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

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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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: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: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?

[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.