Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Takes Responsibility For GPL Violation
An anonymous reader writes with an update to the news we discussed last weekend that a Windows 7 utility seemed to contain GPL code:
"Microsoft has confirmed that the Windows 7 USB/DVD tool did, in fact, use GPL code, and they have agreed to release the tool's source code under the terms of GPLv2. In a statement, Microsoft said creation of the tool had been contracted out to a third party and apologized for not noticing the GPL code during a code review."
This tool isn't part of Windows 7, it's just used if you buy the download version of Windows 7 from the MS store. If it was actually part of Windows 7 i think there would have been a much bigger fuss!
I wouldn't want to be the consulting company that provided Microsoft with this code. They're in some deep doo-doo now. Unfortunately, a lot of engineers are so clueless about licensing, as are their managers, that it is really possible that the person who did this didn't know it was a problem.
But this is not anything new for Microsoft. Microsoft started contributing to GCC around 10 years ago, for the former Unix services product. And this really serves their purpose if they are trying to scare people away from the GPL. "Microsoft forced to give up source code."
Where they are really hurting us now is in government policy and patented technology in interoperability facilities. Like the European Interoperability Framework going proprietary, and the MS-patented filesystem in next-generation FLASH devices. Consider stuff like that before you decide they are a "good citizen".
Bruce Perens.
Why wouldn't he praise Jobs? Last I heard, Bill owned a decent share of Apple's stock.
I can't decide if you're trolling, or naive. Microsoft needs no permission to use GPL'd stuff. Neither does anyone else. It's a copy left. EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO USE IT!! There are a few restrictions on giving credit to the owners, releasing source, etc - but they are ALLOWED TO USE IT.
I can't imagine any individual, corporation, group, or consortium who might be denied the right to use GPL code, AS LONG AS they abide by the terms of the license.
By releasing (or making available) the source code, and giving proper credit to the authors, MS complies with the terms of the GPL license.
It's really not that hard to understand, is it?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
If you worked at Microsoft, you'd know that it takes patience and time away from the horrific workload and schedules to code review every third-party thing that came through the door. When I worked at Microsoft, our vendor routinely used code they weren't supposed to EVEN THOUGH it was in their contract not to. I would sometimes come across a bug somewhere and I'd find something stolen off the net, and I'd have to pull it and reprimand the vendor, and then get them to do the work and pay them for it again. It's easy to sit at your computer desk and pontificate about how MS is trying to pull a fast one on everyone. Shit, if you only knew how ingrained in the culture it is to homegrow everything, and steal nothing. Very strong corporate policies there at MS, and everyone is subject to disciplinary action if you've intentionally tried to pull a fast one in one way shape or form. Trust me, the Program Manager who owns that tool is shitting in his/her pants, as it's going on their performance review for not tightening up on code quality. From my experience there, MS takes this shit seriously.
Nope. All that heat has to go somewhere. As hell freezes, Earth burns. Thermodynamics, woo. Unless hell is adiabatic. In which case I'm royally screwed. As is the first law.
Indeed. I applaud them for swiftly and appropriately handling the problem- to the point of taking the high-road for a change and offering the changed source code up instead of simply pulling it all out.
It doesn't make up for what they've done over the years (and apparently still doing...sadly...) but it's a good start in the right direction.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.