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."
Cue FUDSpinning (Score:5, Insightful)
about viral GPL in 5... 4... 3...
No, seriously, someone in the militantly proprietary SW camp is going to latch onto this and turn it into some kind of morality tale. "Poor Microsoft, they took the tempting bait of Open Source code and LOST THEIR PRODUCT! Don't let this HAPPEN TO YOU! ph33r teh Open Source!"
Mark my words. Expect a flood of "independent studies" dissecting this story with the intent of making Free Software look like hidden poison.
MS and Legitimacy (Score:5, Insightful)
They could have just stripped the GPL'ed code out completely, its a small part of the total code dump...
Rather, it really is legitimate but for a different sort of evil. Microsoft wants to rule the virtualization world over VMWare and Xen, and one of the things they need to support is Linux well for this market. By getting the necessary support into the kernel, even under the dreaded GPL, this furthers Microsoft's own objectives.
Re:sooo... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:sooo... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, in the same sense that all proprietary licenses are also viral. The difference is that the GPL "virus" doesn't generally kill its hosts.
Trusting MS (Score:5, Insightful)
will have squandered this opportunity to build trust, something which is sadly lacking in most people's dealings with Microsoft
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... umm... you won't get fooled again, or something like that.
Trust is hard gained and easily lost. MS has shown no sign that they deserve to be trusted. They may be a business partner, but make sure you treat them like you would a business partner in renaissance Italy: Buy from them, exchange money and goods, but never hug them or a dagger will be in your back, never join them for lunch for the chance to be poisoned is far too great.
Before someone goes "business is not friendship". Indeed it's not. But there are various grades. I deal with companies where I don't need a contract because I know them and I know they will honor the contract we agreed on. I believe them if they say the check's in the mail. I grant them a delay in payment if they need to pay a few days later for tax reasons. Likewise, I get the same if necessary.
MS won't make it on that list. When they invite you to dinner, it's not because they want to show you how much they value you as a parner. They usually bring along a dagger or the more modern version, an adhesion contract.
Re:That Was Close! (Score:3, Insightful)
unlike other companies? (Score:1, Insightful)
Unlike almost every major consumer electrocnics company which freely uses OS and:
Fails to disclose
Failes to release
When confronted, does not release everything
releases everything but then goes on to the next product where it fails to release
Seriously, what is so surprising about a company (any company) trying to turn a situation to their advantage. I mean, seriously, who really cares
MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well.. (Score:1, Insightful)
I take issue with the "they would have to release" part of your post as there is always the option to stop distributing their code altogether until the GPL parts had been removed.
Glad I saved making any comment 'til now (Score:3, Insightful)
I had question about what would drive Microsoft to doing that. After all, they did borrow quite liberally from BSD code for various things including the TCP/IP stack. But the stuff that was contributed back wasn't "huge" by any measure that I could tell. Now if they open sourced MS Office or Windows XP, THAT would have gotten my attention.
But I'll offer this. Let's give Microsoft credit for owning up to and respecting the terms of the GPL even if they weren't completely honest about their motives. They did the right thing which is also somewhat unusual for Microsoft. It may have been a baby step instead of a leap in the right directions, but it was still a move in the right direction.
Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you have a point, but it's not a new one. MS has always feared the GPL [getthefacts.org]and they are merely doing what is in their best interest AKA licensing before they get sued. The folks who created the software could easily still sue for the time from when it was being used -> when it was licensed for damages.
Everyone has had to respect the GPL because it has already been held up in court as far back as germany in 2004 [tinyurl.com] and redhat in 2006. [tinyurl.com]
Re:sooo... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fixed that for you.
Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not "sadly" or surprisingly (Score:5, Insightful)
Trust in dealing with Microsoft is not sadly lacking.
It is understandably lacking for anyone who has been paying any attention at all to Microsofts history.
Re:More proof (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends on the puppy.
Re:sooo... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MS and Legitimacy (Score:5, Insightful)
"Microsoft released code that would otherwise violate GPL" = Microsoft were caught out and forced to release the code.
When this could be just as true:
Microsoft always intended to release the code so used GPL'ed code in it.
Re:sooo... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually it seems they have added weight to their argument that businesses should adhere to the licensing terms for the software they use. Microsoft puts massive resources into fighting violations of their licensing agreements [microsoft.com] with end users of their products and here they are caught violating the licensing terms for software they have licensed.
So in the end Microsoft should write their own code and refrain from stealing open source code if they have no intention of adhering to the licensing terms that made the open source code available. The GPL is not viral, otherwise they would be releasing ALL of their code under the GPL.
Re:The people who don't trust MS (Score:2, Insightful)
How exactly are you not "free to ignore Microsoft if you want to"? I haven't bought a Microsoft product in about 3 years now, and haven't once felt like I was missing out on something. I have a perfectly capable computer system, digital camera, video camera, and personal media player at home with absolutely no Microsoft software on it and no Microsoft hardware in it. What exactly are you unable to ignore about them?
You're as free to ignore Microsoft as you are to ignore Ford, McDonald's, or Campbells. Buy a Honda. Eat at Burger King. Buy Progresso soup. Buy a Mac. Assemble a Linux system.
You're investing way too much of yourself in worrying about Microsoft. There is no nefarious secret plan in Redmond to destroy Jedidiah's computer.
Mod parent up (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd do it myself (currently having mod points) but the following comment seems more important:
The typical Microsoft EULA is more complicated than the GPL, and contains a lot more points that seem designed to screw the customer over. So Microsoft is at least the pot calling the kettle black ;-)
umm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:sooo... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a hard time getting angry at Microsoft over this (plenty more things they do annoy / anger me though). 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. They almost certainly chose that option because it also made the most business sense but that is what they always do. It is what every other business does. Sun, Red Hat and IBM aren't releasing open source code for anyone else's benefit other than their own.
Re:Doing the right thing, but stupid publicity stu (Score:2, Insightful)
What you (and pretty much everybody else in this thread) is hoping for is for Microsoft to self-flagellate - something along the lines of: "We're so bad, we suck, we fucked up beyond comprehension, we hope the GPL community can somehow find it in their hearts to not destroy us to the 10th generation. We're stupid-bad-wicked-naughty-horrible-ugly-halitosis-having troglodytes, we're going to commit mass suicide in the hopes that someday history will forget what terrible people we were." This is not going to happen.
No matter how you slice it, it's good for the GPL & open source. Either Microsoft has conceded that the GPL is legally enforceable and thus must be taken seriously, OR they have decided that they want to play ball with the open source kids, and are using this as the first step in a new direction towards working with open source developers & projects. You can win thoroughly while still allowing the loser to retain some shred of their dignity. Attempting to back Microsoft into a corner over this in an attempt for some silly "PR victory" would be counterproductive.
But of course, current_year++ always seems to be the year of the Linux Desktop... so perhaps counterproductive strategy is just the way open source rolls...
Re:The people who don't trust MS (Score:4, Insightful)
Once bitten twice shy.
And the irony, you consider a multi sourced market where the actual producers of the licensed source code retain their copyrigths versus handing it over to a single corporation to be communist, "red", and a single sourced monopoly controlled market to be free market capitalism. And copyright holders protecting their licensed source code are insane, "loons", while a fat ageing corporate officer jumping around on a stage in front of subordinates to the point of causing bodily harm and proceeding to limp around the stage is sanity.
Yeah, there are loons here its just not who you think it is.
Re:First Laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hilarious.
What's hilarious is how many times I've been called a "tin-foil hatter" because I openly expected ulterior motives and other treachery from this company. There is nothing paranoid or cynical about actually having a working knowledge of the history of the entity in question. It's so simple, too:
How many times does this have to happen before we can save everyone some time and just skip the fantasy that there was ever an opportunity to build trust? Or, do people have some inability to know who and what they are dealing with? To have a corporation act like it wants to be your friend in order to further its own interests is merely a nuisance. When people start to really believe that it's their friend though, that is something much worse. That is actually how an "opponent" which cannot be bought out could eventually (long-term) be taken down or rendered irrelevant. To Microsoft, FOSS is such an opponent.
Re:The people who don't trust MS (Score:4, Insightful)
they have never built any bridge they did not line with explosives and hold the button firmly in their own hands. So dah, you're just stating the facts since in 20 something years, they've given nothing anyone but the blind could trust. Thanks for the chuckle though, now go back to your Microsoft platform and close your eyes to reality... crap, an AC.
LoB
Re:sooo... (Score:2, Insightful)
I was just being a douche
I'd rather be a dildo, myself.
Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes. (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm confused.
Microsoft played by the rules, and you're upset about it?
That attitude is astonishing and frighteningly common. People want so badly to have a reason to be angry that they'll get angry just at the thought of potentially losing the motivation for that anger.
So messed up. Rather than focusing on getting "Ballmer to STFU," what about encouraging Microsoft to continue doing the things people like you whine about their not doing?
Otherwise, *what's the point*?
Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft had disclosed reasons why, I doubt it would have been that big a deal. Lots of companies, including big corporations like Microsoft, utilize GPL and other open source licensed code. It's not exactly something amazing, other than the fact that a several years ago, Gates made some rather moronic comments about open source.
But trying to spin a relatively minor licensing screwup as some brand new day of Redmond-Open Source relations was idiotic. It does indeed evaporate some of the good will. The problem is that Microsoft is run by marketing types, and marketers are a fundamentally depraved and immoral lot. The engineers, I'm sure, would just have said "Hey, we used some GPL code. Now that we know we violated the license, we're making it right by releasing all the code we through into it." But marketers, a foul and vile subspecies, have this blasphemous need to spin things, and in the process, just as often show just how lacking in any kind of ethics this particular disgusting occupation is.
Re:How is it an Ulterior Motive? (Score:5, Insightful)
so why is 99% of the press so ignorant of this fact and merrily continues regurgitating the marketing drivel Microsoft sends them day after day? They have been the mouth piece of their deceptions for 20 years. I also think that the business methods Microsoft uses for profit are what are so distasteful and are what rile up many in this community. They lie, cheat, steal, stab in the back, etc, etc, etc. Yes it is all in the name of making profits for them but when they keep doing that crap on my doorstep, you bet I'm going to tell them to get the f''ck off my property and smack them from then on at any chance I get. There's nothing wrong with making a profit, there is something wrong doing it by telling the world their _horse_ is better and faster than anyone else's and then shotting everyones horse when they step up to challenge that declaration.
They play dirty and have so for decades. WTF do you really expect of anyone but the completely naive?
LoB
Re:"Built trust???" (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the problem with that is MS has never considered you or other end users as their customers when it comes to Windows. OEMs are their customers: Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. While they sell Windows at retail, that's a small number compared to OEMs. In order to get the volume discounts, one stipulation that OEMs have to make is that they handle support of Windows. So MS washes their hands of most responsibility if they don't release quality code. It's not like OEMs have much choice. With Vista that came back to hurt them as OEMs (at the demand of their customers) wanted to continue XP instead of installing Vista.
Re:MS: Damned if they do, damned if they don't. (Score:2, Insightful)
If Microsoft had disclosed that they released the code to avoid a violation then the anti-Microsoft crowd would have proclaimed that Microsoft was only releasing the code because they had to, not because they wanted to. No matter the course of action Microsoft could have taken, they still would have been criticized.
In other words, when you do something begrudgingly, you don't really get credit for being a good guy. That seems right. If you think a corporation doing something just to avoid a lawsuit -- and marketing it as a proactively good thing like Sam Ramji was doing -- is right, then we must live on different planets.
Poor Microsoft is widely misunderstood. (Score:2, Insightful)
Awww... Microsoft is just misunderstood. People expect Microsoft not to be evil, but evil is their business plan.
Re:First Laugh (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't get called a "tin-foil hatter" for that, I get called a "troll" :(
I have to agree with much of what you've said, corporations aren't nessisarily opponents or evil. You just have to realize that as an entity their personality tends to consist of the greed of their decision making employees. Companies exist to make money, people get jobs to make money.
I have found myself in situations I question the morality of, but I don't want to lose my job and my paycheque over them. Often these situations exist not because someone above me has given an order, but simply due to interactions between circumstance and policy.
Re:sooo... (Score:3, Insightful)
The same thing applies to any GPL software. For example, if my buddy downloaded some GPL package from the project site itself and then sent me a copy of that then the original author would still keep his copyright over my copy and my buddy's copy.
There is no mystery. Copyright sticks to any reincarnation of any copyrighted work and it lingers until the copyright is void. The copyright holder always keeps a say so on what anyone may do with his work. The only thing that differs from the Microsoft Windows XP case and the GPLed software case is that the author of the GPLed software explicitly authorizes redistribution, which is something that Microsoft doesn't do with XP. Other than that, the licenses are still valid, they apply to each and every copy made of their work and the authors still have a say so on their works.
So can we please stop with this "viral" nonsense?
Re:First Laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
What's hilarious is how many times I've been called a "tin-foil hatter" because I openly expected ulterior motives and other treachery from this company.
I guess I'm not seeing this "treachery" of which you're going on about. Microsoft made use of GPL code, like hundreds of other companies before them, and in keeping with the law and the license, also released their code under the GPL. This really is a big move for them, the company that previously wouldn't want to be caught dead with their hand in the GPL cookie jar. Here they are not only using the code but releasing it back out for public use and scrutiny.
Nobody cares that Linksys/Cisco uses GPL code in their cheap routers. Nobody cares that Google uses GPL code in their various web apps. Nobody cares that FOSS-heavy companies like Novell and Red Hat use GPL code to make a profit. Why should any care that Microsoft is using GPL code as long as they are following the terms of the license?
So what if their marketing and PR machine didn't outright say "We used GPL code and so we're releasing this under the GPL"? The code is right there in the open. Slashdotters always bemoan that closed source is terrible because it's all secret and hidden with bugs and evil embedded where nobody can see. MS dumped the 20,000 lines of code into the open where everyone can go read it. There's not much headway to be made via treachery and subterfuge when anybody can just read the code.
Your three little bullet points describe every publicly-owned company on the planet. A corporation, by definition, has obligations to itself (the shareholders) that it is expected to meet. There's no such thing as an altruistic for-profit corporation. Sure, some embrace F/OSS more than others but that's usually just due to their respective market overlap. Google doesn't sell an OS so they're okay using and helping Linux. They do have a browser so you can expect Firefox support to dwindle. They do have an office suite so you won't expect them to support Open Office. This is normal and to be expected. The same thing goes for Microsoft.
Re:First Laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
The old IT hands bash MS because they have experience with the company. They are NOT trolling, or apple or linux fanboys. They are _EXPERIENCED_.
Young Republicans: we're not anti-corporation, we're anti-getting-dicked-over. Thank you for understanding the difference.
Re:Makes the GPL real in their eyes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not quite...they decided to use GPL'd code contrary to the licence and so were guilty of copyright infringement (or piracy). When pointed out, they decided to obey the licence and release the code as GPL.
What most people are upset about is not that they've released the code as GPL, but the REASON they gave for doing it. To be honest they would have announced (something like):
It has been pointed out to us that we had used GPL code contrary to the GPL licence and decided that instead of pursuing another licence for the code we have decided to fulfil the obligation of the GPL licence by releasing our code under the GPL, which will benefit the community by...
However, they hushed up the fact of the GPL violation.
So the conclusion is that MS weren't interested in playing by the rules and were only forced to release the code when they were caught red handed with a copyright infringement (which is the result of ignoring the GPL).
The question that comes to me as a result of this is: how much code have they got away with using contrary to the licence of said code, ie of how much copyright infringement are MS guilty? The advantage of closed source code...
Re:First Laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
I view them as amoral Machiavellian entities. If a car salesman is nice to you, it's only because he makes more sales that way.
It's evil but in a subtle way. It requires people to be other than genuine, to play a role and pretend that it is real. Nowhere in this do you find nobility or virtue or loving-kindness. It's evil not because it necessarily has to do harm, but because it regards many expressions of honesty or of good intentions as hinderances to its goals.
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Judge: "Oooookay there. I set the fine for Microsoft at three times lost revenue, or zero dollars"
It's not so easy to quantify lost revenue. That's why statutory damages of up to $30,000 are available in any infringement lawsuit over a copyrighted work that has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office or foreign counterparts. In addition, the GPL nut who registers each major version can still recover attorney's fees and court costs.
Re:First Laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
You didn't read the article, did you?
Microsoft didn't release the code by choice. They released it after somebody figured out that they were violating the terms of the GPL, and made what essentially amounted to legal threats.
Now, the fact that Microsoft, with their huge warchest and armies of lawyers, simply caved, rather than trying to weasle out of it and drown the opponents in legal bills, points to Microsoft's opinion of the GPL's legal status.....which is to say, rock solid. If it was as flakey and contradictory as they've claimed in the past, they would have fought it. They didn't, because they know they would have lost badly.
Sometimes SLASHDOT is worse than FOX NEWS (Score:4, Insightful)
Generally speaking, FOX is the one who likes to take stories and spin them in the worst possible light to forward their own agenda. I can see now that SLASHDOT does the same thing. How on earth do you equate Microsoft following the rules of the GPL as something bad? How on earth did we get here? Seriously -- there's now going to be a lack of trust?! Are you kidding me? Because they provided a prettified PR statement to go with it? This says *nothing* about their stance on linux -- it says something about their integrity as a company that obeys software licenses. We now have definitive proof that Microsoft at least works within and respects the GPL, but somehow today is a day of mistrust?
Simply amazing. I can only imagine what the folks at MS are thinking right now who see this article. I bet their not thinking "gee, that went well -- let's do it again!"
This like shooting the publishers clearing house folks on your door step when they bring you the big check -- "Thanks, but get the heck off mah properta!"
Re:First Laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot something. You see, I can forgive all that: It's a corporation, operating in it's own self-interest. Yeah, they wouldn't be on my 'nice guys' list, but it leaves them no different than any other big company out there.
What sets Microsoft apart is the fact that competing on the merits of the product is always the last choice for them. They will bribe, influence, undercut, disinform, re-brand, and lock-in. They act always an only as if their customers deserve nothing, and should be handing over as much money as MS wants at any and all times. They will do anything they can to avoid being in a position to be directly evaluated against a competitor of the strength of their products. And they will avoid improving their products unless forced to by an outside force, be it competition or government. And even then they will only improve them as much as they need to in order to deflect the force.
They are not in the software business. They are in the business of dominating software markets. The fact that doing so occasionally requires them to write software is incidental, as far as I can see.
If and when Microsoft turns itself into a company that will compete on the strength of it's products, I will consider starting to trust them, somewhat. Until then, even the smallest bite is a poison pill, eventually requiring you to swallow all their products.
Re:First Laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
When someone takes a position and backs it up with solid reasoning, which is what I have tried to do, I have a hard time describing this as "blind zealotry." If you believe that is zealotry, be glad that you have not experienced the real thing. It's rather ugly.
Also, if you were familiar with my posting history you'd know that I have been saying things like this for quite some time (i.e. years). I am not suggesting that you should be familiar with my posting history, only that you should be aware of when you don't who you're dealing with or what he believes before you make assumptions about his motives.
I really did know this all along, not because I have special insight but because it's rather predictable. If I said that driving drunk increases your chances of having a car accident, is that "'I knew it all along' tripe" or common sense rooted in a simple understanding of cause-and-effect? If I say that drunk driving is a very, very bad idea, am I now an anti-alcohol zealot?
You are making an accusation. Specifically, you are accusing me of deceit. What evidence do you have to back that up, other than "I don't like what he said?" If I accused you of being a paid Microsoft shill or an astroturfer because you are supporting their actions, is that fair? Is it helpful, does it contribute anything to the discussion? No, it doesn't. Note, I am absolutely not accusing you of being a shill of any sort, I am just making a point.
That one's easy to address. When IBM, Oracle, Sun, and RedHat do this, I don't see members of the community heralding a new era of openness and cooperation. When Microsoft does this, too many people want to believe that. Additionally, IBM, Oracle, Sun, and RedHat do not have monopolies to protect. That means they are more likely (though certainly not guaranteed) to view a degree of cooperation as a good thing that benefits everyone, including themselves.
I'll believe that Microsoft considers GPL a viable route to successful products when the entirety of Windows, or Office, or Exchange is released as source code under the GPL. That's called "putting your money where your mouth is." As it stands now, Microsoft obviously believes that keeping those three cash cows closed-source is the best business decision they can make. That's their prerogative; the software is theirs to do with as they please. I have no problems with that, but I'm not going to call it a huge paradigm shift either. It could be the beginning of one, but that is nothing more than speculation and remains to be seen.
Additionally, I never expressed a concern with whether or not Microsoft f
Re:First Laugh (Score:4, Insightful)
Of all the companies I trust on my desktop less than Microsoft, Google is number one. Microsoft just wants me to give them money. Google wants to know everything about me.
That's weird; I don't have the same feelings towards Google. Google might try to advertise to me, but the only ads I ever see from them are inconspicuous text ads which I just ignore, and don't take up my time or annoy me like banner ads, pop-ups, etc. do. That's why I don't bother to block them, like I do the others using AdBlock Plus. In fact, sometimes I even click on the Google ads shown to me on Gmail because they're relevant and useful.
Unlike MS, Google doesn't try to force me into using any particular technology or software (or more importantly, OS). I can use all online Google stuff just fine in Firefox on Linux. I can even run Google Earth just fine in Linux. Yeah, SketchUp isn't available on Linux yet, so their record isn't perfect, but then again, Google Earth and SketchUp are free so I really can't complain. MS, on the other hand, is constantly trying to force me to use their OS and their software by pushing for lock-in instead of using open standards. They even try to kill my preferred OS (Linux) by making vague patent threats, and by financing SCO's ridiculous lawsuit via Baystar. Google never tried to do anything like this. Google just wants me to look at some unobtrusive text ads in exchange for using an excellent webmail service and search engine for free. That's a bargain I'm OK with. If I decide I don't like it, I can always use a different search engine and webmail service. So far, Google hasn't given me any reason to believe they're going to do anything beyond this to screw me over, whereas MS has done countless things to screw their users over from Day 1.
That, and I bought a computer damnit, not a cloud-computing terminal. I haven't used a terminal since the 90's, and have no desire to return to that world. At least now when I use a terminal, it's into a machine I own.
I mostly agree with this, as I prefer to run almost all my software locally (except email), and keep my data on my own computer. However, apparently most people don't agree with us, as evidenced by the huge growth in cloud computing and SaaS (software as a service) lately. I don't really understand it myself, but all these vendors probably wouldn't be going down this road if all their customers were firmly against it, so I guess they see things differently. Whatever the reason, this means the parent might be correct: Chrome OS might actually "hit Windows 7 hard". And if it does, then great. I probably won't use it myself, but anything to break up the OS market and restore competition is a good thing.
Re:First Laugh (Score:2, Insightful)
(a) Microsoft decides to use GPL code in their product, and then releases their code under GPL.
and
(b) Microsoft uses GPL code in their product, and only releases it under GPL (like they were supposed to), *after* someone calls them up and says "hey, you do know you're breaking the law here, right"?
I don't blame them for trying to spin it as case A, especially when you consider that case B equates to "Yeah, we totally broke the law, and these guys were nice enough to hang us for it."
What GPL is all about (Score:3, Insightful)
So a sunny day for GPL.
Re:First Laugh (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure Microsoft released the code by choice. They had plenty of other options availible like completely rewriting the code in question, keeping it close, and taking the hit for the code already distributed. It wouldn't have been very expensive because they would have argued a mistake was made in distributing the code in the first place, it was corrected once realize, and assert their willingness to pay monetary damages for the erroneous use of the code in question.
This would have been to their advantage because it would be very difficult to assign monetary value to something already given away for free while somewhat just as difficult for each and every copyright holder to bring a case forward over it. You also have the problem of the legal remedy in the GPL being not using the code anymore when you aren't in compliance. If the contract portion allowing the copyright is held as valid, it could be that a competent court could treat it just like a contract violation with an already built in solution and absolve them of any copyright royalties owed.
But instead of doing that, instead of as you already acknowledged- used their army of lawyers, MS decided to take the most beneficial approach for itself and the OSS community as a whole. It doesn't mean they have some high impression of the GPL or that they are afraid of it, all that is in your head as without them admitting to it, you have no way of reading their minds. But from what we do know is that there were options that weren't taken and there were officially state reasons for taking the options they did.
Re:The people who don't trust MS (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't about "Windows interoperability". My original post on the matter
should have made it plain to anyone. Now if you use your computer like a
glorified vt-220 terminal that's your business. Many of are a bit more
ambitious in our computer use. Some of us would prefer not to be forcibly
turned into the technological equivalent of the Amish.
Patent abuse makes this a very real possibility.
On the one hand, a proper industry standard might help. Then again it might
be subject to the same patent stupidity. Plus you would have to deal with a
dominant vendor content to exploit the status quo. FAT has been used as a
defacto industry standard by everyone from Atari to Sony for at least 25 years
now.
Obviously, Microsoft is not content to allow free reuse of the Linux kernel.
They spread patent FUD about the kernel and sue those that use features that
have been built into the kernel for a very long time.
Re:sooo... (Score:3, Insightful)
MS can't win here...
Yeah, no shit they can't win, because they already lost when they violated the GPL. The win/lose ship has already sailed. They were already given more consideration and benefit of the doubt than they deserve when, as usual, the copyright holder of the GPL code didn't try to extort or sue MS for damages, but rather simply tried to resolve the non-compliance issue going forward.
That MS took one of the valid, legal, and ethical approaches to resolving the issue is not to their credit, unless you're impressed by people who don't like getting in even deeper shit than they're already in. When you pick one of several offered punishments for having committed a crime, there is no "right" choice where you "win" and are no longer a criminal, like you get brownie points just for accepting the judgment of the court. Same deal here.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't? NO. Damned because you already did.
Re:Doing the right thing, but stupid publicity stu (Score:3, Insightful)
No matter how you slice it, it's good for the GPL & open source. Either Microsoft has conceded that the GPL is legally enforceable and thus must be taken seriously, OR they have decided that they want to play ball with the open source kids, and are using this as the first step in a new direction towards working with open source developers & projects.
Well, since they didn't release the source until they were contacted and told they were violating the GPL, I'm guessing it's the former! And of course they knew all along that the GPL was legally enforceable, though a somewhat moot point since if it wasn't, that wouldn't leave them with any license to use the copyrighted code.
Re:First Laugh (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have to use it to benefit from it.
When Google does it the Hardware manufacturers will prepackage Google OS with their machines. So we will get better hardware support for the Linux kernel and so forth. Microsoft will hate it which puts them in a weak negotiation position. This is not about you switching to anything. This is about a cheap investment of Google that kills Microsoft's cash cow. The hardware manufacturers will negotiate lower margins from Microsoft and invest in the new competitor. It is a victorious circle. They will eat Microsoft's lunch.
Same in an business with say 30 000 licenses. They will evaluate OpenOffice, and ask the Microsoft sales guy: What else do you offer?
Re:The people who don't trust MS (Score:3, Insightful)
And how is getting caught violating the GPL, and only then complying with the license so as not to get sued, supposed to earn my trust?!
If that's your and MS' idea of building bridges, then damn fucking right I'll never trust them because they'll never be worthy of trust! Only idiots would trust someone who builds bridges like this.
Re:sooo... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you're the one confusing something. I'm using SL just for the sake of example, because it's something I'm personally familiar with, including licensing-wise.
My point is that yes, linking with random files you find in Windows can get you in trouble, and it's by no means exclusive to the GPL. Proprietary libraries have plenty licensing terms that are much nastier than the GPL, which require for instance to pay royalties. You can't just go and link to that without further consideration.
You can link to OS X libraries because Apple allows you to do so. If you tried to create an application that say, reused one of the libraries found in Photoshop without Adobe consenting to it, you can bet Adobe would be very unhappy about that, and would haul your ass into court.
Your software never becomes the property of anybody else, even if you link with a GPL (and not LGPL) library. What the FSF thinks is that linking with a GPL licensed library without complying with the GPL infringes on the GPL, and without the GPL allowing for distribution, it infringes on the library's copyright. But everybody still owns their own stuff.
For instance, if you take my GPL licensed code and integrate it into your non-GPL application you're not following the terms, and hence infringing on my copyright. But that doesn't make your code mine, and does not give me the ability to relicense your code (as I could if I had the copyright to it).
Some projects like the Linux kernel are all full of pieces of thousands of different copyright holders and effectively can't change the license because nobody owns the whole thing. Bits are owned by many different people, some of which will never consent to a license change, or are dead.
Re:First Laugh (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad that you understand that it's not just Microsoft. It seems that the parent really had an issue with Microsoft, since that's the only company that he cited. I'm not saying that Microsoft isn't evil. In fact, I'm fairly certain that they are. But that doesn't somehow make them worse than other businesses. Any for profit entity is motivated by primarily by greed. Any other motivations can almost always be traced back to greed of some sort.
Sure, we can just dismiss it all with the jaded outlook that everyone is fundamentally driven by selfish motives. But that's not very realistic or helpful. Selfish or not, there are very distinct differences between individual entities. Some can be expected to behave in a reasonably fair manner. Others can be expected to do otherwise and dealing with them will almost always be a disadvantage. It would be absurd to equate both as the same simply because they both wish to profit.
For example - a commercial is about selling you something. Nobody should think otherwise. But there is a distinct difference between the commercial that touts a product's real advantages and the commercial that lies about a product. Likewise, a company can be expected to seek a profit. But how they go about doing so is important.
Re:First Laugh (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't believe the person that discovered the issue was the author of the code, so would not have any legal standing to make a legal threat. But even if he was, Microsoft's response was "Oh, you're right... here, let me fix that".
I don't buy it. How can you accidentally be infringing on the GPL? It's not like the patent system where you may or may not be infringing on a patent because there's so bloody many of them covering everything up to sliced bread. Its a license that is _clearly included_ in every file covered by it. It's not as if some source code magically appeared on some programmer's desktop, stripped of all license information. Someone went looking for some code that did X, found a (GPL) version, used it, modified it, released it under a different license.