Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Did Microsoft Borrow GPL Code For a Windows 7 Utility?

Posted by Soulskill on from the free-as-in-gimme dept.

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."

9 of 493 comments (clear)

  1. Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious by caffeinemessiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The code in question seems to be called into scrutiny because the two areas of code bear the same name (ReadBytes) and operate similarly.

    (bold mine)

    Actually, if the function is just something called "ReadBytes(char *buf)" or similar, then that's a bit strange. If it was truly Microsoft-written, it would be:
    WINAPI DWORD ReadBytesW(LPCSTRWRAAXA szCharBufW_x, struct READBYTESINFO *srbinfArgs).

    --
    An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
  2. It's not "stealing"...right? by Tankko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It's not "stealing"...right? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is the correct argument, but you have it backward. If it's OK for MS to "steal" (by the definition that MS accepts for the word) then MS should allow people to "steal" Windows, and stop complaining about, trying to stop, prosecuting, software piracy. They should amend their EULA to allow users to decompile, reverse engineer, and modify their binaries.

      Besides, it's not as though GPL code is anti-copyright.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  3. That's his evidence? by Ironsides · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:That's his evidence? by Ironsides · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, it does suggest class and type names. Start here Now, show me more than 15 lines and I'll start to believe it was copied. Say, show me what called RealLogicalDescriptor (and all of RealLogicalDescriptor too) in combination with all of UdfReader.cs. Preferably in text and not in an image. Actually, just give me the MS code and I'll line it up to the ImageMaster code myself.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  4. Re:not sureprised by Abreu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. Re:Knee jerk by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Moderated 'Flamebait.' 0 points left.

    Seriously, whoever decided that we just get one dropdown and no 'confirm' button needs to be taken out back and shot. And I'd just used my other points on some actual trolls upthread, too. :(

  6. Re:It's .NET code by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:not sureprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    >> 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...

    Maybe YOU are very young. IBM was taking a beating and didn't manage to get their own PC done.

    So they assembled a task force and said go and get us an IBM PC.

    They did it -- without IBM parts!

    The processor was from Intel and the OS from a small company who had to buy it from someone else, because they couldn't do it in time (little did we know then what these guys were up to).

    In summary, there were a lot of good computers with other OSes, the main ones being CP/M and AppleDOS (not necessarily the better ones).

    So:

    1) M$ actually helped IBM (for money, of course) and
    2) M$ is known to innovate after others innovated first.

    I could cite sources, but this way we can argue longer. 8-)

    Not that anyone reads ACs here anymore...