Slashdot Mirror
MS Pulls Windows 7 Tool After GPL Violation Claim
Sam notes an Ars story on Microsoft pulling the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool from the Microsoft Store website after a report indicating that the tool incorporated open source code in a way that violated the GNU's General Public License. Whether the software giant is actually violating the GPL, a widely used (including by the Linux kernel) free software license, is not confirmed. "We are currently taking down the Windows USB/DVD Tool from the Microsoft Store site until our review of the tool is complete," a Microsoft spokesperson told Ars. The fact the company pulled the tool doesn't bode well, so we'll have to watch closely to see what the company puts back on its servers.
MS is practically saying, "Oops, we violated the GPL!"
Oooopsies.
Seriously, preview your story summaries editors!
"...so we'll have to watch closely to see what the company puts it back on its servers."
Who thinks that "it" makes sense?
the GPL, a widely used (including by the Linux kernel) free software license
Woa, woa, woa. Next you'll tell me it wasn't created by Linux Torvalds.
This is a very good example of one of the reasons Microsoft hates the GPL so much. GPL makes it difficult to take other peoples hard work without giving anything back, or as in MS case, while doing everything they can to kill open source in general. Microsofts version of open source is that i develop and they take the code, the credit and the ownership. No thanks.
HTTP/1.1 400
'We are currently taking down the Windows USB/DVD Tool from the Microsoft Store site until our review of the tool is complete,' a Microsoft spokesperson told Ars. Well at least they are doing something.
Now now, calm down a moment. Imagine what would happen if they *didn't* pull the code- there would be a veritable shitstorm in the Free Software community. This is the smart, rational thing to do.
On a side note, this really acknowledges the power of the GPL- if even a single report says that there is a GPL violation and this causes Microsoft (its 'arch nemesis) to pull a tool for their newly launched apple-of-their-eye.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
Replying to my own post here, but also remember that this is exactly what ReactOS did when there was a similar allegation by Microsoft- and were largely applauded for it. Again, it's the sane, rational thing to do and in my eyes doesn't admit any guilt whatsoever. That doesn't mean a GPL violation isn't there, mind, but it means that if there is one this is exactly how it should be handled.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
Right... or they are being smart, pulling the tool, and investigating whether they are violating the GPL. Like they said.
It was a "Jump to Conclusions" mat. You see, it would be this mat that you would put on the floor... and would have different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO.
Whether the software giant is actually violating the GPL, a widely used (including by the Linux kernel) free software license...
Widely used? Really? Who knew...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Marketing would say "those coomies are ruining our business"
A friend of mine works at the borg. He's a penguin at heart and generally a good guy. This is what he told me. I believe him, but you can make up your own mind. There is/was a GPL violation, but MS didn't do it directly. They licensed some code from a third party. The third party was responsible for the GPL violation (they licensed the GPL code under a non-GPL license).
Dear Sir or Madam,
The responsible Anti-Microsoft Troll that should have replied to this post by now is on sick leave and was unable to prepare a custom flaming reply to this particular post. In lieu of that, attached is our generic template which we use to write all our flaming responses.
1. Make a general anti-Microsoft jab
2. Blame Microsoft for it's stance against Free Software (and also for lack of network neutrality, the current state of patent laws, the Iraq war, and the extinction of the dinosaurs)
3. Accuse the poster who wrote something positive about Microsoft of being either a fanboy or a Microsoft employee. If the poster in question made a comment about Microsoft's actual support of Free Software in a particular instance, accuse the poster of being an oblivious idiot unable to see through their Embrace-Extend-Extinguish approach
4. State that the Linux revolution is inevitable
5. Finish off with another outpour of flames
We hope you will be able to infer the potential content of the post that should have been done by the respective Troll. Please accept our apologies.
Sincerely,
Assistant Secretary,
Anti-Microsoft Trolling Association, Ltd.
What if it IS a GPL violation?
Will they release the source code?
And if not, if they just replace the GPL parts and release a new version, will people who downloaded the first version be legally able to demand the source code? Will the mere tainting of the code with GPL code cast a shadow on any future releases; "did they really replace the GPL parts or did they just refactor it"?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
This is original...
Pft. Clearly even MS are using GPL software. Doesn't get much more mainstream than that.
the GPL, a widely used (including by the Linux kernel) free software license
Good thing they cleared that up. I never would've known what the GPL is without this explanation.
It's also a ringing endorsement of open source. Microsoft can't do any better so they steal it, as usual.
What if it is a GPL violation and microsoft just comes out and says "ya, plenty of GPL'd code in there. We just took it and used it."
Who, exactly, sues them in this case?
Seriously - I don't understand the answer to this question. Somebody please explain it to me.
I have a very strong intuition that GPL'd code is used every day by all sorts of software places, including a lot of embedded developers who simply think that the GPL is a toothless naive nothing of a license. Red hat and many others seem to have built multi-billion dollar businesses on brightlining the GPL. Can somebody explain to me how the GPL is NOT actually toothless, other than the teeth of potential derision on slashdot?
No, the "smart, rational thing to do" would be to validate your code and status of it in whole before you post it for the world to take..
The only reason why they pulled it is because *someone else* looked into it..
Putting out any type of release stating that they took down the tool/code so they could review their own work isn't exactly
a tip of the hat to confidence either..
*Disclaimer - I am neither a fanboy or automatic hater of anything - I like common sense too much
PS.. "...acknowledges the power of the GPL..." uhm not so much - remember how MS is trying to market themselves
as starting to be OSS friendly? This is the marketing machine at work with damage control..
It worries me that this case has already been brought to the open.
In the previous post there were comments about contacting companies in private first and see if the problem could be solved, so that no undue negative publicity would be generated.
If this turns out to have been a false alarm, it won't reflect well on the GPL nor its proponents, and might even make more businesses wary of GPL code.
It would be interesting to see an account of the GPL violations that have been handled discreetly out of the public eye, if only to show that not everyone will be publicly shamed and vilified for breaking the licence, if they just remain cooperative.
You've posted this like 3 times now, that I know of. It's getting tiresome. And no it's not enough to pull the application, if you've distributed the binary and you've used GPL code you're obligated to release that code. Your mistake, your mess. MS wouldn't be so forgiving, why should the GNU community be? You'd think that the worlds largest software producer, in 2009, would have a better understanding regarding the GPL.
I have no objections to proprietary software, but if you want others to follow your licenses, you are expected to follow others. It's not so fucking difficult now is it?
Oh and the only troll I see here Sopssa is you for posting repetetive bullshit posts like the one above.
I am the lawn!
I think taking the software down is a very boding/bodeable/bodeful/whatever thing to do. I wouldn't expect anything else unless they had concrete proof that there was absolutely no chance at all that there was even the remote possibility of a GPL violation, and unless the software was developed completely in house and the claim of GPL violation was made with no evidence at all they can't be sure of that.
they pulled their tool
huhuhhuh
Time zone converter
And if not, if they just replace the GPL parts and release a new version, will people who downloaded the first version be legally able to demand the source code?
Here's my guess, but I'm only a lawyer in the armchair sense (i.e. not at all, but I try picking up an understanding of the law).
If it's found to be a GPL violation, Microsoft has violated the law regarding copyrights.
It'll be up to the party (or parties) who can sue Microsoft (only the copyright holder? Only the people who have lost something by MS breaking the (C) law?) to either settle the matter between themselves, or to take it to court and have the matters settled by a judge.
The FSF's position is that they're usually happy as long as compliance is enforced. If the FSF has the copyright, you might expect the result to be that MS has to come into compliance with the license, also retroactively (i.e. give source to those already having the binaries in question or a written offer or however the GPL says you can satisfy that obligation).
If it's not the FSF who's the copyright holder, I don't know. Someone might be thinking they can get the RIAA-style million-dollar damages, and so refuse all settlements Microsoft are (realistically) going to offer and take them to court. (I don't think the free software / open source community attracts those kind of people, but then again we're a varied bunch.)
It all comes down to what the copyright holder can convince Microsoft to do (or convince the system to force Microsoft to do).
Will [...] cast a shadow [...]?
Yes, but you can't sue people for having shadows ;-)
It might make people more likely to look here for another GPL violation, but being biased by selective observation doesn't mean your observations are wrong (only your statistics; or rather, your predictions about observations not similarly biased).
This is actually a good example of why Microsoft (and others) may dislike the GPL - how precisely do you determine that it is not a GPL violation?
You could say that about any software, not just GPL and not just FOSS. Sure it's easier to pass off publicly available source as someone else's code because it's much easier to get hold of, but that doesn't mean it can't be done with leaked or stolen code.
This isn't a "reason" for any company not to like open source. "Lame excuse" would be a better discription.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
The rational thing to do is to check first the licensing of any software you are not writing yourself.
Of course the most rational thing would be to use GPLed software as needed and comply with the requirements, but it is Microsoft we are talking about here.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And no it's not enough to pull the application, if you've distributed the binary and you've used GPL code you're obligated to release that code.
No, you're not automatically obligated to do any such thing. What happens is that you may be infringing on the copyrights on the GPL'd code, so it's up to the copyright holders to decide what to do: ignore it, negotiate a (presumably non-GPL) license agreement with you, or take you to court. And if the latter, the judge will decide what the punishment should be--most likely it'll be "stop distributing the software and pay the copyright holder $$$$$". It's unlikely that the punishment would be "publish the source code to your app that used GPLed code."
The copyright holder only has grounds to go after the infringing user of the GPL'd code if they don't release their modifications under the GPL, i.e. in this case, MS - if they are using code from ImageMaster - can make the whole issue go away by relicensing WUDT under the GPL (and providing the source) *to those people who have already downloaded it* if these end users ask for the code. That's all, folks.
No, just infringing copyright. Which, as we've learned, can add up to 2.4 million dollars for non-commercial infringement.
Commercial infringement can result in criminal prosecution (see the FBI warning for "details").
How about a "three strikes" rule?
And no it's not enough to pull the application, if you've distributed the binary and you've used GPL code you're obligated to release that code.
No, you're not automatically obligated to do any such thing. What happens is that you may be infringing on the copyrights on the GPL'd code, so it's up to the copyright holders to decide what to do: ignore it, negotiate a (presumably non-GPL) license agreement with you, or take you to court. And if the latter, the judge will decide what the punishment should be--most likely it'll be "stop distributing the software and pay the copyright holder $$$$$". It's unlikely that the punishment would be "publish the source code to your app that used GPLed code."
Yes you are obligated to do such a thing, and if you don't comply you can be dragged to court where you could be sentenced to pay for copyright infringement.
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.)
I am the lawn!
What do you want MS to do? Scour the interwebs for every licensed software to compare it with what Microsoft's coders produce? I'm by no means a fan of Microsoft, but this is the one time where the company appears to be acting in good faith. And yet people like you criticise them still! You're creating a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" atmosphere, which only encourages MS to do every illegal thing it thinks it can get away with.
What do you want MS to do? Scour the interwebs for every licensed software to compare it with what Microsoft's coders produce?
What? I don't understand your question. Why would this be relevant to the topic at hand?
I am the lawn!
What? Like Microsoft's Open Source licenses?
The ones where you lose your rights to the code if you sue MS for *anything*?
It is currently on Major Geeks, but who knows for how long. From the sound of it all it does is make a USB drive bootable like the HP format tool and then copy the ISO files to the drive.
Hell something that simple...why would they need to steal GPL code,unless they got themselves a seriously lazy programmer/contractor?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Which is weird because according to Ballmer, Linux infringes on Microsoft IP :P
Both sides have been known to lie and spread FUD. I guess its a tie then...
After developing (Off the top) NT, SQL Server, Visual Studio, Office, helping create the blueray VC-1 Codec, and countless other successfull endeavors (in the commercial and research space), nobody sane is going to believe that they intentionally stole GPL code for some random free tool. You must be really retarded to believe that..
Agree. Pulling the tool (so to speak) is more a reflection of a smart legal department than any admission of a problem (at least at this point). If they issue an interim press release identifying whether there was a GPL violation, it could be out as early as Monday. But more likely, if there IS a violation, they'll want to make a decision regarding whether to a) release the source code of the tool, b) rework the tool with proprietary code or c) just leave it offline. THEN they'll issue a statement. Could be December.
If this is a GPL violation, I'm sure it wasn't deliberate by Microsoft.
Precisely.Why blame malice when plain incompetence would suffice?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
At least 3 moderators disagree with you.
Dam, and I was giving compliments to M$ regarding this tool. It was like a breeze of fresh air after Nero.
I hadn't read it before and I enjoyed it. Looking at his posting history he hasn't posted it for a while, so fuck you.
You mean those that stretch back an incredible 5 days? That's some nice invesigative background checking there Sherlock.
I am the lawn!
Yes you are obligated to do such a thing, and if you don't comply you can be dragged to court where you could be sentenced to pay for copyright infringement.
You are wrong, in the case of unwilfull infringement, positive action to cease infringement is enough - you are not obligated to release the code, and you are not bound by the licence. The copyright holder can still persue damages for prior infringement, but thats it.
WTF is this "unwilfull infringement" and how is it supposed to apply to software that is always distributed with a copy of GPL attached to it and prominently shown in comments and executables? What is this defense, "I thought, it was in public domain"?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
The discussion in this tree gets nasty at times (deeper down), but I wonder: do we *really* want Microsoft to let go off free software ? In my opinion it would be wonderful if Microsoft could deliver its operating system and core products and use free software wherever possible. The clash in licenses only appears when you try to apply the Microsoft license to the whole bundle, which can be easily avoided as it is already done in the software industry. Do we *really* want to teach Microsoft to always use exclusively (well, that down not happen, as we see later in the tree) in-house products ? Anyway, I think it would have been a braver action to add a download link for the sources for the little tool (how proprietary can it get with such a tiny thing?) and remove the license, or even swap it for a GPL. //
Firstly I suggest you read up on legal cases - wilfull infringement is where it can be proven that the infringer knew at the time of infringement of said infringement, and did nothing to rectify their position.
In this case, Microsoft removed the tool in question from distribution pending an investigation, and there is no evidence to suggest that Microsoft as an entity knew of the infringement at the time of distribution.
Secondly there was no copy of the GPL involved here - the persons who received the potentially infringing code did not receive it under the GPL, they received it under a potential violation of copyright law. Thus there is no entitlement to the end users to demand code under the terms of the GPL.
Yes you are obligated to do such a thing, and if you don't comply you can be dragged to court where you could be sentenced to pay for copyright infringement.
You are wrong, in the case of unwilfull infringement, positive action to cease infringement is enough - you are not obligated to release the code, and you are not bound by the licence. The copyright holder can still persue damages for prior infringement, but thats it.
Unwilfull? You see that's where our difference is. You seem to be so naive to think that Microsoft developers are unaware of the GPL. And also, of course one can refuse to release the code, but then one would get fined. What did you think I meant? Somebody will force you to release the code with a gun pointed at your head?
I am the lawn!
Looking at other comments, it appears the code came from a third party. Now they have the problem that releasing the code may also violate the copyright of that third party on the non-GPL portions. Granted if the third party comingled the code they probably don't have a strong non-GPL claim.
I didn't know that there was a defence against copyright infringement of "incompetence".
You learn something new each day...
Yes you are obligated to do such a thing, and if you don't comply you can be dragged to court where you could be sentenced to pay for copyright infringement.
Exactly: not complying, getting dragged to court, and paying is an option. You're not obligated to open the source, you can just suffer the consequences of copyright violation instead.
Human/Ranger/Zangband
Actually, the arch enemy of GPL, especially GPL v3, is Google. You just haven't figured it out yet...
However, they cannot ensure that someone hasn't copied a dozen lines of code from some other obscure program. They don't have the worlds entire source-code archive sitting in a database waiting to do comparison searches.
Allow me to introduce you to this.
Ahh, I'm naive am I, just because I disagree with you?
Or rather I understand that the actions of a lower level employee or related third party does not necessarily equate to corporate policy, and the former can be considered unwilfull distribution, while the latter can be considered wilfull.
Microsoft removed the tool, thats all they have to do by law.
"if you've distributed the binary and you've used GPL code you're obligated to release that code. Your mistake, your mess. MS wouldn't be so forgiving, why should the GNU community be? You'd think that the worlds largest software producer, in 2009, would have a better understanding regarding the GPL."
If only the world was that simple. The fact is, in a large software corporation there is absolutely no way to ensure that some incompetent developer hasn't just gone on the net and copied some code no matter how hard you try. I understand your sentiment but it's also not really fair to penalise and entire company for the actions of one developer either.
The GNU community should be more forgiving because it's about showing that GPL'd code is useable in business as long as the rules are followed rather than trying to screw companies over if they go anywhere near GPL because that's a sure fire way to turn many other companies away from GPL - why touch if it's such a dangerous minefield? Having to pull software is a pretty big, costly and embarassing punishment in itself and is more than enough to put most companies including Microsoft off knowingly and intentionally violating the GPL.
Regardless, even if they do take it further what do you think will happen? It'll result in a court case and any judge is going to see that by pulling it Microsoft recognised it's mistake and tried to deal with it reasonably. You'd most likely see the case get kicked out as a waste of time because Microsoft were already making a good effort to rectify the problem.
"Oh and the only troll I see here Sopssa is you for posting repetetive bullshit posts like the one above."
Having a different viewpoint to you is not trolling, get over yourself, you're not the international dictator of opinion that decides what everyone's "correct" opinion on everything should be.
"What you forget is that GPL code is owned by the author, not some magical GPL entity."
They could have sold the right to use the code under a separate license. Still could I would think.
Loads of money!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no need to pull the tool from the site. They have already distributed the binary so if they do find out there is GPL'ed code in it they are already obliged to make the source available, in which case they might as well just continue distributing the binary.
Stopping the distribution of the binary now does not in any way remove their obligation to make the source available.
If it turns out it does not have GPL'ed code in it then there is also no need to remove the binary.
While I'm your average Linux-loving MS hater, several buddies of mine worked at Microsoft for a while after their company was acquired by Microsoft. What they told me is this : Microsoft is EXTREMLY paranoid about open source code making it into their products. So much so that Developers, SQA Engineers, Tech Support, and IT aren't allowed to install open source software on their machines, use open source tools, or even go to web sites providing open source products. If it's not part of the Microsoft software library, you can't use it.
So, I would assume that this infraction was an accident.
Ever heard of Oracle?
They use and even create L/GPL software.
The GNU toolchain has been widely used on Unix systems since before the creation of Linux.
This is about more than the "desktop marketshare of Linux".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Unwilfull? You see that's where our difference is. You seem to be so naive to think that Microsoft developers are unaware of the GPL.
It isn't very nice to call people naive before thinking the argument through. Perhaps GP never suggested that random Microsoft code monkeys were unaware of the GPL, but instead suggested that Microsoft executives were unaware that their software infringed on GPL licensed code. Perhaps the GP, with the US legal system in mind, understands that all that will matter is what Microsoft executives knew.
And also, of course one can refuse to release the code, but then one would get fined.
Maybe Microsoft will get fined, but first they will have to be sued, and then they would have to lose their case. Even if they do get sued, if they can prove they took the software down and that the executives didn't know it was in violation of GPL, then they have a strong argument in their case and might get a small fine, if anything. So, getting back to the original point, no Microsoft is not obligated to do anything here.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
Ahh, I'm naive am I, just because I disagree with you?
Nope, because you're trying to imply that Microsoft would be unaware of the GPL. And we're not even talking about the GPL in detail, we're talking about the fundamental point of the GPL. That which most teenagers even know.
Or rather I understand that the actions of a lower level employee or related third party does not necessarily equate to corporate policy, and the former can be considered unwilfull distribution, while the latter can be considered wilfull.
That's very easy to say. Not that we would ever be able to prove this, but I'm willing to bet you that if you ask any Microsoft developer about the fundamental meaning of the GPL they would give it to you without hesitating for one second. The GPL isn't some "underground" phenomena.
I am the lawn!
Bah, sorry I must have clicked the wrong button. Here's my reply.
I am the lawn!
I use the word "stole" loosely. Calm down. :)
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
But... but... I LIKE elderberries!
I think he's trying to respond to criticism that even if Microsoft as a whole didn't know the code was infringing, they still infringed and thus they should still be held guilty of such infringement and be required to pay royalties/fines/etc. His argument seems to be that Microsoft is a huge company and generally, huge companies, when committing small violations, are given a bit of leeway in order to clean up their own mess before things become official. Assume MS was unaware of the violation. MS pulls the code when they are informed of said violation. This is where things normally come to a close. Even if they do get sued over this, the legal system introduces things like "unwillfull" violation and "acted in good faith", etc.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
It was funny the first time I saw this, and a little less the next time I saw it.
That was many moons ago. Time for something fresh?
Give the "Noundi" person a break. He/she probably hasn't yet wiped the spittle from their chin this morning. At best, this person spouts off about something and is right part of the time. The rest of the time Noundi sounds like a panhandler or bum crazed out of their head.
Glad I downloaded this the day it came out. Odds are some low level tech at M$ used a part of something free he found on the web and thats all there is to it. I am going to break it down when and if it comes back to see what the differences are but until then I am glad I have Windows 7 on my Netbook. Also I may create a blog post with the original file to be used only for "historical and comparison usage" of course. Really all this does is format a flash drive and then copy the files from iso. Anyone could accomplish this with a number of other tools out there.
and their only function is mashing "ACCEPT" on whatever piece of poorly-written, poorly-researched biased bullshit happens to shine brightly enough to catch their dim little eyes.
This place is a joke, and since most of the users are also braindead the only good thing about Slashdot is providing a fun place for trolling.
I say everyone should stay quiet. Little by little open source code will leak in to all MS applications. Then in a few years from now, we can all file thousands of massive class action law suit that force MS to either go out of business or open source their entire OS and everything on run on it. The only problem with this plan that I see is that if they steel sufficient amount of quality open source code, their software might actually start working in a respectable manner and we will all end up back using windows again.
Living in Chile
The GPL is not a signed contract, and the source code distribution is not a penalty clause. The GPL is a license, allowing the modification, copying, and distribution of code under certain circumstances. If Microsoft has distributed without complying with the requirements, then Microsoft has infringed on somebody's copyright, that's all.
The legal remedies are therefore the ones for copyright infringement, which are basically an injunction against further reproduction and monetary damages. There is no provision on copyright law to impose arbitrary conditions such as those in the GPL, although the parties are certainly free to settle with whatever conditions they find mutually acceptable, which can of course include strict GPL compliance.
If the GPL did have the power to force arbitrary remedies for violation, then so would other licenses. The RIAA could come up with a standard redistribution license that allowed you to distribute on the condition of giving the label all your assets, and then bankrupt you with one fairly simple court case. Does that sound good to you?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Correct. That's my responsibility.
Secondly there was no copy of the GPL involved here - the persons who received the potentially infringing code did not receive it under the GPL, they received it under a potential violation of copyright law.
Then whoever they received is from, had to violate the GPL. Software does not get distributed to developers automagically.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Uhh.. Your logic is at best... strange.
Being aware of the GPL does not mean you are aware that any given piece of software is licensed under it, much less a few snippets of code from said application.
There are three possible scenarios I can think of off the top of my head that are all highly likely here, none of which would make Microsoft aware of the fact they were violating the GPL (if that is even the case, which isn't even proven yet).
1) Microsoft hired a contractor or 3rd party to produce the code. The 3rd party used GPL code, but did not tell them. Yes, Microsoft is still liable, but they're not willfully liable.
2) Microsoft produced the tool for internal use. This is a valid use of the GPL'd code and doesn't require source to be distributed with it. Some other department, unaware that GPL'd code was used, got ahold of the tool and decided to use it externally. The original developers are unaware of the new use. Again, Microsoft is not willfully infringing.
3) An employee decides to take a shortcut and use GPL'd code without telling his bosses, takes credit for the code, and thinks nobody will ever find out. Microsoft is unwillful because even thought the employee wilfully infringed, the company had no knowledge. Yes, they're still liable, just not willfully so.
There are probably many other possible scenarios too... but I can't be bothered to spend more than a couple minutes thinking about it.
So perhaps you should think your arguments through before jumping to the conclusion of "it must be willful".
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Yes you are obligated to do such a thing, and if you don't comply you can be dragged to court where you could be sentenced to pay for copyright infringement.
Exactly: not complying, getting dragged to court, and paying is an option. You're not obligated to open the source, you can just suffer the consequences of copyright violation instead.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not, but if you aren't, then how does this not mean that you're obliged to open the source? You're obliged to follow the law, and if you don't you'll get punished for it. Am I misinterpreting the word obliged? Because that to me is a perfect usage of the word obliged. Correct me if I'm wrong but is everybody thinking I'm saying forced? Because I'm not. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/obliged
I am the lawn!
No, the "smart, rational thing to do" would be to validate your code and status of it in whole before you post it for the world to take..
Ok.... so tell me how you would do that. Anyone? Beuler?
How can anyone, say you, determine that any given snippet of code is not Licensed under the GPL somewhere.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
No, you're not automatically obligated to do any such thing. What happens is that you may be infringing on the copyrights on the GPL'd code, so it's up to the copyright holders to decide what to do: ignore it, negotiate a (presumably non-GPL) license agreement with you, or take you to court. And if the latter, the judge will decide what the punishment should be--most likely it'll be "stop distributing the software and pay the copyright holder $$$$$". It's unlikely that the punishment would be "publish the source code to your app that used GPLed code."
Yes you are obligated to do such a thing, and if you don't comply you can be dragged to court where you could be sentenced to pay for copyright infringement.
If one of the options is to not comply and pay for copyright infringement, how is that being obligated to release the source code? As I said, you're not obligated to release the source code. You're only obligated to do that if you want to license the code under the GPL--that text you quoted is from the GPL. However, you're not obligated to license the code under the GPL: you can ask the copyright holder to license it to you under some other license, or you can violate the GPL and accept the punishment for that. Depending on how badly you want to prevent your code from being open-sourced, and how much money you have, paying some money may be a very reasonable option.
No need, I've filled it in. How am I doing?
(Score:0, Troll)
I'd say you hit the nail on the head.
MOD ME +1 OBSERVANT, PLEASE!
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
Actually, the GPL says that anyone can ask for the source. That was changed in (I believe) GPL 2.1. It was done so that organisations can outsource support for GPL'ed applications.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not, but if you aren't, then how does this not mean that you're obliged to open the source?
Because the punishment in a copyright infringement case isn't to be forced to follow the terms of the license agreement for the work that was unlawfully distributed. It's to pay a fine and/or damages to the owner of the copyright of the work.
Am I misinterpreting the word obliged?
Not at all. You're just misinterpreting the law, and more specifically, the consequences of violating it.
What happens if there is code in there that was in fact original, but happened to be the same as GPL'd code? What I mean is that for a few lines of a simple function, it is completely possible for two programmers to come up with the exact same solution, or at least near enough. Doesn't happen often, but it can happen. This is especially true if you are working from a spec. You have an open standard you are implementing (like the ISO spec) and it may even have sample code.
So this leads to the question of what now? This is probably not a GPL violation in a case like this. However it is still probalby something MS would want to change to avoid problems with regards to that.
Whatever the case, I can't see this as an intentional situation. You really think that a minor part of creating ISOs, a format that is a well documented standard, was so complex that MS couldn't figure it out and had to nab GPL'd code? Ya, not so much. There are two much more likely situations:
1) They licensed a bunch of code from a 3rd party, who had used some GPL'd code and forgot about it (or neglected to tell MS).
2) This is a fluke, a product of two programmers working on the same kind of project in the same language using the same tool, and the same spec.
The law is rarely as simple as geeks wish it to be, a situation that is often good for said geeks though they don't know it. A large part of the law comes down to intent and awareness. If something is a crime or not and what kind of crime it is and thus what punishment is appropriate can often depend on if you meant to do something, and/or if you were aware that you had done something.
In the case of license violations, a civil matter, this most certainly comes up. The relief you get as a copyright holder is different if someone willfully violated your license than if not. So if it turns out that MS honestly believed they weren't using GPL'd code, and took steps to remedy it, there might be little to no relief offered by a court. They determine that punitive damages are not in order, since the violation wasn't willful, and further steps aren't necessary since MS already removed the problem code.
Now all this, of course, requires that the copyright holder bring suit against MS for this. There is no automatic hearing on this issue, and nobody but the copyright holder has standing to do so. You can't go and sue MS over this, your rights are not an issue, even if you downloaded the software. The developer is the only one who can. I find it unlikely he will, given that his project is hosted on MS's Codeplex site, and there's nothing on his page about this.
So sorry, the law isn't simple like you might wish it to be. In this case what is likely to result is if there is GPL'd code, MS will remove it, and place the new app online. That will then be the end of it.
If a Microsoft employee with the authority to commit changes, knowingly committed copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder to use it, then Microsoft willfully infringed, even if Balmer or a supervisor, or whoever didn't know about it. (and everything copyrightable is automatically copyrighted nowadays, so it could be hard to make an affirmative defense of unwillfulness)
Having said that, though, not everything falls under copyright, so it remains to be seen whether this is actually infringing.
If corporations are to be treated as people in the eyes of the law, then they cannot claim that one hand doesn't know what the other is doing.
we're talking about the fundamental point of the GPL. That which most teenagers even know.
Really? Most teenagers I ask about Linux go, "What's that? Some kind of car?"
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
I agree.
I'd say you hit the nail on the head.
I'd say some mods need to have a blood sample of theirs checked for irony deficiency.
I thought it was quite clear I was making a mockery out of real trolls. My real insults are either references to humorous insults, or I apologize for them and underscore that I'm compelled by my ex-parent to post what I'm posting.
Oh well, irony deficiency...
Nope, because you're trying to imply that Microsoft would be unaware of the GPL. And we're not even talking about the GPL in detail, we're talking about the fundamental point of the GPL. That which most teenagers even know.
Uhm, no Im not, not at all.
That's very easy to say. Not that we would ever be able to prove this, but I'm willing to bet you that if you ask any Microsoft developer about the fundamental meaning of the GPL they would give it to you without hesitating for one second. The GPL isn't some "underground" phenomena.
Again you totally misunderstand my post - it isn't a question of whether or not the GPL is understood, but it is a question as to whether the distributing entity (the corporation) knew the code was taken from a GPLed project.
You're entangling yourself in semantics. You're clearly the one who's misinterpreting me. I never said you're forced to release the code, I said obliged. And I never claimed that you could, by law, enforce somebody to release said code. I'm afraid you're making assumptions that I cannot be held responsible for.
I am the lawn!
Everyone else is using sense 1 of "obliged" on that freedictionary link you gave earlier. Which sense are you using?
$ make available