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."

Comments

Good on MS

[CokoBWare]

Awesome!

Re:Good on MS

[d34dluk3]

What is so awesome about MS staging a GPL violation that "forces" them to release the source code of their product? This will only feed the "GPL is cancer" mindset.

Obviously, they intentionally inserted GPL code so that they would be embarrassed, have to apologize, and release source code that they think is worth a lot of money! Wait, what?

Your post only gets more delusional from there.

Re:Good on MS

[ShaunC]

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.

Wait, what? The contract forbade the vendor from using stolen code, but didn't provide Microsoft any financial remedy when this behavior was discovered? Not only should you not have had to pay them to do the work again, the vendor should have made financial concessions.

What the hell was the legal team doing?

wow, the beginning of the end

[someone1234]

Microsoft 7 legally contains GPL code.

Re:wow, the beginning of the end

[amorsen]

If there is GPL code in Windows, the FSF would probably start a case that would be revolutionary in the computer world since it could mean opensourcing Windows.

No, let me repeat this once more.

The author was entitled to compensation for the illegal distribution of his code, and he could demand that Microsoft stopped distributing it. That's it. (Well, there are harsher penalties for copyright infringement, including jail time, but they wouldn't apply in this case.)

Microsoft instead CHOSE to accept the GPL license for that particular code (they obviously hadn't accepted the license before, since they weren't even aware that it applied). They are either using the GPLv3 infringement remediation clauses or just hoping that the author will reinstate their license. But that was a CHOICE they made. They could have just paid up and had someone replace the GPL code with proprietary code.

If it turned out that GPL code was spread throughout Windows (highly unlikely, I'd think), they would almost certainly prefer to pay up rather than make Windows Free Software.

Microsoft acting responsibly?

[cpicon92]

I have to say, my opinion of MS gets better everyday...

Re:Microsoft acting responsibly?

[Gusfm]

Nah, they are still the same.

Code Review

[Romancer]

IDEA:
When you're that big a company you should review all of your code as much as you think the patent office should review others patents.

Re:Code Review

[jim_v2000]

Question: how can you tell GPL code is GPL code unless you know that it's GPL code? My point is that code reviews are cool, but they cannot catch things that the reviewers don't know to look for. And it's impossible for anyone to be familiar with every piece of GPL'd code out there, and it's impossible to build a database of such code. The best way to handle it was the way that they handled it. Someone found the error, told MS, and MS became compliant by releasing the code.

Re:Code Review

[bitt3n]

IDEA: When you're that big a company you should review all of your code as much as you think the patent office should review others patents.

so I should just stamp 'REJECTED' on the first page and call it a day?

Re:Code Review

[Krishnoid]

And it's impossible for anyone to be familiar with every piece of GPL'd code out there, and it's impossible to build a database of such code.

Well, at least one company is trying to do just that, and to help companies avoid this very problem.

Give some credit

[onyxruby]

Give some credit, they did a code review, noticed the accusation was factual and did the right thing. As many times as microsoft has done the wrong thing, it's only right to credit them for doing the right thing this time.

The interesting question now is if they will retain this tool going forward, or replace it with another that is not GPL'd. It certainly sounds like an accident, so I am curious if good production code has any chance of trumping internal politics.

I was right for once

[khallow]

I predicted that they'd just need to make minor corrective action. Looks to me like that's exactly what happened. A replier to that post noted that as a prominent member of the Business Software Alliance, Microsoft would need to act above board and that this, if true, could be a serious problem. My take is that they just did that with this choice a mere week or so after the GPL code came to light.

So it appears to me that we're both right. Microsoft didn't need to fix much, but due to their leading position in an anti-piracy lobbying group, they needed to fix it quickly.

Re:a big round of thanks to that outside contracto

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell yeah!, what an awesome third party contractor.
Ripping off free software and selling it to corporations as non-free,
closed source software for profit, these fuckers deserve a medal!

Re:A setup?

[Anpheus]

Vista probably cost them billions of dollars in revenue because, had they released a sooner, higher quality OS as their schedule initially dictated, their sales wouldn't have suffered. Not only that, but they'd have had two additional OS releases before Windows 7, or a global recession hurting their first decent OS release in nearly a decade.

Though if you think Microsoft executives seriously looked around the table and laughed at how they fooled everyone releasing a crappy product, I don't know if anything will convince you that you're wrong.

Re:Oh, so it's ok then

[tonycheese]

If you make a few music/movie downloads and they catch you, the first thing they do is send a letter to your ISP giving a warning to you. So yes, you would just delete it and apologize.

And yes, like the other person said, Microsoft isn't going around suing people for downloading music, movies, or pirated copies of Windows.

Besides, there was a whole article a few days ago about how GPL violations happen very frequently and that politely pointing it out usually solves the problem. It was an accident, not an "accident", and it's been fixed so get over it.

Re:A setup?

[tonycheese]

I'm sorry but this is just incredibly stupid. Are you telling me they purposely put GPL code into their code with the express intent of being caught?! Or that they wasted I don't know how many billions of dollars and took bad PR on Vista so that they could wow the world with Windows 7?! Then we have the troll-moderators going down the list looking for anything anti-Microsoft in the discussion to mod up. Lovely, you guys really do a lot for Slashdot's continued reputation.

Re:Oh, so it's ok then

[CannonballHead]

What if it WAS a mistake? What if Microsoft didn't check the code/programmer claimed it wasn't GPL/whatever?

Because if it was a mistake, they appeared to have been doing the right thing. Furthermore, they weren't even selling this, nor was anyone else. If anything, it was a violation of GPL not copyright stuff.

I had no idea GPL people were so like the RIAA that they would want to "crucify" a company for possibly accidentally using (stealing? slashdot will call using GPL code against GPL license [and giving the result away for free]"stealing" but slashdot won't call downloading songs/movies stealing?) open source code without releasing the resulting open source. Sounds ... very progressive. Encourages people to use GPL. "Hey, use our free software and code! It's great! Use it however you want! But if you don't follow the GPL you are a horrible, horrible company, even worse than people that illegally download copyrighted materials."

I like open source and GPL and all that. I also enjoy MS products. And I don't like double standards. If they knowingly took GPL code, that's bad. I don't like "guilty until proven innocent" nor comparisons of copyright to GPL...

Re:Oh, so it's ok then

[Toonol]

What remedy does the GPL call for? As I understand it, it is to either release source or stop distributing. MS handled this error correctly. Calling for stronger sanctions would just drive more people away from GPL'd software.

I'm just curious...

[sphantom]

Why is Microsoft farming out the programming of a relatively simple tool when they have 10s of thousands of programmers and consultants on their payroll? Issues like this are exactly why you shouldn't outsource work when you already have employees that could do the job.

What you need to know...

[symbolset]

The reason why I am asking is so that I can get a feel for the validity of your statement about the coding culture amongst people working for Microsoft.

There are very few things you need to know here. Programmers for Microsoft:

1. Wanted to work for Microsoft
2. Convinced some people at Microsoft they would play along with their game
3. Survived the spinup to the Microsoft programming culture
4. Deliver the products you've come to expect

Whether your interest is as a prospective buyer of their output of a prospective employer of a former Microsoft programmer, the choice is clear. Microsoft carefully selects their programmers from the brightest and the best because they can. They filter for the folks who can coexist with them because they must. They drive them with the processes that they have. The programmers deliver what they can in this context and accept the limitations of the context as a condition of employment. Having survived this experience a programmer must necessarily have certain properties which, depending on your point of view, mark him "desirable" or "undesirable".