Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Acknowledges Theft of Code From Plurk
adeelarshad82 writes with news that Microsoft has acknowledged and taken responsibility for the theft of code belonging to Plurk.com, although the company also said it was the work of a Chinese vendor. Yesterday we discussed Plurk's blog post accusing Microsoft of copying their UI and code for Microsoft's Chinese microblogging site, Juku. Microsoft has now taken the site down and indefinitely suspended Juku's beta.
I've said it several times before, and I'll say it again: dealing with Chinese vendors sucks. You never know if the code is original or not.
At this point, when I run into Chinese code when working with whatever client, I assume it's been copied from somewhere. Often I recognise it as such (Busybox, various http servers, etc.) When confronted, they either deny it, or simply wonder what the problem is - it's "freeware", after all, particularly after stripping off that pesky GPL at the top of each file.
I guess that would make Apple the "Queen" of software development?
Because I'm easy come, easy go
Little high, little low,
any way the winblows.
Clearly they have to give it back.
Deleted
So it turns out Chinese steal and pilfer IP from themselves as well. Not just the big US Corporations.
Anyone who doesn't truely understand how this isnt MSFT's fault hasn't worked in Corporate IT for long enough.
I hope the Project Managers and Developers are dealt with swiftly, but "Microsoft steals code"... I don't think so. I think you will find the real Developers in MSFT are offended that they are brought down by an under-evaluated project (why else would it be pawned off to China) run by a hand full of incompetent and unethical people.
And what's wrong with code sharing and code reusing?
Any place that aspires to be First World needs the Rule Of Law. Licenses, and following them, are part of that law. The GPL, LGPL, BSD, Apache, MIT/X, etc, etc are Free licenses which encourage code sharing and reusing. Closed licensing does not, but to stay civilized, we must respect -- even if we do not agree with -- those who choose to keep their source closed.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Companies need to be held responsible for overseeing what their contractors are doing. Blaming the contractor != taking responsibility.
They (MSN China) acted in good faith by immediately pulling down the site.
What part of "We apologize to Plurk and we will be reaching out to them directly to explain what happened and the steps we have taken to resolve the situation. In the wake of this incident, Microsoft and our MSN China joint venture will be taking a look at our practices around applications code provided by third-party vendors" don't you understand?
As much as I dislike MSFT, I can't blame them for their reaction to this minor scandal. Though I would blame them for, in the future, again using that contractor...
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
How about everything? If I don't' want to share my code what gives you the right to take it without my consent? I find it hard to believe that there are people out there that would promote the theft of the work of others and try to imply some sort of nobility about the act, as if by not sharing you are somehow a lesser person.
I'd suggest that by not doing your own work, yourself, and expecting others to provide it that YOU are the lesser person not the originator.
The analogy fails in several ways.
First: Your house usually contains private stuff. Going to someone's house is more like breaking into his computer.
Second: If you take something away, it's not there any more.
And the argument that some people do something for a living doesn't tell you anything about if that should be legal. In the times of slavery, some people were trading slaves for a living. Professional killers kill for a living. By your logic, slavery and killing should be legal.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.