister.

If "paying the original price" was how you could get out of a copyright infringement or any other infraction, then nobody would pay anything. Because the net result is always positive, either you are caught and pay what you would have anyway, or you are not caught and you get it for free!

In fact Microsoft could legally sue for far more than the incremental price of those 500 extra copies. However if the company paid they might not as the public relations disaster would be much worse than any possible income from encouraging enforcement of their license, since most people see the company as admitting their mistake and paying the fair price.

And Microsoft did violate copyright by releasing the code without following the GPL. The fact that they later released the code makes no difference, the copyright is still violated. If releasing the source code "later" made you not violate the GPL then the GPL would serve no purpose, since "later" can be arbitrarily in the future. The reason nobody sues is because of a similar public relations disaster since they did admit the mistake and did what most people think is the fair price of releasing their source code.

Re:The Kettle and the Pot

[I'm not really here]

However if the company paid they might not as the public relations disaster would be much worse than any possible income from encouraging enforcement of their license

This was my point exactly.

The letter of the law says "you can sue." The climate of the public opinion says "well, you could sue, but it's just not a good PR move." So you don't sue.

So you insult me "Lovely spin there, mister" and then say exactly what I was saying!

Re:The Kettle and the Pot

[spitzak]

My complaint is with you saying that everything is ok with a delayed settlement, something your wording seems to skip over a bit. I don't think Microsoft will say in a press release "thanks for paying us for those 500 copies! Let's keep this going for everyone's benefit!".

Yet in your "positive reinforcement" you say exactly that!

Furthermore you imply that the alternative is "we will sue you anyway". That is really a huge piece of spin.

Instead the wording is "thanks for complying, now we won't sue you. But please don't think this means you can do this repeatedly".

Much as Microsoft would say to that company "thanks for the delayed payment, now we won't sue you. But please don't think this means you can do this repeatedly".

Re:The Kettle and the Pot

[I'm not really here]

Well, your comment makes the same basic point I was trying to make, that suing is not a good idea, and it sounded to me like a lot of others were saying "they were not in compliance... SUE!"

So... we're in agreement.

Yeah, I would have said that.

[EvilBudMan]

I would have said that too. Nothing better, plausible deniability. But, I fear they(M$) might be telling the truth. Now what is the world coming to? Strange days are upon us for sure. So I think they are lying, but why. We'll "you caught me, now what do you want" might have been cooler. M$ is going to have to starting kicking some ass and start taking names if they are going to slow their downward spiral. Right now there is another Google out there? Where?

Why are people obsessed over this?

[Blakey Rat]

Why are people obsessed over this? Does it matter? Either way, the code is GPL now, right?

Re:Why are people obsessed over this?

[lbbros]

For some it matters as it was not a release out of good will (like some may have thought) or out of interoperability, but simply because they were forced to.

Re:Why are people obsessed over this?

[DMalic]

It's interesting to see a company which so violently protects their own code against violation treating their own copyright infringement so frivolously.

Re:Why are people obsessed over this?

[Blakey Rat]

The two aren't mutually-exclusive. If they were intending to release it as GPL all along, maybe they were only in violation in the first place because their legal team moves slowly. There's not necessarily any conspiracy here.

Re:Why are people obsessed over this?

[lbbros]

I don't think there's a conspiracy at all. But the spin Microsoft put into this, compared to what the truth was, is annoying.

Re:Why are people obsessed over this?

[arose]

That's not how legal works. You wait for legal instead of violating licenses just because they're slow. No, this was probably a calculated risk on their part. Not quite sure why exactly, but this is Microsoft so...

Re:Why are people obsessed over this?

[Runaway1956]

Obsessed? Hardly. On the one hand, we have MS marketing singing a duet with MS fanbois. "Oh, praise MS, praise Gates, and praise Ballmer, for we are contributing to the competition". It makes a pretty song, if you are unaware of the facts.

Embrace. Extend. Extinquish. This is history. MS takes, MS never gives.

The ONLY reason MS gives ANYTHING away, is that they think that doing so will increase their money flow. Or, in this case, eliminate a threat to their cash flow.

Those who object to the falsehoods being sung by the choir aren't obsessed at all. If there is an obsession here, it is MS obsession with money.

Re:Why are people obsessed over this?

[sumdumass]

How do you know the spin wasn't the truth?

It's entirely possible that both realities are completely true and the length of time to get into compliance was simply legal delays ensuring they had a right to the code and that the code wouldn't move into other licensed code they had. Meanwhile, not producing the source code when you distribute something is something that is almost always violated. Even major distributions do it when they offer binary update services and don't provide the source code along side it or keep it availible for 3 years. It's petty in the scheme of things and never gets complained about or called evil when distros do it.

So?

[mark-t]

Okay... I'm no Microsoft fan by a long shot, but so what if they had been violating the GPL all this time before releasing the source code? I think that the important point is that they are doing so *NOW*... because, after all, isn't that the point of the GPL? Sure, in an ideal world they wouldn't have been violating the GPL in the first place, but if you will forgive me for the apparent paraphrasing Gandalf from LotR, there's really no point in dwelling on it because what's done is done... the most important thing is what we decide to do about it to make things better... _today_. And I really don't think that more Microsoft hatred is the way to accomplish that.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just, makes all their statements before from Sam that were melting my cynical heart - all that stuff about community and contributing back - so much self-serving bullshit.

They only did it once they were caught and pushed.

That's a bit different from doing it just to be nice (and the PR).

Re:So?

[mark-t]

It never ceases to amaze me how irate some people get when somebody does something that is a good deed, but if it comes out that their motivations were selfish or less than altruistic, people get even more upset than if nothing had ever been said about it all. Okay, so they violated the GPL... they are complying now, and regardless of their reasons, their compliance will still benefit the community. They will (rightly) have to live with the consequences of their choices, but their actions are still ultimately good and right. And THAT is what I think is the important issue here... not whatever it was that motivated Microsoft to do so in the first place.

Re:So?

[FrankieBaby1986]

there's really no point in dwelling on it because what's done is done

Tell this to every person who's had a family member wrongfully or negligently killed, who's been wrongfully fired and lost months of pay, who's been denied access to basic human rights because of their race or creed.

Re:So?

[FrankieBaby1986]

I know, bad form, but I forgot to mention the lost time and effort or opportunities that cannot be returned after 5 months of keeping the code locked up. Punishments are also a deterrent, imagine the example we set when we say "Oh, it's ok, don't do it again". Next time they'll wait 5 years.

Re:So?

[sabt-pestnu]

> I'm no Microsoft fan by a long shot, but so what if they had been violating the GPL all this time before releasing the source code?

So what if the movie studio didn't keep track of the first week's profits from a blockbuster?

So what if I didn't make car payments for the first three years I had the car?

So what if I only bought a copy of Celine Dion's latest hit after the RIAA sent me a "settlement hearing" letter about my P2P activities?

Microsoft got benefit from the product for the period before they released it under the GPL. The fact that they then subsequently complied with the GPL terms does not itself redress the previous harm.

Re:So?

[swillden]

Okay... I'm no Microsoft fan by a long shot, but so what if they had been violating the GPL all this time before releasing the source code? I think that the important point is that they are doing so *NOW*... because, after all, isn't that the point of the GPL?

If there are no negative consequences to violating the GPL, companies can do it as a matter of course, and then only come into compliance when forced to. This hugely increases the burden on those enforcing the GPL, because as long as there's any value in non-compliance for a time, companies may as well not comply. That's why the FSF has begun demanding cash settlements and other punitive measures for violators.

Additionally, as other posters have noted, it appears that Microsoft is actually still *NOT* in compliance. Providing the source to the Linux kernel team is not sufficient per the terms of the GPL. Since MS is distributing binaries, the GPL requires them to either distribute the source with the binaries, or to accompany the binaries with an offer, valid for at least 3 years, to provide the source upon request. Also, MS must not impose additional licensing requirements beyond those of the GPL, but it seems they are imposing additional requirements which violates the GPL another way.

Isn't it amazing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it amazing how /. posted yet another anti-Microsoft story?
Bunch of freakin' whiners.

Oh, how convinient.

[asdf7890]

Microsoft now says that they had already been on the path for several months toward releasing the software under GPLv2 before Kroah-Hartman got in touch.

I wonder if MS would accept that same reasoning if it were applied next time an auditor finds a pile of incorrectly licenses MS product in a company. "Ah, yes, that. I'm on the path toward paying for the licenses I should have."

Re:Oh, how convinient.

[Colonel Korn]

Microsoft now says that they had already been on the path for several months toward releasing the software under GPLv2 before Kroah-Hartman got in touch.

I wonder if MS would accept that same reasoning if it were applied next time an auditor finds a pile of incorrectly licenses MS product in a company. "Ah, yes, that. I'm on the path toward paying for the licenses I should have."

Yes, actually. When MS finds that a company is using more copies of Windows/Office than are licensed, they send a letter and ask for the payment for the extra machines, threatening legal action if the payment isn't made. They don't just sue, because that would cause them to lose customers. With individuals, they just ignore it. Other companies may sue you right away, but MS will simply ask you to pay up, regardless of how long you've been using the software unlicensed.

Re:Oh, how convinient.

[spitzak]

So I am free to pirate Windows and only pay when they send a letter? Wow!

yeah, right

[Trailer Trash]

Microsoft now says that they had already been on the path for several months toward releasing the software under GPLv2 before Kroah-Hartman got in touch.

I wish I had time to dig up the article, but 9.5 years ago when I paid their passport.com bill, they claimed that they had figured out the problem internally, and when they went to pay, well, by golly, it was already paid.

Same theme, new problem.

Never blame on malice...

[TurtleBlue]

what can be explained by sheer ignorance.

        Microsoft, though we keep referring to them in the singular, has well over 80,000 employees, and I'm betting most of them are not versed in the nuances of the GPL licenses, neither their driver developers, nor the paralegals writing the EULA's (though I bet the lawyers are).

        Now, this doesn't excuse them of a violation one bit. Though it's possible, I doubt they had a a strategy "all along" to open-source the drivers because they included GPL code - because they work with citrix maybe, but not purely due to the GPL bit.

          It also doesn't mean they did this in an effort to subvert or screw with GPL code - Microsoft's grand-poo-bah executive committee might "hate the GPL", but it'd be good to remember that eight levels of management separate them from some device driver writer tasked with getting Linux to run in hyper-V (who may or may not be employed there any longer).

the word of any Microsoft exec, PR firm, etc is

[Locutus]

their words are worthless and as soon as the press and public get this, the sooner we can all stop wasting our time discussing what those words mean or meant. It is not as if this is the first time they've done this kind of PR spin trick. Not even close.

LoB

Not seen explained whose copyright was violated

[Lemming Mark]

When this originally came up, at least one contributor on the OS News discussion (http://www.osnews.com/story/21882/Microsoft_s_Linux_Kernel_Code_Drop_Result_of_GPL_Violation) of the issue suggested that the GPL code that was being linked to Microsoft's binary blob was *also* Microsoft's code (see http://www.osnews.com/thread?374824 for example). I've not seen a definitive statement from an interested party either supporting or refuting this.

The guy who pointed out the violation to Greg KH notes that the driver contained GPL and closed portions, which is not consistent with the terms of the GPL license: http://linux-network-plumber.blogspot.com/2009/07/congratulations-microsoft.html

That doesn't contradict the idea that Microsoft was linking its own GPLed code to its own closed code, which would be inconsistent but would be within their rights if they are the copyright holder on both portions.

Of course, it's a different matter if their original GPLed shim contained others' GPLed code. Indeed, if it included Linux Kernel header files then it probably did, in which case it actually would have been violating those developers' copyrights. I don't see how that's worse than the way the NVidia (or any other closed source drivers) work, though - or do they do some cunning / evil trick to get around this situation? Linus has previously said that he thinks binary drivers are acceptable if they were written for another platform first and therefore not a derived work of the kernel - I think his opinion on that is inconsistent and nonsensical but it's easy to imagine that the MS binary portion of the driver was developed for other platforms and therefore believed to be covered by this.

Unlike Nvidia et al, MS has evidently realised that they'd look stupid not to release the code, so whilst they're not whiter-than-white they are actually doing better than some. Of course, they really need to do their best not to look hypocritical about intellectual property.

Would Microsoft be sneaky or dishonest?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would Microsoft be sneaky or dishonest? Yes, it's their preferred manner of doing business. That my opinion, but also the opinion of many other people.

It smells more like ego now

[microbee]

Get over it. Linus was right. Let's not discriminate code based on who contributed it.

Now it smells like "We don't need no fucking Microsoft code" now. So we accept it, and then discredit Microsoft.

I think it shows more confidence if we just treat it based on technical merits without spreading FUD.

Thank God

[Rydia]

Thank God that we live in an enlightened society that doesn't give copyright protection to software! Just think of the horrors that would happen if rights-holders demanded compliance with various licenses, and used lawsuits as a threat to gain that compliance!

Look at the shills

[Requiem18th]

Gee look at the MS shills left and right "It doesn't matter now, move on" and my favorite "These articles make us look immature".

MS violated the license, got called on it and were pressured to comply, then they go on to use the compliance as positive PR.

PR is important dammit, it help us build trust relationships, when PR is fudged everybody else loses, so it's important these kinds of spins get reported.

Re:This is not a GPL violation

[Chris Burke]

No, they did incorporate GPL code into their drivers. That's how all this started, when that was discovered. This is not based on any theory of loading drivers into the kernel, so most of what you wrote was pointless. GPL code was found in their drivers. Thus they are complying with the license lest they be sued for copyright infringement. They know they're guilty and they know, like everyone else who violates the GPL then quietly complies knows, there is no chance the license will be invalidated. They wouldn't release the code otherwise if either of those things weren't true. MS would love to go to court and have a judge rule the GPL invalid, but they know that won't happen, because the terms are quite reasonable, and do not "magically" or otherwise change ownership of your own copyrighted work.

Say whatever you want. Microsoft, who has every reason in the universe to see things your way if your view was in any way conceivably correct, disagrees with you.

Slashdot 2.5 RFE

[Ilgaz]

We need some kind of "MS puppet found his way to Slashdot" meta-moderation, we can call it like ms-meta-mod to hunt down these new fashion MS loving Bangalore monkeys.

Adobe Flash zero day story and this story, if you read the comments you will really understand the need for it. Of course, add any Java story to the collection.

Slashdot is basically under attack from these "high user id, 10 comments" puppets and nobody seems to care. I don't say "lets ban them", some database to ignore them perhaps.

Where is this alleged GPL violation?

[harlows_monkeys]

As far as I've been able to determine from the various articles published on this, the only difference between Microsoft's binary drivers and, say, NVidia's binary drivers is that Microsoft's don't honor the advisory flag that says don't use certain symbols if your code is not under GPL.

Ignoring that flag is not a GPL violation. At worst, it is a discourtesy.

I don't know what the SFLC's position is on binary drivers in the kernel, but a majority of kernel developers, and of lawyers, think that binary modules don't per se violate GPL.

Re:This is not a GPL violation

[spitzak]

You are right, code that calls a GPL library is not covered by the GPL. I can write some source code that shows how to call a GPL function and distribute it under any copyright I want. If you force the end user to compile the code themselves I do believe there is a big loophole in the GPL, and you could distribute code this way. They would have to get all the copyrighted pieces, including header files, themselves. I cannot believe that using "include Name" or putting the names of some functions into your code can be considered a copyright violation.

But it seems impractical for anybody to really do this for any serious piece of code, as binary distribution is expected by many people. In the case of the driver, Microsoft certainly wants it included in the kernel source tree, so that a stock kernel can run on their VM. Thus even if there was no other reason, they wanted it GPLv2 so that the code could be included.

Official Denial...

[Helldesk Hound]

> Microsoft quickly denied that any GPL violation was a driver for their decision to
> donate the code; the company's senior director of platform strategy, Sam Ramji, said
> at the time: "Microsoft's decision was not based on any perceived obligations tied to
> the GPLv2 license." Now the Software Freedom Law Center confirms that Microsoft was
> indeed in violation of the GPLv2 when it distributed its Hyper-V Linux Integration
> Components without providing source code.

"Never believe something until it has been officially denied". :o)

Geek Reference!

[apodyopsis]

I hope this means I can soon buy my Zardoz projector ring.

Re:This is not a GPL violation

[spitzak]

I'm not sure about that, mostly because there could be an alternative non-GPL version of the library, and if your program called that it certainly would not be bound by the GPL. Non-GPL replacements for GPL libraries certainly have been made by some people who dislike the GPL, and you could claim you are working on it right now, but here is a program and instructions on legally compiling it...

I think this is a real loophole in the GPL. However exploiting it may be either pointless or impossible for these reasons:

1. You would have to include the entire source code of your non-GPL program if you want to distribute to somebody and have them get a usable program. A .o file would not be allowed, as compiling certainly sucks in plenty of information from header files and library api's and thus a compilied .o file is a derived work. Since you have to reveal the source code anyway, this defeats the main reason to not use the GPL.

2. If the GPL code was not really designed as a callable library, it may be quite impossible to call it without copying parts of it. A header file you create would have to copy structure definitions. If the source has static functions or other reasons you cannot link to it, you would have to modify it. A patch file is a derived work, I think even instructions to the user on how to edit is a derived work. Maybe you could get away with instructing the end user to compile with -Dstatic=.

3. If the GPL code came with any samples of how to use it of any substantial size that was GPL and not public-domain, you would have to avoid using these samples and somehow create your code by referring only to the documentation and header files. Often though the sample code is far better documentation than anything the user wrote.

Re:Yeah Yeah, Sure!...That's The Ticket!

[BlueStrat]

Community members led by Greg Kroah-Hartman contacted the company and coached them through the process of getting compliant. Microsoft now says that they had already been on the path for several months toward releasing the software under GPLv2 before Kroah-Hartman got in touch.

Yes, and MS had nothing whatsoever to do with any alleged shenanigans involving ISO certification of MS' OOXML "standard" either.

Honest.

MS would never do anything illegal, immoral, deceitful, or underhanded.

If you don't believe them, just ask them!

Strat

Oooo, -1 'Troll'!

Ahahaha!

The MS fanboy/shill moderators must be out in force!

Either that, or pointing out past patterns of bad behavior by MS as it relates to the likelihood of current denials of bad behavior being true is now considered a troll post??

Strat

SLFC didn't say any such thing

[harryjohnston]

Reading the SLFC blog post in question, it doesn't say that Microsoft violated the GPL. All it says is that according to Steve Hemminger Microsoft violated the GPL, which of course had already been reported on Slashdot.

In other words, this isn't news.