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.

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: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.