Microsoft's Code Contribution Due To GPL Violation 508
ozmanjusri writes "While Microsoft presented its recent embrace of the GPL as 'a break from the ordinary,' and the press spoke of them as going to great lengths to engage the open source community,' as is often the case with Microsoft, it turns out they had an ulterior motive. According to Stephen Hemminger, an engineer with Vyatta, Microsoft's Hyper-V used open-source components in a network driver and the company released the code to avoid legal action over a GPL violation. Microsoft's decision to embrace the GPL was welcomed by many in the open source community, but their failure to honestly explain the reason behind the release will have squandered this opportunity to build trust, something which is sadly lacking in most people's dealings with Microsoft."
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Informative)
They were caught and asked to turn it over to open source. Someone pointed out that the drivers mixed GPL and closed-source code and that they would have to release the closed-source components.
Re:sooo... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Vital information not given (Score:2, Informative)
Answers:
Q: Which exact binaries, which GPL'ed code?
A: They previously released kernel modules that were half and half. Half GPL'd Microsoft code, half binary blob.
Q:Was the discovery of GPL'ed code made before or after MS released the code?
A: Before. They were approached silently and with out fan fare by Novell and correct the situation by releasing all of the code for the driver.
Q:Was the GPL'ed code able to be licensed through other means?
A:Well, you only have so many choices when you write a driver for Linux. I'm sure they could have argued like others have that their driver was not a derivative work of Linux, and just submitted a binary blob. The fact that they tried to have it both ways indicates that they didn't think this was the case.
Q:Is there a possibility they decided to make this GPL'ed code a while ago and decided to link to other GPL'ed code because of this?
A: Probably not. The driver was all their code, they specifically chose to put the GPL on only part of it.
Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes. (Score:3, Informative)
This is why the Free Software Foundation requires copyright assignment for all GNU projects. If GNU code is incorporated into a proprietary project then they have both the standing and the means to sue.
Of course, they also grant the original author a non-exclusive, transferable, license to do whatever they want with the code, and I make any contributions I've made to GNU projects available under the MIT license too, so it's not always clear-cut as to whether something is really copied from a [L]GPL'd source...
Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes. (Score:3, Informative)
...Sued by who? You see, the main problem with open source and people suing over the GPL is because a lot of the things that are GPL'd come from people like you and me. I know for a fact that if my code was taken by MS or any other large company the most I could probably do is write them a stern letter.
You have more options than that. The FSF will in many cases step in to help, with their resources. You may want to consider assigning your copyrights to the FSF so that they have legal standing to intervene directly. They won't always be interested in helping, because their resources are limited, but I guarantee that if a high-profile company like MS was violating the GPL, they'd be all over it.
Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:sooo... (Score:4, Informative)
Copyright isn't viral. If you integrate your code and someone else's code (to which you do not have a license), there's nothing viral about that. You simply violated copyright and neither party has rights to the combined code.
The GPL is viral, but that's ok. It's meant to be. The only problem is that the word "viral" has a negative connotation. That doesn't change the fact that the description is perfectly apt.
Re:sooo... (Score:2, Informative)
Copyright isn't viral. The GPL is.
Re:sooo... (Score:3, Informative)
If you do that, it's quite possible you'll end up violating a license or two, yes.
Take a good look at the .ocx and .net libraries you have on your system. It's almost certain that at least a couple of those come from some program that you installed, and that can be only redistributed by the licensee, or require paying royalties.
So yeah, if you link against those, and the company that makes them finds out, you may end up in a lot of legal trouble.
For instance, the Second Life client comes with the Kakadu JPEG 2000 image library. But just because you downloaded SL for free, and that put the kakadu DLL on your system, doesn't mean you can take that library, make an application that uses it and redistribute it. See the license [kakadusoftware.com]. Linden Labs has paid for Kakadu, but that license isn't transferrable, so it doesn't give you the right to use it.
You really have it good with the GPL, because releasing the source works for fixing the problem. Infringe on Microsoft's copyright and it's very doubtful you'll get away so cheaply. Most likely MS will get an injuction against you, and you'll have to pull your product from sale until the case is decided.
Re:sooo... (Score:3, Informative)
They were in violation of the GPL, when they realised it they had a few options. Among those options were come into compliance, contact the copyright owner and try to make a deal or try to cover it up. Of those three options they chose the more ethical in my opinion.
Option 4 would have been to remove the GPL code from their product and write their own. That would have been an ethical choice too.
Just pointing that out, since it's always an option and the main reason the GPL isn't "viral". A virus is something you can't just decide to remove. Nobody will ever be forced to GPL their own code.
Re:sooo... (Score:3, Informative)
No, and if you use GCC and related tools and link statically against every possible GPL license, your code does not become the property of the FSF.
However, redistribution of "your" code that incorporates the MS-licensed code is subject to the licenses on those libraries, just as code the incorporates the GPL-licensed code is subject to that license. Naturally, the restrictions those licenses place on you in terms of what you can (or must) allow (or prohibit) downstream users from doing with the code are different, reflecting the different interests of Microsoft and the FSF.
Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes. (Score:3, Informative)
You don't understand the legal system. If Microsoft wrongfully damaged a programmer by using his copyrighted code without permission and then made a lot of money from the use of that code, then the programmer holds a "chose in action." In other words, the programmer owns something--the right to sue.
That right can be assigned to others (the FSF, for example), who can sue to make them stop and/or to open their code. That right to so can, if it's got great winning potential, also be collateral for a loan.
Moreover, lawyers are drawn to lawsuits like ants are drawn to honey. They've got this thing called the "contingent fee," where they take a cut of the recovery (typically 25 to 33 percent).
It's a major Slashdot misconception that the little programmer cannot afford to sue the big company. If you've got damages (the right to recover lots of money), then you've got a case and you can get a lawyer. If you've got no damages, then you're just whining and should retire to your programming cave.
Re:sooo... (Score:3, Informative)
The use of the term viral to describe the GPL is meant to attribute the negative connotations of virii to the licensing terms.
A virus [wikipedia.org] spreads, infects and causes disease in an unsuspecting host.
Source code released under the GPL does not spread, infect or disease unsuspecting hosts. Source code licensed under the GPL is used with intent.
The only way the host project could be unsuspecting would be if the source code was acquired and utilized without bothering to perform due diligence to understand the licensing terms which made the source code available. Something that seems very out of character for a multi-billion dollar corporation that continually harps on customers about licensing violations.
If due diligence is not completed and a project unknowingly incorporates GPLed code it still does not spread and infect or disease their proprietary code. The GPLed code can be removed from the project, which rather than removing a virus is more like removing a transplanted organ in keeping with your bodily allegory. Of course once you remove the organ from the body the body likely will die unless you get another organ.
If you violate the terms of the GPL and resolve the issue by removing the open source code from your project there still will be the issue of damages caused by violating the license. The damages and the body missing the organ are likely the reason corporations easily give in to the terms of the GPL, not because it is viral.
Re:First Laugh (Score:2, Informative)
Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't. (Score:5, Informative)
Here is what Microsoft said in the initial press release:
Q: Why release the code?
A: Because we have utilized Linux code, Microsoft has an obligation to open source the device drivers. This is the process outlined by the Linux community.
Q: Why open source the code?
A: Because this is a requirement of the community, and critical in ensuring that as the Linux Kernel evolves, and as Hyper-V evolves, that the Hyper-V Linux Device Drivers evolve as well.
Source: http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/microsoft-linux-hyper-v-drivers.html [kroah.com]
So... when was there a cover-up? Seems to me like it simply wasn't reported because no one considered it relevant to report, given that it was in the press release.
It's not something you brag about, just a reality. They wrote some linux drivers, and that's a huge waste of time and resources to maintain in a closed source fashion unless you have a really good reason (like Nvidia, who have to re-engineer much of X to allow modern graphics technology in Linux).
It's rare that Microsoft should have to touch GPL code for any reason, but now that they have to for Hyper-V, they're adhering to the GPL. At one point does this story become sinister or scary?
Re:sooo... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:sooo... (Score:3, Informative)
1) If you wish to distribute your code, you must distribute it under the GPL.
That's not actually accurate and usually the misconception about the GPL being 'viral'. The correct formulation would be:
1) If you want to distribute the GPL code, you must distribute it under the GPL.
You're entirely free to distribute your own code however you want, the fact that you may not distribute the GPL code with it, and the possibility that your own code may not be useful without the GPL code doesn't make the GPL code more 'viral' than any other code which you do not have the right to distribute. You could base your own OS off the Windows code base and not be allowed to distribute that either; maybe you could call Microsoft and assign copyright to them to have it distributed, but the fundamental issue is the same in both cases: you can distribute your code but you can't distribute the other code without complying with the copyright holders requirements.
Those requirements may be 'anyone else must be allowed to do the same to your code as you did to ours', or 'give the code to us'. But either way it's copyright that forces you to have permission, and it's your decision to make your code dependent on someone elses copyrighted code that together form the 'viral' aspect, not the license terms (spelled out, or negotiable) themselves.
Re:First Laugh (Score:3, Informative)
You may want to click on the links to the articles to see the treachery. Here is a quote from one of the articles...
Pigs are flying low: Why Microsoft open-sourced its Linux drivers [zdnet.com]
"Microsoft originally was licensing the Linux drivers, also known as the Linux Integration Components (LIC), in a way that was in violation of the GPL. It was offering them under a combination of the GPL and a closed source license."
The whole idea of releasing source code under the GPL is to make it available for use. The copyright holders of that code do not take issue with corporations using the code, they take issue with corporations when they violate the license terms under which the source code is made available to them for use. As was the case with Linksys/Cisco.
Cisco sued by FSF over GPL violation [v3.co.uk]
Re:sooo... (Score:4, Informative)
Normally, DHCP servers and BOOTP relay agents attempt to deliver DHCPOFFER, DHCPACK and DHCPNAK messages directly to the client using uicast delivery. The IP destination address (in the IP header) is set to the DHCP 'yiaddr' address and the link-layer destination address is set to the DHCP 'chaddr' address. Unfortunately, some client implementations are unable to receive such unicast IP datagrams until the implementation has been configured with a valid IP address (leading to a deadlock in which the client's IP address cannot be delivered until the client has been configured with an IP address).
A client that cannot receive unicast IP datagrams until its protocol software has been configured with an IP address SHOULD set the BROADCAST bit in the 'flags' field to 1 in any DHCPDISCOVER or DHCPREQUEST messages that client sends. The BROADCAST bit will provide a hint to the DHCP server and BOOTP relay agent to broadcast any messages to the client on the client's subnet. A client that can receive unicast IP datagrams before its protocol software has been configured SHOULD clear the BROADCAST bit to 0.
That's from RFC 2131, published March 1997. Guess what? Vista apparently has a deficient IP stack which "cannot receive unicast IP datagrams until its protocol software has been configured with an IP address.". At least it sets the BROADCAST bit. It gets even stupider, because Vista actually HAS a modern IP stack, and CAN receive unicast without having an IP address. You just need to set a registry entry.
Needless to say, not every router vendor supported the BROADCAST bit in their DHCP servers. Well now they do.
Re:First Laugh (Score:2, Informative)
I think you are missing a very important point, Once MS saw their error, they corrected it without anyone pointing to the need.
This is important because it shows that they would have complied earlier if they understood the depth if their involvement and obligation to begin with. This indicates a specific lack of treachery and points to a misunderstanding or confusion that they sorted out on their own.
You cannot take every instance of a GPL violation as a sign of treachery. If you do, then almost any linux distribution would be treacherous. This is because I have seen, almost all of the larger distributions offer binary updates through a service or program which doesn't offer the source code alongside it and doesn't make the location of the source code for the updates obvious. Some times it is days or even weeks before the source code for the binary patches make to an obvious locations (which is in violation of the GPL) and then you have distros who use mirrors that don't store the source and make them availible for 3 years after distribution. Take Mandriva for instance, Their URPMI update service often drops updates after a year (instead of the three as mandated by the GPL) or so when the new versions are availible. If you have to reinstall, you have to hunt down another URPMI mirror in order to find older updates just to get a system back to a usable state.
Now, no one complains about this crap being treacherous when linux distros do it. There is an after the fact attempt to get in line with the GPL and is seemingly completely acceptable even though it is a clear and direct violation of the GPL (either version).
Re:First Laugh (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not worried about Google advertising to me. I worried about when they decide to sell their profile of me.
I honestly don't even care much about that. How's that going to affect me? So what if some big company knows what I look for in google searches? What are they going to do with that information? Offer me targeted advertising? So what?
I guess it just doesn't bother me too much when people advertise things I might actually be interested in to me, instead of spamming me with ads for things I have no interest in. Especially when these ads are tiny and easily ignored.
They don't sell an OS (yet), so of course they are OS neutral. But they do try to foist JavaScript on you. And they're pushing Chrome (the Browser) pretty aggressively. Going to get more aggressive later.
So what if they use JavaScript? Everyone does! In fact, it's the only way to do a lot of things inside a browser, such as having maps you can click and drag. Don't blame Google, blame the people who invented the WWW for not envisioning such interactivity when they thought up a system to show marked-up text. The whole WWW is one big giant hack, with PHP creating HTML on-the-fly and JavaScript operating on users' computers to make things seem faster and AJAX so entire pages don't have to be re-downloaded every time the user changes one little thing. The whole thing needs a big revamp.
Do you use Chrome (the browser)? No? Me neither. Never tried it, don't really care that much. So how does this affect me (or you)? If you don't want to use Google products, then don't. It's that simple. It's not like someone's going to email you stuff in a Google format and you have to use Google software to read it or else lose your job. If you prefer Firefox, or heaven forbid, IE, then use one of those instead. It's not like half the websites out there only work with Chrome.
And gather information about you that they own.
So? You haven't illustrated how this is a problem or affecting you in any meaningful way. If you want privacy, then don't participate in any online activities. Or create pseudonymous accounts.
Actually, when MS was as young as Google is, they were as revered by techies much like Google is today.
I certainly don't remember that. In fact, when I first started using PC computers around 1989, all I remember about MS was that they made DOS, which no one really liked very much, but put up with because it was the standard if you wanted to run PC software. It wasn't until Windows 3.1 came out when MS started really becoming visible, though they had already created problems before this ("DOS ain't done til Lotus won't run"). Before 1985 or so, what did they do of note, besides DOS and Altair BASIC? And lest you forget, BillG pissed off everyone at the Homebrew Computer Club with his rant against copying back in the 70s, so I really think you're wearing rose-colored glasses.
As for Google screwing people over, Google stole my intellectual property. It took a lawsuit to get a settlement from them.
Ah, I see now. With you, it's personal. What did they steal? Was it copyrighted, or patented? Because if it was patented, it wasn't your property since software patents are invalid. Just because one screwed-up country thinks they are doesn't mean they are.
Every decade there is this movement and growth. And every decade it fails.
Every decade there's movement and growth in something. Sometimes it works, sometimes it fails. The popularity of the internet in the 90s wasn't a fad, it was something that caught on and never stopped (though a lot of companies with questionable business models fell by the wayside after people got over the hype and focused on companies with more substance). Unlike 1995, now everyone and his pet dog is on the internet.
Will SaaS succeed or fail? I have no idea. Webmail certainly has caught on and never died out, since the benefits of not being tied to a single computer to read your ema