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!
Microsoft 7 legally contains GPL code.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
I have to say, my opinion of MS gets better everyday...
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.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
Hey folks, did you see that pig fly?? It was quite impressive. So fat, and trumped. Never thought it would get off the ground... But there it went...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
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 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.
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.
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!
While it's post-hoc, it looks like quiet, no-fuss GPL compliance.
I'm good with it as long as they don't keep it up with the post-hoc part.
Same reasoning as Vista. Release a bad OS, so the next one looks WAY better.
If you set your expectations low, you can't possibly be disappointed.
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.
Wha wha what just happened?
Someone hold me, I'm scared.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
If I recall correctly, MS at one point tried to say that, if something like this happened, you'd have to release all your source code. Now we find that MS knows that you only have to release the source code of the program in question. Big difference. (Of course, if this was in Windows itself, the difference would not matter much to MS...)
...2012 is almost upon us. Microsoft open sources code including GPL code that they had not noticed was included. Slashdotters praise Microsoft for correct response.
And now for the Four Horsemen....
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
The main tool out there to do that is from Black Duck, and it's an unmitigated piece of trash that is designed for the sole purpose of scamming stupid CTOs and CEOs.
Their piece of crap database isn't even audited, so it attributes tons of code to people who stole it themselves and lists it under the wrong license. Then, if that wasn't enough, it produces so many false positives that anybody tasked with running it sets it up just enough to appease their incompetent boss while routing the results directly to /dev/null.
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.
a USB/DVD burning tool could hardly be analogized to an accelerator system in a car.
It'd be more equivalent to... I don't know ... a cigarette lighter or something. This is just a utility that MS released to help people be able to burn a Windows 7 iso onto USB/DVD. Especially for use in netbooks and the like, I suppose.
How did they miss that?
They used Bing to search for the code, and when it found nothing they assumed the code was original.
If you really like to evangelize in this fashion you should know a far more effective use of your time would be to be playing Quake Live using Iceweasel on Debian right now so that ID will consider porting Rage to Linux when it comes out.
"I'm going to take back some of the things I've said about you, Microsoft. You--you've earned it."
Depending on how much of their business depended on contracts from Microsoft, they may not have an HQ anymore.
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
Actually, yes you can do that. My roommate did that, and they shut off my internet access. Once he removed it from his machine they turned it back on. No fines or punishment whatsoever other than the phone call to get access turned back on.
I don't buy that excuse. I write code. I don't have to understand the intricate licensing law to know when I've included code that I didn't write. It doesn't take a genius level IQ to know that when I do that (use code I didn't write) I need to tell the person who hired me to write code. Once that happens, it is the responsibility of a manager to find out the licensing issues.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
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.
If they didn't release the code then I'd say that a good old fashioned crucifixion would be in order but as it is, there's no real reason to hit them any more. The code is free like it should have been and that's that.
In so far as a double standard, I think it would be far more sensible to advocate for sane copyright reform rather than resorting to the same tactics the RIAA and MPAA use.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
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.
The main reason (as I understand it) that Mayan code never really caught on is because it regularly sacrifices files based around SUN java and mayaSQL code.
Respect the Constitution
Sadly that is relevant and not enough attention is paid to that problem.
The abridged version is that MS did promise not to sue mono over any patents it owns SO LONG AS IT OWNS THEM. MS can sell those patents to a patent troll voiding the promise.
People have asked for actual licenses but MS and its apologists always reply that the promise is sufficient and that MS does not intend to sell said patents, sure...
But... the future refused to change.
Burma Shave.
+1 Disagree
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...
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.
"have agreed to release the tool's source code under the terms of GPLv2."
Anyone know where I can buy some new eyes? Mine just exploded.
The New Age spiritually aware around the world are running up against the end of the Mayan Long Count Calendar. Mayan date 12.19.19.17.19 will occur on December 20, 2012, followed by the start of the fourteenth cycle, 13.0.0.0.0, on December 21st.
The event was first flagged by megalith scientist Terence McKenna. The end of the thirteenth cycle would break many megalith calculations — which conventionally use only the last four numbers to save on standing stones — with fears of spiritual collapse, disruption of ley lines, Ben Goldacre driving the chiropractors back into the sea and the return of the great god Quetzalcoatl and the consequent destruction of all life on earth.
Megalith programmers from 4000 years ago are being dredged up from peat bogs and pressed into service to get the henges updated to handle the turnover in the date. “It could be worse,” said one. “I could still be programming COBOL.”
Sceptics may choose the Winter Solstice on December 22nd (13.0.0.0.1) to attack, to take advantage of weakened qi. In case vital services are temporarily cut off, spiritually aware persons should stock up on crystals, copies of Sun Signs, a duly blessed tarot deck and other essentials. “They should get as well a suitable selection of blessed Hopi ear candles,” said Y2012 consultant Ravenwoo Granola, DD, 31, Ph.D (Univ. P.T. Barnum Mail-Order), “unicorn posters, holistic medicines, Silver RavenWolf books, purple clothing, protective pentacles — earrings for the ladies, pendants for the gents — make sure the house is absolutely robust in feng shui, your energetic vibrations are aligned and your Eostre rituals are up to date and keep only homeopathic quantities of money around. I’ll be happy to take on the danger of handling the rest. Here’s a price list. Everyfink for the spiritual survivalist.”
Others dismiss the problem. Sandra Noble of the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies considers the Y2012 problem “a complete fabrication and a chance for a lot of people to cash in.” However, Y2012 consultants deride “2012-deniers” for having their heads in the sand as to the vast and overwhelming spiritual importance to humanity of keeping their consultancies rolling.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Actually, your ISP shut off access.
Your ISP got a letter from RIAA or MPAA asking that they tell you to stop it, or turn over your name and address. Your ISP, knowing that BitTorrent also takes a lot of bandwidth anyway, shut you down temporarily and (though they don't honestly care) asked you to delete the file and (they do care about this) never run BitTorrent again. You complied, so MPAA/RIAA and your ISP both win.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Well, if Hell really is freezing over, does that mean Global Warming is a hoax?
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Yes, I cant tell that the MS ninja assassin squad has been dispatched already. I just heard them running over our building's roof. I know they are the MS ninjas because they are the only ninjas in Redmond that wear giant clown shoes.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Except the whole point of the GPL is to make source open, not to bring in cash. Usually, people in favor of the GPL prefer having the source code and settle on that than settling on money. As someone mentionned already, if you start sueing people who use the GPL by accident, and ask for money instead of source code, you'll just prove that people who called the GPL a "virus" were right.
This is just a utility that MS released to help people be able to burn a Windows 7 iso onto USB/DVD.
From the Annals of Just Another Utility ...
By the time you add the 1001 "tools" that Microsoft offers (tools tucked away on an installation CD, in the various Resource Kits, the Sysinternals collection, etc.), and then add any number of "must have" third-party tools just so you can have a system that does more than open a file or web browser, you might as well have installed Linux distro or FreeBSD and had both your tools and package management all taken care of for you. Hell, the only thing missing would be a mint on your pillow!
Oooh, is that an installer? I wonder if I'll get any choices as to what happens when I run it, whether the un-installer works, or I get a systray icon. Maybe it's a self-extracting executable? Don't like those. Last time, it dumped all sorts of shit somewhere on my C: drive. Never know whether I should save it, or all the shit it created in a folder with a different name. I know! It's a standalone program. My friend told me just to run it, so let's see what happens ... Wait. Lemme go check the wepage again. Now where did I store that URL ...
Sigh. Lather, rinse and repeat.
People always complain about Windows programs not being available on Linux. I have the complete opposite opinion. Of all the tools and programs I take for granted on a *nix system, few are available for Windows (modulo a 500MB Cygwin installation), and what does exist, typically sucks.
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.
so you expect us to install your operating system in computers in corporate environments, government offices, whereas you contracted stuff out to third parties.
just exemplary.
Read radical news here
Well, they should have. It's a generally very bad idea to release software containing somebody else's code without permission.
Try to pull that off with MS code and see how well that goes.
No, it's very much copyright stuff. GPL infringement is copyright infringement, since the GPL is what gives you the right to distribute the software. Remove the GPL by claiming it doesn't apply or infriging on it, and what you have left is plain copyright.
This was MS' own choice. They could have reached a different solution with the copyright holder. They could have went to court and ended up paying damages, or the copyright holder could have agreed to license it under different terms for money, or lifetime free MS software or whatever. The copyright holder and MS can reach pretty much any agreement, it doesn't necessarily have to involve releasing the source.
Though releasing the source does fix things for sure with no need to negotiate.
GPL != BSD. The GPL very much relies on copyright, and GPL licensed code is just as copyrighted as the Windows one.
People releasing code under the GPL generally do expect it to be respected, and would prefer other not to use it to infringing on it. Just like most companies would rather you not use their software at all than pirate it.
"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. "
We are talking about Microsoft here. 'Nuff said.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
It's twitter, but he got so tired of being -1 that he's stopped bothering logging in to any of his sockpuppets. It's... truly amazing.
and 'Microsoft did that', I think some people forget how big the company is. Yes, the top brass are ultimately and formally responsible for everything the company does, and they set the tone. But its not like its possible for everything that any peon decides to do can get reviewed by a single central authority. This applies, for example, to stupid patents.
The same principle applies to stupid things done by any national government.
Where are my mod points Slashdot? Where are they?
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
I had no idea people whose Slashdot ID numbers ended in 5 engaged in gross logical fallacy by generalizing the actions of a single member of a group to the entirety of a group without the slightest reasonable basis for doing so. And yes, breaking news, stop the presses, people who use the GPL for their code have a problem with you taking it and incorporating it into yours and closing it up. If they didn't they'd be using the BSD license or something like that and not the GPL. That is the whole point.
The GPL is a copyright license. It gets all of its force from copyright law. Gee, I wonder why people would be talking about copyright when it's a GPL violation?
I've done my share of expert witness work (usually on the security side) so no, not surprised. But usually pleading ignorance doesn't necessarily mean there was actual ignorance.
A programmer knows when he didn't write the code.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
That's all that need be said. Microsoft realised it was in the wrong, and took steps to correct it. They didn't stonewall, they didn't hide. I must admit to being pleasantly surprised. Microsoft themselves place great importance on respecting software licenses/copyright, and it's nice to see them practice when it comes to other people's copyrights.
So there I was, scribbling down some notes off the PC screen by hand, when I reached for the keyboard and Ctrl-S'd.
Oh...this isn't "cold day in Hell" type stuff...
If you saw them openly killing Windows and framing in a commercialized version of their own version of WINE sitting atop, say Ubuntu or Fedora/Red Hat... THEN there'd be orders placed for snowplows and thermal underwear to end all orders for it.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
People always complain about Windows programs not being available on Linux. I have the complete opposite opinion. Of all the tools and programs I take for granted on a *nix system, few are available for Windows (modulo a 500MB Cygwin installation), and what does exist, typically sucks.
Wow, different OSes work well for different people in different situations. Who'd have thunk it?
(Sorry for the snark there.)
They were paid to deliver a program, not to write the entire thing from scratch.
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.
If anything, it was a violation of GPL not copyright stuff.
...
If they knowingly took GPL code, that's bad. I don't like "guilty until proven innocent" nor comparisons of copyright to GPL...
I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.
1. How do you not compare the GPL to copyright, when copyright law is the sole enforcement mechanism of the GPL?
2. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" with copyright. At best, there is "guilty unless you make a legally recognized affirmative defense."
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
So after reading many years' worth of Microsoft talking about how the GPL is the worst thing ever, I'll give them credit for dealing with this situation appropriately.
Granted, their risk profile of releasing the source for such utility is pretty minimal, but I'll give them credit for going the user-friendly route of complying with the GPL instead of trying to quash all distribution of the tool they were distributing.
It doesn't bring them up high on my measure of regard, but I'll give them the tip of the hat for aiming the right way on this one.
More to the point, as a software engineer, or code monkey, or code master, whatever, you should be well aware that if it's code you didn't write, don't use it until you're clear as to the ramifications.
I avoid using any example code I see unless I can understand it and there's a clear statement of "Hey, this is example code, by writing this tutorial, we kind of expect you'll be making a derivative of it."
Treating GPL-licensed code (or some open source license) under the same regard is poor thinking. Passing it off that some manager will catch it is worse.
That strikes a little too close to "Sure, I plagiarized my college essays, but I didn't get caught, so I must've done the right thing." Unfortunately, fair use has not been well-defined with source code (or, anything, really), so where you could poke a hole in that analogy with "But I made appropriate reference!" (i.e., telling the person that paid you to do the work), becomes very fuzzy, very fast.
OK, so before I get flamed, I'm not saying anything like Gates and Ballmer aren't building a DeathStar. I'm not saying anything like that but I've been running Vista 64 on an intel Core2 Quad with a so so vid card and a mere 4 gigs of ram hooked up to a ViewSonic 37" 720p and I'm not as deeply, bitterly disappointed in Vista as I initially was. I'm glad MS moved on and tried to bring out a better product in Win 7 but I think Vista was the result of a decision to effect major changes and get away from their bastard children that began with Windows 95. Win2K was a bit of a sweet spot but was more a product from the NT line so I think they had to make the decision to draw a line with Vista, and, many products and drivers couldn't feasibly make it across that line. To be a winner an OS needs good complimentary hardware and I don't think Vista, especially 64 had the peripherals on the shelf to help drive sales. Sure it boots glacially slow and if I overload it I still have to kill explorer.exe but overall Vista may turn out to be a good decision in terms of future products and it's not that bad. I recently, lazily dragged a ~52 gig, 3.5k files, folder from one partition on one drive into another folder on another partition and let it run while I watched a movie and hand a handful of other apps running and Vista chugged along without so much as a shrug, transfering the files in about 25 minutes. Not so bad. But, again, I know about the DeathStar and plans for Galactic domination, I've got extra pop and cookies in my mom's basement and I'm ready. :)
ideopath @ play
It's a generally very bad idea to release software containing somebody else's code without permission.
Try to pull that off with MS code and see how well that goes.
I think that it would happen exactly as it did in this case. If the copied code was something that MS does licence to other people then the first thing they would do would be to say "you are supposed to pay X for that code - pay up now or stop using it". If that doesn't work then Microsoft would take you to court.
That is exactly what happened in the TomTom case about FAT32. TomTom was given the option of paying the usual licence fee or to stop using FAT32 on flash cards.
I think that most companies would rather settle disputes this way, because when things go legal the only winners are the lawyers.
I don't think you can ask for more than this reaction. They certainly reacted more ethically than many, many GPL violators (Hi Linksys/Cisco!). So, good for them, and good for us. The responsible individuals should be fired, tarred and feathered-- but I can't believe that this was in line with corporate policy.
But it was also very much in their best interests. If they take on the GPL, what other licenses come into question? Their entire business is based on the copyright status quo. No need to rock that particular boat. They've already experimented with taking on free software via their proxy SCO, and lost. Doing so directly would entail high risk, small possibility of reward, terrible PR, alienating their customers, most of whom probably use GPL/Linux software as well as Microsofts-- and for what? Some trivial piece of code they intended to distribute for free anyway? Why on earth would they do that?
Hi,
In general terms I'm curious to learn a little more about this.
How long ago did you stop working for Microsoft? For how long were you working for that corporation? And in general terms why did you decide to stop working for Microsoft?
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.
Duh?
Obviously, Microsoft would no longer have control of the patents if they were sold. So I don't see why their statement is controversial on any way (instead of, you know, simply blindingly obvious.)
Comment of the year
Someone is wrong on the Internet!
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Wait... when has Microsoft sued people for downloading music or a movie?
OK, so before I get flamed, I'm not saying anything like Gates and Ballmer aren't building a DeathStar. I'm not saying anything like that but
You're just asking questions?
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.
....one giant leap for Microsoft towards the OpenWindows Initiative.
New Economic Perspectives
Since it's used to set up a USB flash drive, does the tool happen to contain code to read/write to a FAT filesystem? Would be interesting to see that particular arrow removed from their patent quiver...
Unless they did it intentionally, in which case they got to make an open-source app on Microsoft's dime.
I see a lot of kudos going to Microsoft for releasing the source.
That's pretty big of you, oh great Slashdot community, since they've basically done what any presumably expensive legal team would tell them, no?
But perhaps you haven't yet realized that the story of this incident will be long remembered... as it will be rehashed in 40 foot tall flaming allcaps in every MS FUD piece from now until eternity.
This is exactly the kind of 'submarine' GPL code incident that MS has been warning would come of GPL-like 'viral' license (those that require derivative works be made available under similar terms) ever since the time of the Halloween memos when they started to see Linux as a threat. I won't go so far as to suggest that MS manipulated their way into this situation (I see some ideas about the mechanics of that above) but in any case
Under v2 the remedy is asking for forgiveness. You can't distribute the code further unless the copyright holder forgives you. Since this can be very difficult in practice, it's a serious weakness of v2. In v3 the situation is improved. Since I think this code was under v2, hopefully it had the "or later version" clause still intact.
...it should be a Twinkie.
This sig left unintentionally blank.
I would be surprised if the set of people who really understand GPL and it's benefits has a significant intersect with the set of people who think it's just OK to copy anything anyhow.
But if you don't follow the GPL you are a horrible, horrible company, even worse than people that illegally download copyrighted materials.
Well, you are. Good code represents a much larger investment of time than music. By definition, you can only violate the GPL by distributing software without it's sources. I've got no problem with companies taking GPL code, making a derivative work, and using it in-house. Nothing compels them to release their changes back to the originating project, so they are not reciprocating, but the license allows this, and it's their right. Companies typically only start distributing software when they receive reciprocation from their customers in the form of money. At this point they are not just free-riding (which is what most "media pirates" are doing), they are actively engaged in profiting from the work of others, without living up to their side of the bargain. It's more like the guy who downloads DVD ISOs and sells burned copies in the local market, than the teenager who downloads tracks to fill his iPod.
Note that this is entirely permissible if they just offer to provide the sources under GPL - it doesn't prevent you charging whatever the hell you like, it only addresses availability of the sources.
Not just that, nobody believed the guy. Everyone joked about using same API calls etc.
I don't see them apologize now, as usual. It means even if you find about it, you may stay silent not to bother with these idiots and a giant software monopoly like MS.
I still have no clue why World's largest OS vendor can't write their own damn tool. It is not Photoshop for God's sake.
It takes 10 secs to explain a user what GPL is and even with that 10 sec knowledge, he can understand the real idea behind it to call it "absolutely utopic".
I am speaking about a "user" without no kind of developer background and does nothing technical except running Apple software update.
I don't buy a company which has reached to a level of doing business with MS for MS OS distribution doesn't know the implications of using GPL software. At least they could go for BSD licensed software which has a perfect example in commercial OS land, OS X.
too bad that the IP stack or Mosaic were not released under GPL by BSD and NCSA... could you imagine Microsoft publishing the whole Windows XP code... "Internet Explorer cannot be disabled because it's an integral part of the operating system..."
Can I put a spell on those who can't spell?
Your wheels are loose and they're losing their grip, good you're there.
In the offices of the Third Party, there is a buzz in the air:
"What do you mean, Microsoft is buying our company? Us?"
"What did we do to attract their attention?"
"This app that they've included from us was worthy, it seems."
"That's great! We can retire early!"
While in his quiet corner in his cubicle, Mr. CodeWarrior reading /. looks up and realizes what no one
else is:
"They're buying us so we can take the fall--we're the patsy!"
( cue ominous music as he spits out his coffee )
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
No, that was a patent case and not copyright infringement.
And what difference does that make to this conversation? The basic fundementals are the same.
More universities should include a course in IP law and open source licensing in their computer science programs. I know none of the programs I have looked at teach it. Perhaps at some of the better schools...
The author was entitled to compensation for the illegal distribution of his code
In terms of damages, right? Wouldn't it then be up to the court to decide (based on evidence of damages, or statutory damages) exactly what the original author is entitled to?
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.
Why does Microsoft have a choice here?
Couldn't the original author sue for damages and also demand that MS either removes the infringing code or becomes compliant with the GPL?
As far as I know, he could even choose to not offer the license again, completely forbidding MS from distributing the code and thus forcing them to remove said code.
As far as I understand these matters, the original author would have the option of not letting Microsoft just pay up and continue redistributing.
Can someone clarify?
Question: how can you tell GPL code is GPL code unless you know that it's GPL code?
Version 2 requires that GPL-covered code states clearly that it's covered by the GPL.
[Section 1] You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
Section 2, which covers modifying and then distributing, says "do Section 1 in this case too".
See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html for the full text.
Msft has openly declared war on foss, and has pulled numerous under-handed, maybe even downright illegal, stunts to kill off any foss competition. From bribing officials to get to OOXML passed as an open standard, to financing the scox scam, to rigging a patent lawsuit against redhat, and so much more.
If this was the first time that msft stepped out of line, I think people would find it a lot easier to forgive.
Any other company this would not be big news. However a company with a long history of copyright violations and other illegal practices doesn't get let off so easily. Much like any other habitual criminal, people remain suspicious for a long time and the criminal has to be whiter than white for a long time before that trust is earned again. It's not that hard to understand really.
Whoohoo! A win for open-source! Linux geeks everywhere can now recompile the source code for this tool on their favorite Linux distro, run it... and install Windows 7?
Sounds like a Pyrrhic victory to me...
Indeed - the point is that they've already committed copyright infringement, releasing source code after the fact is irrelevant. This is the equivalent to someone getting sued for filesharing, and then offering to pay for the CD they copied. Does that get them off the hook? Of course not.
So perhaps they should be sued for a few million dollars. Maybe they ought to be disconnected from the Internet too...
So because the software tool in question used SOME GPL code (as well as plenty of custom code written by Microsoft or its contractors).. MS is forced to release the ENTIRE SOURCE CODE for the software.
Does this not confirm Ballmer's statement from a few years back that the GPL was like cancer?
I am the maverick of Slashdot
It is what is expected from entities living in an organized society.
Nothing awesome about it.
I
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Hmm, if the third-party contractor basically plundered GPL code to fulfill a juicy contract with Microsoft, didn't they just bill for work they didn't do?
I mean, if putting together this USB/DVD tool consisted of laying down a foundation other programmers had already worked through, and just adding some custom bits here and there, then Microsoft might as well have done it in-house. 5 programmers, a project leader, 20% of their work week for 3 months. Ta-daa! Same result without paying inflated 'consultant' prices.
Anybody think this could be won in a small claims court?
If Microsoft had granted a proper patent license it would be binding on any future purchasers of the patents. (That's why sensible companies and standards bodies want real patent licenses for the stuff they're using.) However, they haven't, and therefore they can destroy Mono at any time by granting themselves and their customers real patent licenses and then selling a few of the patents to patent trolls.
You may recall they tried the same trick with a bundle of unrelated patents recently, but said patents unexpectedly ended up being resold to the Open Innovation Network.
Some companies have actually jumped onto this and have developed 'open source auditing software which looks for OSS sourcecode or installed software.
Take a look at the Silhouette Scanner page. I have no idea what it is like but it is quite shocking that it is being done. I imagine there is a market for this for large companies especially. If I was a large company and was outsourcing coding to other companies (or countries), I would want an automated tool to run back home to verify its integrity.
Although I imagine it can be abused equally. If you know what the open source product is and where it is, you could probably obfuscate it.
Found another one by OpenLogic but it does not sound automated.
Anybody know any others?
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
They would sue the person that said they had GPL code and try to patent it.