Microsoft Finally Open Sources Windows 7 Tool

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.)"

Comments

Good.

[dsavi]

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

Re:Good.

[Akido37]

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.

Re:Good.

[nacturation]

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.

Re:Good.

[canajin56]

What legal principle allows a judge to void somebody's copyright because he doesn't like the terms of their license? If Microsoft successfully argued that they used GPL code because they thought the license was invalid, they just successfully argued that they committed willful copyright infringement by using code they, in good faith, believed they did not have a license to use.

Re:Good.

[dsavi]

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.

Re:Good.

[sunderland56]

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.

Re:Good.

[quadrox]

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.

Re:Good.

[egarland]

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.

Re:Good.

[jonbryce]

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.

Re:PROOF!

[dsavi]

As someone mentioned in the original story, Microsoft does not write all of its code itself but sometimes hires other companies to write a specific tool for them. Such was the case here. As for it taking a week, I think that's a pretty short period of time for something to take in a bureaucracy.

For a company

[Dartz-IRL]

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.

Re:PROOF!

[Saint Stephen]

I've seen some of the Windows Source code when I worked there. Trust me, it's WAY more professional than the Linux source code.

Microsoft's problem with code quality isn't the engineers - they're the same as everywhere else. In Windows 2000, they set out to eliminate BSOD, and they mostly did. In XP SP2, they set out to make it secure, and it's better.

The problem is no one asks them to do the right things.

Anyway, trust me - it's very professional, clean code, nice design, and not filled with hacks like the Big Global Lock that used to be in the Linux kernel.

The bigger news here

[onyxruby]

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.

/. Bias

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Misleading

[Arthur Grumbine]

Other reasons to stop calling it the "Windows 7 Tool" include the similarity between:
"Microsoft Finally Open Sources Windows 7 Tool" and
"Microsoft Finally Open Sources Windows 7 Too!"

I spent the first 30 seconds in shocked disbelief as I tried to remember anything else they've open sourced.

Re:PROOF!

[Dionysus]

When did the linux kernel deprecate it? Like a decade ago?

Depends on your definition of "deprecate" and "decade". As late as last year (2008), the kernel people were still working on removing it.