Those sorts of programs are "derived" in the GPL sense from Microsoft code
When you say "derived in the GPL sense" you don't know what you're talking about.
There is no "derived in the GPL sense". A "derived work" is a legal construct taken
from ordinary copyright law. The GPL in no way introduces its own definition
of "derived", nor does it modify the existing definition of "derived".
The owner of a copyrighted work has the sole right to prepare derived
works based on the copyrighted work. The license does not need to state this. This right is given by ordinary copyright law, and remains in place
unless the license specifically allows others
to prepare derived works.
But Microsoft's code is under a redistributable licence, and the relationship between their code and your code is clearly spelled out in that licence.
I have the license right in front of me. It's a ghastly hornet's nest of legalese,
and it does sort of suggest that you have the rights to your own code, but it says nothing
specifically mentioning header files. (Compare to the
LGPL, which
specifically mentions that including header files from
a LGPL'd library does not infect your code.)
Now am I suggesting that Microsoft has a secret plan to launch a massive lawsuit against
all developers who have ever used Visual C++
to create a program that uses one or more header files, claiming ownership of their code, in an
attempt to completely take over the world?
Of course not. But, otherwise sane and rational people are willing to make the similar
claims for Richard Stallman and the GNU
project, even though their licenses are clearer and less ambiguous than Microsoft's.
In fact, when the GNU project attempts to
clarify and assert your rights by removing even the slightest ambiguity in one
of their licenses
(such as clarifying the role of header files in the LGPL, or
making a special modification for the license of Bison), this is twisted, in the finest
Orwellian fashion, into proof that Stallman must have been scheming to take over your
code all along.
If you were to look at the first paragraph
of the GNU Free Documentation License you would see that it is designed to forbid plagiarism:
The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other written document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License
preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others. [emphasis mine]
There's a lot of information
on Stallman's philosophy at www.gnu.org. Take a few hours and read it some day. You will not agree with all of it, but at least you will understand his position more clearly.
it is possible that the program will inject portions of itself into the output
If you look in a Visual C++ header file, you will see something like this:
Copyright (c) 19xx-19xx, Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
People love bringing up the Bison example to demonstrate that GPL code poses some sort of secret threat to take over everyone else's code.
Yet people include header files in their C++ programs without worrying that their code will become a derived work of Microsoft's.
Why is GNU held up to a higher standard than Microsoft?
When I write something good, you know what I do with it? I give it away - with no license attached, period. Anyone can take and it and the source and do anything they want at all, with no restrictions or even mention of restrictions, period.
This may be somewhat risky because you are potentially leaving yourself open to lawsuits.
Of course, you don't have to use the GPL, but it is better to use some sort of license which disclaims all warranty to be on the safe side (e.g., like the Apache or X11 licenses).
There was a discussion of this on an apache mailing list
a little while ago.
This describes what Microsoft USED to do. Microsoft no longer restricts it to their biggest companies (or universities, which for a long time have had access, which noone here seems to realize), but instead allows anyone to look at WinCE code.
"Shared source" refers to many different licensing models. Some, like the one used for WinCE, allow all developers to look at the code. Others involve releasing code to a few companies or universities, who must of course agree not to disclose the code to anyone else.
Does anybody remember a few months ago when everybody around
Slashdot was feeling sorry for themselves because it seemed
that Open Source software was getting hard hit by security
problems?
sourceforge.com was hacked
themes.org was hacked
apache.org was hacked
the ramen worm
the lion worm
the knark rootkit
Things were so bad that Microsoft felt cocky enough to make
claim that open source software has
"inherent security risks".
Well, you can quite rightly laugh at Mundie now for his audacity, but it's ridiculous to
start calling for lawsuits against software makers. Do you really believe there
is never going to be another exploit targeting open source software? Do you
want the creators of that open source software to be sued too when that happens?
Microsoft is a big company, and it can afford lawsuits like that. But if, say,
the creators of BIND were sued for an exploit, that would probably be the end
of BIND. And it's unlikely anyone would be eager to write an open source replacement, with
the threat of lawsuits looming over any potential
open source project.
That was a brilliant troll. An indefensible argument, potential for an O/S flame war, spelling errors, extraneous HTML tags, and a few factual errors thrown in for good measure. Well done.
Slashdot Mirror
When you say "derived in the GPL sense" you don't know what you're talking about. There is no "derived in the GPL sense". A "derived work" is a legal construct taken from ordinary copyright law. The GPL in no way introduces its own definition of "derived", nor does it modify the existing definition of "derived".
The owner of a copyrighted work has the sole right to prepare derived works based on the copyrighted work. The license does not need to state this. This right is given by ordinary copyright law, and remains in place unless the license specifically allows others to prepare derived works.
But Microsoft's code is under a redistributable licence, and the relationship between their code and your code is clearly spelled out in that licence.
I have the license right in front of me. It's a ghastly hornet's nest of legalese, and it does sort of suggest that you have the rights to your own code, but it says nothing specifically mentioning header files. (Compare to the LGPL, which specifically mentions that including header files from a LGPL'd library does not infect your code.)
Now am I suggesting that Microsoft has a secret plan to launch a massive lawsuit against all developers who have ever used Visual C++ to create a program that uses one or more header files, claiming ownership of their code, in an attempt to completely take over the world? Of course not. But, otherwise sane and rational people are willing to make the similar claims for Richard Stallman and the GNU project, even though their licenses are clearer and less ambiguous than Microsoft's. In fact, when the GNU project attempts to clarify and assert your rights by removing even the slightest ambiguity in one of their licenses (such as clarifying the role of header files in the LGPL, or making a special modification for the license of Bison), this is twisted, in the finest Orwellian fashion, into proof that Stallman must have been scheming to take over your code all along.
There's a lot of information on Stallman's philosophy at www.gnu.org. Take a few hours and read it some day. You will not agree with all of it, but at least you will understand his position more clearly.
If you look in a Visual C++ header file, you will see something like this:
People love bringing up the Bison example to demonstrate that GPL code poses some sort of secret threat to take over everyone else's code. Yet people include header files in their C++ programs without worrying that their code will become a derived work of Microsoft's.Why is GNU held up to a higher standard than Microsoft?
This may be somewhat risky because you are potentially leaving yourself open to lawsuits. Of course, you don't have to use the GPL, but it is better to use some sort of license which disclaims all warranty to be on the safe side (e.g., like the Apache or X11 licenses).
There was a discussion of this on an apache mailing list a little while ago.
"Shared source" refers to many different licensing models. Some, like the one used for WinCE, allow all developers to look at the code. Others involve releasing code to a few companies or universities, who must of course agree not to disclose the code to anyone else.
See Microsoft's own page for details.
Like with Napster...
Right. When you pirate MP3s, you're downloading communism.
- sourceforge.com was hacked
- themes.org was hacked
- apache.org was hacked
- the ramen worm
- the lion worm
- the knark rootkit
Things were so bad that Microsoft felt cocky enough to make claim that open source software has "inherent security risks".Well, you can quite rightly laugh at Mundie now for his audacity, but it's ridiculous to start calling for lawsuits against software makers. Do you really believe there is never going to be another exploit targeting open source software? Do you want the creators of that open source software to be sued too when that happens?
Microsoft is a big company, and it can afford lawsuits like that. But if, say, the creators of BIND were sued for an exploit, that would probably be the end of BIND. And it's unlikely anyone would be eager to write an open source replacement, with the threat of lawsuits looming over any potential open source project.
That was a brilliant troll. An indefensible argument, potential for an O/S flame war, spelling errors, extraneous HTML tags, and a few factual errors thrown in for good measure. Well done.