Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Finally Open Sources Windows 7 Tool

Posted by timothy on from the right-generous dept.

Jan writes "Microsoft has open sourced the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool by releasing it under the GPLv2 license. The code is now available on CodePlex, Microsoft's Open Source software project hosting repository, over at wudt.codeplex.com. The actual installer for the tool is now again available for download at the Microsoft Store (2.59MB). (Microsoft previously took responsiblity for the violation.)"

16 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. Good. by dsavi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's good that Microsoft took responsibility for this, kudos to them.

    1. Re:Good. by Akido37 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I suppose it's a testament to the strength of the GPL in the court system. If Microsoft thought for a minute that the courts wouldn't uphold the GPL, they wouldn't have bothered to open source anything.

    2. Re:Good. by nametaken · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is good, but I'm uncomfortable with how this whole thing unfolded. It reads like, "Woot... caught em! Engage the GPL virus! F-U Microsoft!" As if a battle was won and they're over there shaking their heads about having lost something.

      Open Source is not supposed to be a punishment you get slapped with. It's about availability, encouraging development and creating better software. Let's not jeer too much, eh?

    3. Re:Good. by nacturation · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because heaven forbid the alternative: that they were informed they did something wrong and then voluntarily did the right thing, regardless of how enforceable the license is.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    4. Re:Good. by dsavi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure that it unfolded like that, unless you're talking about the comments on Slashdot. You would think that most people here would have grown out of the "M$" phase.

    5. Re:Good. by sunderland56 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Or the other alternative: the marketing department decided that releasing this trivial small amount of code would make Microsoft look better to the open source community, whereas fighting the matter in court would make them look bad.

    6. Re:Good. by quadrox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, it would really be nice if that were the case.

      I have long held a more or less neutral opinion on Microsoft for a very long time, until they pulled all those OOXML stunts. Since then I have become aware of more and more of their evil scheming to ruthlessly achieve their goals that I simply cannot believe in a good Microsoft any longer. I'm not even out there looking for stuff about Microsoft, I just happen upon it from time to time and each time my opinion is confirmed more and more.

      There may well be individuals in Microsoft who want to do the right thing - sadly none of them seem to be able to exert any power whatsoever. And while you might argue with me that this incident proves me wrong, from past experience I must still believe it more likely that Microsoft is acting out of pure self-interest.

      Microsoft needs to be boycotted at all costs. This company can not be allowed to continue to exist while one evil scheme after another is revealed with nobody doing anything about it.

    7. Re:Good. by egarland · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is not simply a company furthering it's own agenda and competing as companies do. They intentionally break the rules and systematically use anti-competitive, sneaky, underhanded and illegal activity to further their agenda. Most people have to work with Microsoft in some way to get our jobs done but that doesn't mean we have to pretend they aren't evil.

      --
      set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
    8. Re:Good. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First of all, yes, a company is an emerging conscious. That's the reason why we have the entire body of corporate law in the first place. If you don't believe me, ask a lawyer who specializes in corporate law. Anyway, you don't really believe that Microsoft isn't a conscious entity yourself, since you've said that Microsoft has been witnessed 'making money" and "further it's [own] agenda". You can't your cake and eat it, too.

      I'm all for capitalism. After all, I'm an anarcho-capitalist. There is nothing wrong with the pursuit of capitalism, as long as everyone is playing by the rules.

      The problem is that Microsoft has a history of not playing by rules, and, in fact, deliberately ignoring them.

      The GPL is a permission to make and distribute copies of modified or unmodified code. If you use GPL'd code in a program you wrote, you gotta play by GPL's rules, which says that if you use the code in your program, you gotta GPL your program. If you don't agree, then you have no permission at all to make copies and you have just committed copyright infringement.

      We have no reason to believe that Microsoft is being honest of their own accord here because their track record speaks for itself. If what Microsoft did to the ISO committees on OOXML and ODF isn't illegal, it's downright dishonest and unethical.

      Without ethics, our society will devolve into chaos. Your choice: you can support an unethical company or not. But if you choose to act ethically for yourself, then why would you demand any less from the people you do business with?

      --
      My blog
    9. Re:Good. by jonbryce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Their legal department would have told them that they could either release the code or agree a compensation settlement with the copyright holder. Download managers are not core technology for Microsoft and there is nothing to be lost from releasing the code, so they did that.

  2. For a company by Dartz-IRL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For a company that believes so strongly in the inviolability of Software licensing, it's nice to see them practice what they preach when it comes to the rights of others. Fair play to Microsoft for meeting it's requirements, and score one for the GPL and Open Source.

    --
    So there I was, scribbling down some notes off the PC screen by hand, when I reached for the keyboard and Ctrl-S'd.
  3. Re:PROOF! by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You apparently have never worked in a large company before. There were probably 27 meetings before someone high enough up the food chain stuck their neck out to say "ok". We're talking about opensourcing code from a company that generally doesn't do it. Legal was involved, top executives were involved, someone had to talk to PR about spinning a press release, etc etc. This isn't like some dev got emailed and said, "Shit! I better get that posted right away!"

  4. The bigger news here by onyxruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The bigger news is not that Microsoft open sourced the tool after their GPL violation (that was inevitable). The news here is that Microsoft kept the open source tool instead of replacing it with one of their own. Microsoft has open sourced portions of their code before, that really isn't newsworthy. Keeping an open source tool that will be used to deploy their crown jewel operating system by millions of people - that's newsworthy.

  5. Finally? by Rix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's been, what, a month since they were informed of the lapse, and less than that since they acknowledged the error?

    Show a reasonable amount of patience.

  6. /. Bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't help but notice the "finally" in the title.
    Really slashdot, can't you post any MS related story without personal bias?

  7. Re:PROOF! by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This third party code would have been produced under contract as "work for hire". Presumably, the contract stated that the third party had to assign all rights to the code to Microsoft, like any other work for hire, and that the end product must be wholly assignable.

    Most likely, the third party actually violated their contract with Microsoft by creating a work that uses GPLed code.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.