MS Pulls Windows 7 Tool After GPL Violation Claim 186
Sam notes an Ars story on Microsoft pulling the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool from the Microsoft Store website after a report indicating that the tool incorporated open source code in a way that violated the GNU's General Public License. Whether the software giant is actually violating the GPL, a widely used (including by the Linux kernel) free software license, is not confirmed. "We are currently taking down the Windows USB/DVD Tool from the Microsoft Store site until our review of the tool is complete," a Microsoft spokesperson told Ars. The fact the company pulled the tool doesn't bode well, so we'll have to watch closely to see what the company puts back on its servers.
more info (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What if it IS a violation? (Score:5, Informative)
!doesn't bode well (Score:3, Informative)
I think taking the software down is a very boding/bodeable/bodeful/whatever thing to do. I wouldn't expect anything else unless they had concrete proof that there was absolutely no chance at all that there was even the remote possibility of a GPL violation, and unless the software was developed completely in house and the claim of GPL violation was made with no evidence at all they can't be sure of that.
Re:What if it IS a GPL violation part II? (Score:3, Informative)
The Compliance Lab has been an informal activity of the FSF since 1992 and was formalized in December 2001. We handle all licensing-related issues for FSF. We serve the free software community by providing the public with a "knowledge infrastructure" surrounding the GNU GPL and free software licensing, and enforcing the license on FSF-copyrighted software.
Re:What if it IS a GPL violation part II? (Score:5, Informative)
In theory, the author(s) of the code. In practice, they'd likely hand it over to the FSF who exist partly for the protection of GPL'd code.
Re:So, this is about as damning as you get, isn't (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What if it IS a GPL violation part II? (Score:4, Informative)
No - the copyright holder has to sue. The FSF recommends that you assign the copyright of anything you release under the GPL to them, so they can go after any violations, but if you don't then you're on your own. You can't sue for copyright violation on behalf of someone else, they have to do it themselves.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
no need to pull the tool from the site (Score:0, Informative)
There is no need to pull the tool from the site. They have already distributed the binary so if they do find out there is GPL'ed code in it they are already obliged to make the source available, in which case they might as well just continue distributing the binary.
Stopping the distribution of the binary now does not in any way remove their obligation to make the source available.
If it turns out it does not have GPL'ed code in it then there is also no need to remove the binary.
Doubt they did it on purpose (Score:1, Informative)
While I'm your average Linux-loving MS hater, several buddies of mine worked at Microsoft for a while after their company was acquired by Microsoft. What they told me is this : Microsoft is EXTREMLY paranoid about open source code making it into their products. So much so that Developers, SQA Engineers, Tech Support, and IT aren't allowed to install open source software on their machines, use open source tools, or even go to web sites providing open source products. If it's not part of the Microsoft software library, you can't use it.
So, I would assume that this infraction was an accident.
Re:why blame malice? (Score:3, Informative)
No. Incompetence from Microsoft creates as much nerd rage and always has.