Slashdot Mirror
Did Microsoft Borrow GPL Code For a Windows 7 Utility?
Goatbert writes "Rafael Rivera over at WithinWindows.com has found evidence that Microsoft has potentially stolen code from an open source/GPL'd project (ImageMaster) for a utility made available on the Microsoft Store to allow download customers to copy the Windows 7 setup files to a DVD or USB Flash Drive. If Rivera's evidence holds up, this could be some serious egg in the face for Microsoft at a time when they're getting mostly good press from the tech media."
The code in question seems to be called into scrutiny because the two areas of code bear the same name (ReadBytes) and operate similarly.
The longer you work in the development of software, the less magical it all becomes. The first time you plugged some code into a terminal and it worked, it seemed like an amazing amount of wizardry and behind-the-scenes stuff that you could never fully fathom. Compilers, binary code, arcane source languages, electronic signals. It's amazing to a neophyte just how much stuff is going on.
But the longer you plug away at it, the more you realize that it's just code. Nothing special is really going on. You're mostly moving data from one area of memory to another. It's almost a form of Nirvana once you reach this point.
So when someone comes along and says "OMG YOUR READBYTES METHOD IS JUST LIKE THIS ONE IN SOME GPL CODE!!!!11", it kind of pegs that person as someone who doesn't really have much experience with real programming. Sure, they may use a lot of tools, and know how to recompile their kernel, but they really don't have a firm grasp of what and why they are doing what they are doing.
So the evidence is a ReadBytes snippet?
I'll wait till there's evidence before even commenting about the ramifications of something like this. This is just wild speculation at this point.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
Come on people, you can't have it both ways. If you can't "steal" music, you can't "steal" code. MS "stealing" this code didn't deprive the Open Source community from using the code (i.e. stealing my car), or at least that's the argument /.er use whenever the word is used in conjunction with music and movies. Eat your own dog food.
Microsoft is evil. Always has been. Always will be.
Maybe you're very young, but I seem to recall that Microsoft was at one time held as a sort of liberator from IBM's hegemony. I guess it's all a matter of perspective...
That was a very short period of time. As soon as Microsoft had established itself - even before Windows - they started their campaigns against any competitors.
Uh, they kind of have to *prove* that Microsoft actually copied their code first. You're missing a crucial step to the process in your scenario.
Comment of the year
By whom?
My memory of the early days of Microsoft was surprise that their nasty behaviour was tolerated.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Seriously, what he shows to be evidence looks like code that was written straight from reading the ISO disk image specification. Next up, school math class accused of mass cheating for solving math problems in similar ways.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Probably those who get paid to work on GPL software...
Your point is? Do you have an accusation to make?
No sig for the moment.
With the amount of "evidence" in the article, the same accusation could be made against the GPL project. Perhaps the author of that project illegally gained access to Microsoft code and used it as a starting point for ImageMaster.
Ever think that if this code was stolen it was done by a lower level employee and not an executive. It is way more likely that a small group of employees couldn't hit a deadline or something and so they borrowed code form other places to get it done. I know executives and have heard many executives speak... they don't like legal exposure, they don't want to do things wrong because it is their neck on the line. It is way more likely that it was the average slashdot user who did this than it was a "Microsoft Corporation" decision.
I also don't know the validity of these claims but I read some posts saying that this stuff was outsourced. aka Microsoft didn't even claim to code it, they just bought botched code. Good going with your theory... it appears even more that the "evil" people in this situation are lowlife developers and not the "Corporate Suits" that your agenda is pushing.
Microsoft as a corporation is the victim here TBH.
It's .NET code. It's already "Open Source" by virtue of tools like Reflector existing.
I do not think that that is what "Open Source" is generally taken to mean.
I don't think everyone here believes you can't steal music, first off.
Speak for yourself. I do believe you can't steal music.
You could steal the original copies. You could steal a famous painting. But "stealing" music? For instance, what IS music? It's nothing but a mathematical concept involving harmonics and sound.
What are words? You can't "steal" what I said. This isn't like the little mermaid where you could steal someone's voice and leave him/her mute.
Non-physical works CANNOT be stolen. Unless you're talking about a PHYSICAL COPY, you cannot steal it by definition. Copying a work? That's completely different. But if it's a non-destructive process, you're not stealing it. You're just COPYING it.
If you want to use an appropriate term for what Microsoft supposedly did with this GPL code, it's called plagiarism. Sure, it's called "stealing" nowadays, but using this word is oversimplifying.
Yes, after reading the original letter I have one: how does that letter prove that Microsoft is evil? The only thing Gates is saying is that he and his company has invested around $40000 in building and supporting the software, and the return was so small, it was just enough to break even. The pay, he states, was $2 an hour. If you don't mind working for $2 an hour, that's ok of course, but most people probably wouldn't go to the university to learn computer science if their pay was less than that of a mcdonalds employee.
Apple has "Mac vs PC", Microsoft has "Laptop Hunters", Linux has recession
No, there is one major difference. If I steal your car, you can't use it any more. If I copy your software, you can still use it. I don't take something away. In most cases, the copyright holder doesn't even notice.
It's the copyright holders that are trying to mislead people and contort the English language by saying stealing is the same as copying.
the US Congress is free to be as wrong as it wants to be.
The differences you fail to make clear is that copyright infringement isn't stealing something physical as in all your cases. Copyright infringement is making a copy without the permission of the copyright holder. It isn't like you denied the copyright holder any of their possessions as NO ONE can guarantee that the infringer would have bought the work to begin with. This is well a established precept.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
The difference being, when IBM was threatened with anti-trust action, they tried to please thr justice department, but when Microsoft was threatened prosecution, they defied the justice department all the way, until a "business friendly" administration dropped the ball.
Copyright infringement IS stealing
No, it isn't. Here is a handy guide illustrating the difference.
it just has a different legal definition.
And you know *why* that is? Because *IT'S NOT THE SAME*. If copyright infringement *WAS* the same as theft, we wouldn't need a special law dealing with it - it could be covered by theft laws. The fact that it isn't should tell you something.
It literally fits the non-legal definition.
No, it doesn't. It fits the propaganda term. Just because some media trade groups misapply a term as an act of propaganda does not make it so.
Why is it that the only copyright violations that upset the /. masses are those involving code under the GPL?
You are believing "facts" quoted by Gates that you can't check. (I'll believe that he hired people for $2 / hr. I won't believe that that was *his* recompense...though he *might* have been living on his family.)
Still, his "open letter" wasn't as bad as his business practices at the same time...though that got a lot less publicity.
Companies that trusted MS tended to go out of business even then. MS was still small, though, so many of them just had trade secrets stolen, and their going out of business was delayed until MS became a more significant competitor. Also: Gates didn't invent dumpster diving, but he practiced it.
Still, there was a period when I though MS would be a less abusive company to deal with than IBM. And for around five-seven years it was true. This was probably because IBM wasn't allowed to compete by a consent decree, so IBM basically ignored the personal computer.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I think most people think Outlook is pretty bad, until they actually have to *use* Notes... believe me, if you believe Outlook sets a low bar, Notes' bar is underground.
I'm certainly not going to suggest Outlook is perfect, or even good. But compared to the alternative, it's incredible.
Comment of the year
Because people are making money off it.
Because the people violating that copyright are invariably the same people campaigning for the death penalty for other copyright violations.
There are other, less obvious rteasons. But in summary, there are a lot of differences between the two situations, assuming you're comparing this and the mp3 issue.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
You make it sound like the evilness (read: utter lack of ethics) were a funny meme, not a plain, cold fact.
Want to hear the voice of GOD? cat
"But IBM *did* actually reform."
Really, how so?
IBM really were a malign force in this industry when they were dominant, using grossly unethical tactics against competitors and stifling innovation to an extraordinary extent. Between 1960 and 1980 IBM were the evil empire - probably worse than Microsoft have ever been. These days, ethically, IBM seems to be an 'average company'. It does some good stuff, it acts on the whole as a good citizen, it contributes to standards processes and mostly abides by the standards that are agreed. Of course, this may simply be because it no longer has the power to bully and intimidate like it once did - but this is nevertheless a huge change.
However, 'better' does not necessarily mean 'good', particularly if you start from where IBM started from.
And being 'not quite as bad as IBM at it's worst' doesn't make Microsoft good, either - they have always, from the very beginning, been an exceptionally unethical company.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Saved your life!
See, I was going to kill you but I didn't, so I saved your life.