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."
DUH! Easier to gain forgiveness than permission. We know Microsoft knows that well. There was always a chance nobody would notice. It makes me wonder how much other GPL code they've ripped off over the years without getting caught.
Yes. But you'd be shocked at the testimony I read, as an expert witness, from engineers and their managers. Incompetence is rampant. Unfortunately, the cases are settled and sealed, so I can't show you.
Bruce Perens.
It's the integrity of how they handled the situation... someone pointed out the possible GPL violation... they pull the tool and let everyone know they're looking into it... then they announce they've looked into it and as a result, they're going to release the source code in accordance with the GPL, something MS would rather not do, to honor the licence, and the community need for the tool.
Integrity = Awesome, in my humble opinion...
Well exactly. In this case Microsoft paid for what they believed was closed source code, it was a third party vendor that broke the GPL, but because Microsoft released the executable, well they're responsible.
Which raises a question - how do you check these things? If the vendor cut and pasted code in, and removed comments that identified its source and the source's licensing agreement how do you spot this? It's not feasible to download every single open source project and start a diff against every single file they contain, so how do you do it?