Alleged GPL violation downs Win 7 tool
The code used in Microsoft's Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool bears a striking resemblance to that used in a GPL licensed project.
The allegations of the use of code covered under the GNU General Public License - which is a popular open-source licence, allowing re-use of the code providing the code or modifications thereof are also licensed under the same terms - were made by Rafael Rivera - via neowin.net - who spotted the issue when "poking through the UDF-related internals of the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool."
Rivera claims that "a simple search of some method names and properties, gleaned from Reflector's output, revealed the source code was obviously lifted from the CodePlex-hosted [...] GPLv2-licensed ImageMaster project."
While Microsoft hasn't made any official statement regarding the GPL licensed code, company spokesperson Mary Jo Foley has said that "Microsoft is looking into this issue and is taking down the WUDT tool from the Microsoft Store site until its investigations are complete."
While there is nothing wrong per se with Microsoft using GPL-licensed code in its software - after all, the very heart of the open-source ethos is in encouraging code reuse and not re-inventing the wheel - the terms of the licence are very specific: use of code from a GPL-licensed project must include a disclaimer as to its use along with a copy of the source code licensed under the same terms. By violating this, and by replacing the rights granted by the GPL with its own more restrictive terms and conditions, Microsoft has lost the right to use and redistribute the code.
Do you believe that Microsoft should have thought twice before using code from a GPL project in its products, or was this a simple human error somewhere? Did you expect better from a company which often rigidly enforces its own licensing conditions? Share your thoughts over in the forums.
Previous Article
20 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyQuite 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.
Its good that MS have responded quickly and taken it at least semi seriously.
*Must stop feeding trolls*.
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.
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.
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
In the same way garbage is a renewable resource :P