News Alleged GPL violation downs Win 7 tool

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2009/11/11/alleged-gpl-violation-downs-win-7-tool/1

Reports of the use of GPL-licensed code in Microsoft's Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool have resulted in it being removed from the company's site pending an investigation.

 

Quite the opposite.

GPL is all about showing off how clever you've been then spitefully forcing people to re-invent said circular rotary object unless they're capable of living on fresh air and sleeping in a cardboard box. Which is so fatuous it makes me weep.

 

/Phil reminds me why he's on my ignore list


Its good that MS have responded quickly and taken it at least semi seriously.

 

Honestly, it's probably not so malicious as it is a case of a lazy programmer who didn't want to come up with his own methods to do something. I doubt Microsoft will keep things as they are, just as I doubt that guy will keep his job.

 

The good artists imitate, the great artists steal.

 

this article made me chuckle... a little bit.

 

Tell that to Redhat and it's employees.

 

Maybe the originator of the code (contributor to the ImageMaster project) also worked on the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download tool? If so, then as the copyright holder he has the right to re-use the code under a different license. Of course that is a very big "if". But innocent until proven guilty, right?

 

How about Canonical? Sun?

*Must stop feeding trolls*.

 

Now with Sun, you might actually have a point.

 

Odd thing...

On Windows XP this tool connects to the internet and downloads the GPL ImageMaster software the entire issue is about. On Vista and Windows 7, it doesn't - The ImageMaster components must be built into win7/vista. Now, I'm with most people thinking this is a little extreme, obviously Microsoft shouldn't have done it, but maybe someone simply dropped the ball with the terms distributed with it - the app is free, after all, and I doubt it uses anything Microsoft would determine as being "secret", so I'm expecting this to just blow over. The fact that certain Imagemaster components must be built into Windows Vista and Windows 7 though, that's what has me a little concerned - Maybe Microsoft asked permission from the ImageMaster devs to distribute it with Windows, and assumed it would allow them to use the code in windows-related tools and apps as well?

Either way, I'll be interested to see how it pans out, but I doubt much will happen because of it.

 

That's the whole thing for me, really. It's free - but you can't use it. Great, well done, GPL people, you're very clever - you've created code and put rules on it that prevent people actually using it! Fantastic, I'm very impressed. Genius. I wish I'd thought of that.

 

sad, it was a nice tool though, sometimes I just cant help but wonder if these opensource people (or such) are just biased with a closed-source software giant like MS, just wondering,lol

 

Honestly what would happen if MS found some of its code in a os project?

 

it's really not that hard to understand, the software is free to use and free to modify, but just as you were permitted to use and modify the code so to must you allow others to use and modify said code (and in the case of the GPL, derivative works as well), you can't take the code, make it closed source, claim rights to it you don't have and prevent others from using it.

think of it as analogous to the "take a penny, leave a penny" tray, you are free to take a penny if you need it but you can't claim ownership of the tray nor can you try and prevent others from taking a penny and it would be nice if you left a penny at some point so that when someone else needs one it will be available for them.

same thing with gpl'd software, use it, modify it, but if you do don't tray and claim rights to the software because it belongs to everyone.

 

You're a real genius, aren't you? The point of the GPL is to protect free software - to keep it free. These evil GPL people have done exactly the opposite of what you accuse them of: they have made sure that everyone can use the software as they please. Use it, modify it, share it, ... It's a geek's heaven.

If I spend my time developing a free program, I want it to remain free. I don't want anyone (private person or company) using my code in their proprietary projects. I wrote it for the benefit of the people (wow, that sounds quite commie), and I assume modifications will be of even more benefit to at least some people. That is why non-free software (bar one driver, to my shame - because I'm too cheap to buy a new graphics card) is forbidden in this house.
People who want to write proprietary software can write their own ****ing code. Free software has to remain free. With free software, everybody wins.

If you don't understand free software or its purpose, stay out of GPL-related topics.

However, personally I am convinced this is one employee being lazy and nicking code; not Microsoft's policy.

 

That would be much different - in order for the code to be part of an open source project the code must have been obtained illegally - either by decompiling current software or by somehow gaining access to the source. With OS projects, you are given the source and only asked to make it available to anyone else, + modifications.

 

My quote was in response to dyzophoria wondering if opensource is biased to closed source and asking him what he thinks ms would do if they found some of their code in a gpl project

 

It always amazes me that people who are ignorant of what the GPL says always feel as thought they have the right to judge it. Then again, stupidity is a renewable resource.

 

In the same way garbage is a renewable resource