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."
Awesome!
I have to say, my opinion of MS gets better everyday...
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.
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.
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.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
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.
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?
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
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.
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:
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".
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?