SFLC Says Microsoft Violated the GPL 237
After Microsoft donated driver code to the Linux kernel under the GPLv2, stories surfaced that they had done so under duress of already being in violation of the GPL. Microsoft quickly denied that any GPL violation was a driver for their decision to donate the code; the company's senior director of platform strategy, Sam Ramji, said at the time: "Microsoft's decision was not based on any perceived obligations tied to the GPLv2 license." Now the Software Freedom Law Center confirms that Microsoft was indeed in violation of the GPLv2 when it distributed its Hyper-V Linux Integration Components without providing source code. Community members led by Greg Kroah-Hartman contacted the company and coached them through the process of getting compliant. Microsoft now says that they had already been on the path for several months toward releasing the software under GPLv2 before Kroah-Hartman got in touch.
Your honour (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them (Score:5, Insightful)
(Emphasis by me.) Addidionally, if this is GPL, as they say, they can't demand that you have a MS Windows license to use the software. When you've got a copy of it, you're free to use it as much as you want, with or without a MS Windows license.
Re:does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
AGAIN? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
So Lenin is working in his study and suddently he realises there are kids playing football outside his window. He opens the window and shouts: "Get the fuck out of here stupid spastic kids!"
This proves conclusively what a good man Lenin was, he has to be applauded as such. He after all could have ordered the kids to be shot dead, no?
Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easy to find. It is posted on the linux kernel mailing list as well as in several git trees from kernel.org. Where all kernel patches belong. See http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/20/167 [lkml.org] .
Thanks for the link and I am aware of that. I guess I was wondering how they found themselves in compliance with Section 3 of the GPLv2 [gnu.org] and I think this is where the article and SFLC are coming from:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
What I'm trying to say is I'm not seeing any of this and when I actively look on their site for it, nothing comes up.
So I grab GPL code, modify it and upload it to some remote unnamed repository with a license and go about my business releasing it under my own license as a binary on my site? I don't think so.
Re:AGAIN? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Violate the GPL ...
2. Make sure that someone drags you to court for the violation
3. Start crying how the GPL is a communist cancer that should stay away from corporate source code to avoid "infection"
4.
5. Profit!
Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't sound right. From the GPLv2:
And then later:
So, no. There are limits on what further restrictions you can impose, and restrictions on actually using the software would seem to be among those disallowed.
Of course, if you take the view that running the program is not covered by the licence, rather than specifically granted (the language seems ambiguous to me, but IANAL) then we could get into the weird situation where you had the right to copy and distribute it, but not to run it. I'm sure someone will tell me why that isn't the case.
Re:Will there be any action against Microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that even if they release the code, that doesn't help them - they've still violated copyright law. Just as if someone is sued for sharing mp3s - saying that you'll stop won't help you.
Why aren't they being sued for $150,000 per violation?
The Kettle and the Pot (Score:4, Insightful)
So, seems like Microsoft for SEVERAL MONTHS has been on the GPL path to compliance?
I would like to point out, that if you pirated several Microsoft so called "Intellectual Property" binaries and eventually paid for them all, you would land in court with some fairly large fines.
Furthermore, this idea that companies cannot show source code for violations in the GPL rules seems a bit, well, warped.
This loop hole allows companies to hide behind IP rules, to protect their violations of copyright.
It is well known that Microsoft is in the HABIT of taking OTHER companies/individual works and using them for thier own gains, fairly shamelessly in some cases, and in others covertly.
-Hack
Re:does it matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that this is a positive sign from Microsoft. For years they've been going on about how the GPL is a virus and communist and will be the death of us all.
Now they've released code under it. It doesn't matter that they had to, it matters that they did it. They undoubtedly had a team of lawyers looking at their options before doing this. If they were of the viro-communist mindset toward the GPL before this, they certainly aren't now. The lawyers must have told Microsoft that if they decided to play the "GPL is invalid" card, it would have been a very long and hard battle for defeat.
Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them (Score:4, Insightful)
If GPL is viral, than so is copyright. If I take someone else's source code, use it without a license in my own program, and distribute the new source code, everything that uses that code could potentially be a violation of copyright. Similarly, if I distribute a movie that someone else holds the copyright to without a license, me and everyone else who distributes that movie has violated copyright. And if I distribute Microsoft Windows without a license, the BSA will most certainly take me to court and press for criminal charges. It's not the GPL that's viral, it's copyright law. GPL simply provides a fair set of rules by which you can use another person's code. If you don't like the license, write your own code.
Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, Microsoft did the steps in reverse...
5. Profit! ...
4.
3. Start crying how the GPL is a communist cancer that should stay away from corporate source code to avoid "infection"
That was in 2001 [cnet.com].
2. Make sure that someone drags you to court for the violation
That was in 2003 [wikipedia.org]. Not directly but supposedly partly founded by them.
1. Violate the GPL
That is in 2009 [slashdot.org].
Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them (Score:5, Insightful)
This.
Too many people seem to think that GPL is a trap to get you to release their precious code. However, it only requires them to release their code if it contains GPL code. At its heart, it is like saying, here is my code, I grant you a license to use, modify, and distribute as much as you would like. My payment is that you need to distribute the entire source, including your own changes.
The bottom line is, if you don't want to be held to the GPL license, either work out a different license with the copyright holders, or write it yourself. If you want free code from someone else with little to no restrictive licensing, use BSD-style licensed code or public domain code.
In my opinion, writing and using GPL code makes more sense from a business perspective than BSD, because you get a community of free and paid developers to add to your own, and other businesses need to release their improvements so that you can use them as well, protecting your ability to compete.
Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them (Score:3, Insightful)
The binary is a derivative work of the source.
Re:So? (Score:1, Insightful)
Just, makes all their statements before from Sam that were melting my cynical heart - all that stuff about community and contributing back - so much self-serving bullshit.
They only did it once they were caught and pushed.
That's a bit different from doing it just to be nice (and the PR).
Re:AGAIN? (Score:3, Insightful)
Never blame on malice... (Score:2, Insightful)
what can be explained by sheer ignorance.
Microsoft, though we keep referring to them in the singular, has well over 80,000 employees, and I'm betting most of them are not versed in the nuances of the GPL licenses, neither their driver developers, nor the paralegals writing the EULA's (though I bet the lawyers are).
Now, this doesn't excuse them of a violation one bit. Though it's possible, I doubt they had a a strategy "all along" to open-source the drivers because they included GPL code - because they work with citrix maybe, but not purely due to the GPL bit.
It also doesn't mean they did this in an effort to subvert or screw with GPL code - Microsoft's grand-poo-bah executive committee might "hate the GPL", but it'd be good to remember that eight levels of management separate them from some device driver writer tasked with getting Linux to run in hyper-V (who may or may not be employed there any longer).
Re:Will there be any action against Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
What really bothers me is the marketing spin they put on what is essentially complying with copyright laws. "Today, in a break from the ordinary, Microsoft..." yada yada - break from the ordinary my ass! This is what happened:
Then they went on with another spin:
"We arrived at the decision to release the drivers to the community under the GPLv2 through this process. Both Greg K-H and Jim Zemlin of the Linux Foundation have reiterated that this is the same process that other companies follow when deciding how to release new device drivers to the Linux community."
This is so typical - there are some half-truths in there. It is the normal process the FSF has pursued for getting violators in complience with the GPL, however, it is NOT the NORMAL process for those companies or individuals who genuinely want to donate code to the FSF or the linux kernel. "Today in a break from the ordinary..." yeah, well you can say this is a break for the ordinary, for usually it takes far more time to get Microsoft to comply with laws and regulations. 5 months only - amazing!
Re:AGAIN? (Score:5, Insightful)
Donated?
I'm terribly sorry, but that one word pretty much screws your post, and your attitude. MS "donated" nothing. They were caught redhanded with their hands in the cookie jar. They were threatened with legal action, so they paid for the cookies, in the currency damanded by their victims.
The seperate issue of examining that code? Go for it. A lot of people are examining it right now, I suspect. ;)
Would Microsoft be sneaky or dishonest? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them (Score:1, Insightful)
Sure, it may have contributed the source code to some repository somewhere but I think the GPLv2 says you need to provide it if you are distributing. Which is what they're doing. Pretty obvious violation right there. Also, when you distribute it, you should have a copy of the GPLv2 license with it. I can't find a trace of it when I get the iso from them ..
Wrong. The GPL v2 states only that you must provide source code, if you're distributing, when the source code is requested. They don't have to make it publically available, and the GPLv2 expressly allows them the right to charge you for the overhead of mailing the source to you, upon request, on a DVD, or CD, or even in a book.
This is why the community doesn't get taken seriously in the real world. You don't even know the terms of your own license, yet you nevertheless cry violation, when there's no grounds for it. You searched their site. So what? DFid you actually contact Microsoft and request the source code?
Re:does it matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that this is a positive sign from Microsoft. For years they've been going on about how the GPL is a virus and communist and will be the death of us all.
Now they've released code under it. It doesn't matter that they had to, it matters that they did it. They undoubtedly had a team of lawyers looking at their options before doing this. If they were of the viro-communist mindset toward the GPL before this, they certainly aren't now. The lawyers must have told Microsoft that if they decided to play the "GPL is invalid" card, it would have been a very long and hard battle for defeat.
Microsoft may have said things to the effect of the GPL being possibly invalid, but there's no way they actually believed it. It's not like they only had their lawyers look at the license when they discovered they were violating it. If there was any actual hope of getting the license invalidated, then they would have created a test case scenario long ago. But no matter how much FUD they spout in public, when push comes to shove MS, like everyone else but a couple crazies like SCO, quietly moves to comply rather than fight a legal battle they know they won't win.
So I agree that this is a positive thing -- it's going to be harder for MS to spout anti-GPL FUD, and hey now there's more GPL software out there which is nice. But I don't see how this is a positive sign from Microsoft. I'd bet you anything this was simply a screw-up on their part, and they never had any intention of giving the GPL validation (which it theoretically shouldn't need, but practically speaking it can use). I don't see how complying with a license rather than fighting a legal battle they can't win and which would only make them look worse represents a sea change in their corporate mentality.
Re:GPL2 (Score:3, Insightful)
This all isn't in keeping with their company line up to this point- and companies typically don't change this much this fast. Ever. I doubt that they're telling the truth here on this- as much because of what they've done in the past and how radically different it is from what that was.
Never forget that Microsoft does not act as a single, intelligent creature with one purpose. Microsoft is a large fiefdom. There is one king (Balmer) who doles out responsibility to a small army of dukes, earls, counts, and such (vice presidents), each of whom have their own agenda (amass the most resources, either by raising revenues or stealing from each other). Linux is a very annoying enemy to one of the dukes, and is a strategic ally of a count.
It is entirely possible for one part of Microsoft - probably the Windows Server marketing organization - to be spewing anti-GPL filth while at the same time another part of Microsoft - the hypervisor engineering team - is working very hard to interoperate with Linux because the lack of that integration is killing them in the marketplace against VMware. I would be more surprised if Microsoft didn't manage to act like a schizophrenic. Microsoft as a whole doesn't give a damn about Linux; it's one or two parts of the company that feel strongly one way or another.
Re:AGAIN? (Score:5, Insightful)
They violated the GPL. That is a bad thing.
Complying with the license rather than trying to fight a legal battle they would certainly lose is not a good thing, it's a neutral thing. You're not being "good" when you serve the jail time the court sentences you to. You're not being "good" when you screw a supplier out of money you owe, then agree to pay them that money when you get caught. You don't get brownie points for doing what you are legally obligated to do to correct your mistakes!
So, net result: bad thing.
"Microsoft finally did what Slashdot has been demanding they do" -- what rubbish. They did it because if they didn't, they were going to get sued and this would have become an even more high-profile clump of dirt on their face. Now they can play it off to the gullible like they're being magnanimous, rather than be dragged kicking and screaming to the inevitable conclusion.
I don't remember Slashdot ever demanding Microsoft screw up and unwittingly violate the GPL, forcing them to either cripple their own product by removing the offending code or releasing the source.
Re:I've Still Yet to See the Code from Them (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but copyright law doesn't work that way. Even if they do abide by the license when they release a new version, the old version is still a separate work (according to the law) and still in violation. They need to either release the source code for the old version too, or quit distributing it.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay... I'm no Microsoft fan by a long shot, but so what if they had been violating the GPL all this time before releasing the source code? I think that the important point is that they are doing so *NOW*... because, after all, isn't that the point of the GPL?
If there are no negative consequences to violating the GPL, companies can do it as a matter of course, and then only come into compliance when forced to. This hugely increases the burden on those enforcing the GPL, because as long as there's any value in non-compliance for a time, companies may as well not comply. That's why the FSF has begun demanding cash settlements and other punitive measures for violators.
Additionally, as other posters have noted, it appears that Microsoft is actually still *NOT* in compliance. Providing the source to the Linux kernel team is not sufficient per the terms of the GPL. Since MS is distributing binaries, the GPL requires them to either distribute the source with the binaries, or to accompany the binaries with an offer, valid for at least 3 years, to provide the source upon request. Also, MS must not impose additional licensing requirements beyond those of the GPL, but it seems they are imposing additional requirements which violates the GPL another way.