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?
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.
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).
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? Clearly people like the parent will not be convinced no matter what Microsoft says (yeah, that post was pretty insightful...), so how can they possibly win here, other than by releasing the code, something they do not typically want to do? Even if they do that, they still get a black eye (i.e. that recent kernel code fiasco).
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.
Yes, because Microsoft's mode of operation is to steal GPL code and try to claim it's theirs until they get caught, at which point they fess up and pretend it was a mistake. Right... I mean, just look at all the other times they stole GPL code!
If in fact that tool used GPL code, it was just some lazy or dishonest developer who used a bunch of code from the Internet and pretended it was his. No proprietary software company would let that slide. Yes, that includes the company we all love to hate.
how precisely do you determine that it is not a GPL violation?
Lawyers. Lots of Lawyers.
I doubt it even cracks their top 20 complicated legal issues.
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 same problem applies to any license? Suppose MS accuses someone of using their code, how can that be determined? If an author or musician accuses someone of copying them how can that be determined? It is an intrinsic problem of copyright, not a problem with the GPL.
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.
Well, I'd generally say that Codeplex is MS's version of the open source community, and it looks like that didn't stop the GPL from doing its thing. Ignoring their somewhat-slimier licences that no one pays attention to these days, the MS version of open source appears to be that the GPL holds true, and they'd rather take it down than have a PR incident starring Microsoft as Emperor Palpatine and Codeplex as the Galactic Senate. Most likely the program was something that developers were passing around the MS offices, as a fork of the original Codeplex project that they felt was more useful. It fell through the cracks enough for someone in a different department to pick it up and say 'hey, this is great!', and it ended up on the 'net without its heritage by accident. There are so few MS products where you can find a list of developers for them--it's not surprising that they'd have trouble tracking the ownership of one little internal tool, either.
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..
Well, if it became a problem they could have someone sign an NDA and allow them to review the code. But it probably won't need to come to that.
Quack, quack.
Exactly the same way you determine that your code does not violate a software patent held by any of the big players. You cannot do it with certainty. You do your basic checks and then act in good faith should something be identified.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
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.
How much success has there been comparing object code to determine whether source code copying has occurred?
When I was working in an MS technology shop I found many cases of our programmers cutting and pasting code from other sources on the internet. Quite a lot of it came from MS itself and explicitly said that it could not be used. What do you do now? Rip the code out? But we've already shipped the code. Should we demand that the customers give it back until we can rip the code out? What if we still want to use the code? Should we approach MS and try to negotiate a different license? What if they say no?
There's no difference here. The GPL is quite easy to understand as licensing documents go. I think we can all agree that if code licensed only under the GPL was in the application, it would be a breach of the licensing terms; just like when various people in my company appropriated MS code. The resolution is exactly the same.
The moral of the story is: don't use code whose licensing terms are unacceptable to you. It doesn't matter what the license is. It doesn't matter what political forces caused the terms of the license to be created. If you don't agree to it, don't use it. This is the one thing that is the same for all licenses.
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
Because object code contain a lot of debugging informations and the functions names in clear if not stripped (and it is rarely done). If an object code contain lot of function names equal to a well know library, then there is a very good probability that it use the library.
What you forget is that GPL code is owned by the author, not some magical GPL entity. One author might well want to kick up a fuss, while another may want to deal with it quietly. Others might go to the SFLC, whose policy *is* discretion first (and that's what I believe the earlier articles were referring to).
Whether or not to kick up a stink, demand compensation/removal of the tool, prosecution etc. is in the hands of the copyright holder, not the SFLC (although the holder may choose to hand it over to them for the purposes of dealing with the case).
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."
Did you mean "woah, woah, woah"?
Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
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.
Presumably he meant "whoa, whoa, whoa".
How? By reading the complaint and checking that the evidence given in the complaint matches what is in the code. Then if there is any grounds for complaint it's a matter of talking to whoever was responsible for the code - all this should be blatantly obvious. If there is nothing I really can't see baseless conspiracy theories being a problem as it will fizzle out without evidence. The SCO fiasco required expenditure of money for PR to get their baseless rumours out so it's not a relevant example.
Some people may recall when Microsoft was shipping developers CDROMs with gcc along with a copy of the GPL. They didn't always hate the GPL it was just another set of rules to follow to use other people's stuff. The BSD licence of course even allowed them to put "copyright Microsoft" in the etc/hosts file as if it wasn't copied from elsewhere but who really cares, it's just amusing and wouldn't stand up in a court anywhere.
What if they don't have the code? What if it was developed by a third party under contract?
Indeed. The summary assertion that "The fact the company pulled the tool doesn't bode well" is really daft. Of course they'd pull it, there's been a claim made against it - if they keep distributing it whilst they investigate the potential for damages rises with every download. Pulling the tool is not an admission of anything other than the fact that an accusation has been made and they're investitaging it.
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.
How? By reading the complaint and checking that the evidence given in the complaint matches what is in the code. Then if there is any grounds for complaint it's a matter of talking to whoever was responsible for the code - all this should be blatantly obvious.
Sounds good when you say it fast.
The evidence seems to be that some symbol names are the same. There are many reasons for this to happen, including but not limited to
o They are common names for a common technique.
o They are names used in the official specification.
o The code which is claimed to be GPL is actually the code that is in violation of a license.
o The code was really public domain but got lumped into a GPL'd project (this happens a lot, really.)
Hand waving and declaring "blatantly obvious" is obviously blatantly disingenuous.
"His name was James Damore."
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!
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.
Actually, it wasn't. It was created by RMS.
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.
A lot of code is voluntarily handed over to some magical GPL entity since the author doesn't have the time/resources to enforce it himself. My magical GPL entity, I of course mean the FSF.
Dam, and I was giving compliments to M$ regarding this tool. It was like a breeze of fresh air after Nero.
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!
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...
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.
One question, potential damages to who?
Bill
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
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.
How do you determine that ANY 3rd party bit of software wasn't created in bad faith?
How do you determine that you aren't "receiving stolen goods".
This is a general problem not just limited to the GPL. The open nature of the GPL just means that violations might be easier to spot and more people will have the tools to make such a determination.
IOW, the GPL just makes it easier to get caught.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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
"Woe, woe, woe!" That's the 17th century version.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
how precisely do you determine that it is not a GPL violation?
Bring the GPL code's author in under an NDA and show him your code, thus killing two birds with one stone: you've demonstrated your innocence to the only person who legally matters, and poisoned him from being able to develop it any more.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Have you actually read the Codeplex bylaws and what types of licenses they want? Microsoft is hard at work trying to redefine open source into something completely different than it is today.
HTTP/1.1 400
When you mix in big business with the U.S. court system, there most certainly is.
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?
The short summary of Microsoft's vision of software licenses:
What is mine is mine, and what is yours is negotiable.
Will
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.
In theory the author of the code whose copyright they broke, if they did indeed break it.
The same can be true for any "shop" open source or not, most developers have no issues with taking someone else's code off of the internet than write their own. In some cases they feel they are entitled to do this because they claim to be an "open source shop". At one place I watched a developer scrape code for a html popup window (js/css/images) right from Amazon's site back in the day (before things like jQuery/Litebox, etc.), all that was changed was the css colors. The app that was being built was licensed under the GPL v2.
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
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.
The problem is significantly more complex than you seem to have considered.
Consider this. Nobody has access to all GPL'd code that's out there. The GPL does not require that you make source code available to everyone. It only requires that you make source code available to those you give the binary to.
Think about this. There is likely a lot of GPL'd code out there that isn't easily findable on the web. How exactly is one supposed to prove tha any given piece of code was not copied from GPL'd code? It's simply not possible..
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
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.
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.
> his is actually a good example of why Microsoft (and others) may dislike the GPL
Because you can violate it and then just say "oops, sorry about that"?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Yes, all of those points are resolved when talking to whoever was responsible for the code and then passed back to whoever made the complaint - as I said, blatantly obvious.
Storms in teacups are not resolved by bringing a bull into the china shop (or whatever other metaphors you want in the brew) - just keep it simple, stick to the evidence, and follow where it comes from with as little fuss as possible.
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.
Have you actually read the Codeplex bylaws and what types of licenses they want?
Well, yes:
What licenses does CodePlex support?
Project coordinators can select from a list of the following OSI licenses: Apache License 2.0, Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), Eclipse Public License (EPL), GNU General Public License (GPL) v2, GNU Library General Public License (LGPL), Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL), Microsoft Reciprocal License (Ms-RL), Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL), New BSD License, and The MIT License. If your project requires a license that is not on the list, you can request a custom license using the contact us form.
So far as I know, all of the above are "open source", including both Ms-* licenses (according to both OSI and FSF). In addition, Ms-RL is strong copyleft according to FSF. So, what's wrong with the selection? GPL is allowed; BSDL is allowed; what else do you want?
Heck, there are Linux distros hosted on CodePlex without any problem!
How about GPLv3 ? Its one of the most important licenses today . First and foremost it closes the patent hole where someone can use your code and then sue you for using it yourself. Its a very common license and its absence speaks volumes.
HTTP/1.1 400
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...
all of those points are resolved when talking to whoever was responsible for the code and then passed back to whoever made the complaint
Not true.
This case is interesting because it appears that there are 3 similar codes, not just 2.
Microsoft has its version, then there is a GPL version, and finally there is an LGPL version.
This cannot be resolved by simply talking to the Microsoft developer. This actually becomes a battle between the GPL and LGPL claimants, because they both cannot own the copyright. Does the GPL guy (who cites the derivation from the LGPL code) claim that he owns the whole thing? If he does, then there is a 3-way battle. If he does not, then Microsoft is in the clear.
Do your homework, fella. Its not so simple. Read up on the facts and shit.
"His name was James Damore."
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.
Once again "all of all of those points are resolved when talking to whoever was responsible for the code" - and if Microsoft have got the code from somewhere else then you talk to the person from somewhere else because they were responsible for the code.
Then you can start arguing about who wrote what first, what licence it was in and consider file dates. No three way battle or other overdramatic shit.
The open nature of GPL only ensures projects that have mixed origins can be traced - in some cases, the only violation is in not releasing the code - if the code were released there would be no violation to find.
I'm a big of GPL, but linking with GPL libraries? its absurd - any code just needs to have a communication protocol added to split the code into a client server model with different licensing for each component.
GPL libraries should be protecting their code, not worrying about what software links with it and thereby not making any changes to it.
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