What is Digg?Sponsored by Toyota
What to do if your accelerator pedal sticks view!
toyota.com - Learn how to bring your Toyota vehicle to a safe stop if you experience a sticking accelerator pedal.
56 Comments
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -15/+42Who cares. Microsoft is doing the right thing here by releasing an open source plug in for ODF. Arguing mundane details of open source licenses is pointless and counter productive.
- phidong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26That possibility goes to zero when they credit him in the source
[!-- Extra spaces management
from J. David Heisenberg --]
:) (although they did spell his name incorrectly) - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22LGPL DOES NOT let you use the software however you want. It has all the same restrictions of the GPL, with the exception that if the code in question is a library or similar body of code, a proprietary application may _link_ with that code without that application itself having to be released under the same license. Any change to the code that's LGPL'd itself, or actually integrating it into a proprietary application, requires re-releasing the changes under LGPL. I'm not sure about the Apache license, though, I'll have to look into it.
- adizzy615, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17From the article comments section:
[Qoute]
I am the project leader of the "ODF Add-in for Word 2007" project. I
would like to make something clear: the project is not hold by Microsoft, it is
the "property" (if one can talk of property with an open source
project) of Clever Age, a french IT services company.
We did not intend to "steal" anything to anyone, we just reused a
portion of code from the book "OASIS OpenDocument Essentials" from J.
David Eisenberg and mentioned the original author's name in our code (sorry for
the mispelling, it will be fixed very soon). There was no license given for the
code exemples in the book, so we thought mentioning the author would be enough.
But there won't be any problem with adding a mention of the original license or
so if needed.
As a reminder, this project is an Open Source project, and we would be very
pleased to see developers joining the team and help us improving the converter.
We chose a BSD-like license in order to allow anybody reusing it and doing
whatever he wants with it. For instance, there won't be anything preventing from
using the XSL transforms in OpenOffice to open and save docx files.
I'd like to add that as soon as I heard of this issus, I sent an e-mail to J.
David Eisenberg to have his opinion on it, and I am still waiting for his
answer.
I hope that will make things clearer. Best regards,
Jean Goffinet
[/Qoute]
Is this really Jean Goffinet, I don't know. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+27So, Microsoft took some code, and the author doesn't care. Why is this interesting?
- ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12The author of the above post is somewhat correct. If you go to the project homepage:
http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/#_Toc139892031
You'll see that while Microsoft is listed as contributor, they are only involved in " (Funding, Architectural & Technical Guidance and Project co-coordination)". Meaning they didn't actually write any of the code.
In other words, they didn't copy this code... but it's no fun to bash no-name development houses, so I can understand why they concentrated on Microsoft. - bbatsell, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15The issue is that Microsoft released their plugin (and therefore, ODF's code) under the BSD license, which allows proprietary, commercial use, which both of the licenses ODF's code was published under does not. Open-source licenses exists for a reason, and Microsoft ignored them while claiming open-source was their priority.
- ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Um, ok... this is 15 lines of XSLT markup and Microsoft actually gave credit to the author in the code. Doesn't make it legal (although the illegality is iffy to begin with), but it certainly proves there was no malicious intent.
I suppose he could demand they stop using it. They would have to rewrite 15 lines of fairly simple code... the HORROR!
This is a non-story whose only purpose is to spread some good, old fashion FUD. - bosewicht, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12isn't one of the points of the article that MS didn't really release a ODF plugin, but is using one that was already written? Then the next point is that they may have changed the license.
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The author of the code said that is OK to use the code as long as you keep the license, once you change the license you break the deal -- the author does care what you do with the code, keep the fact straight.
- babbling, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12This is interesting because Microsoft thought it was okay to just take the code and put it under a different license without asking permission. Although the author is okay with it in this case, it does make me wonder what other GPL code they might have taken...
- nkassi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Well you might think it's unimportant but by doing this Microsoft is demostrating that it doesn't have to respect the GPL or LGPL. It seems to me they are trying to undermine free software by showing that no one attack them for violating the License.
I'm probably reading to much into this but they don't seem to care if they get hit by a lawsuit.
NIc - chaosmachine, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11it's interesting because microsoft is using open source.
microsoft has specifically said that open source is bad. - bieber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The LGPL does not allow use of code without attribution or releasing of source, unless it meets the linking exception. See my reply to the first comment.
- signal15, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10This is blatant sensationalism.
- Reno582, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Microsoft isn't producing the plug-in their supporting it but not producing it
- Surreal, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11What's the big deal with this exactly??? I see nothing wrong with this.
Not only that, why reinvent the wheel? That is the whole ideal of programming anyway, if someone already did it, why rewrite it when you can just copy and paste? (Why reinvent the wheel, etc) - fufubag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Dear MS bashers,
1. RTFA
2. type apple.com
3. commence jerking off for relief
sincerely,
Not slashdot - iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7at its finest!
- estvir, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7lol @ these mindless anti-ms lemmings.
once again, you blow something out of proportion without -any- investigating or thinking, and it's even more funny because you automatically blame microsoft.
hahah. /high five - kabewm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Apache license allows this. What's the big deal?
- joe90210, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Microsoft has nothing to do with the development of the plugin, the article is just FUD
- gharding, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5It's been announced that ms has used open-source code before, specifically under the BSD license, which lets you integrate the code into whatever commercial project you want and not have to redistribute the source, I believe. I think I remember reading they took code relating to the TCP/IP stack from FreeBSD. Could be wrong, though. So it's certainly not the first time they've bothered with opensource.
- 0x0000ff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3ah, Microsoft doesn't sell it .... and Microsoft didn't write it..
? - motang, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Agreed, it's about time if you ask me. ODF is good, and when all the different office suites can cooperate then it makes it better for all types of businesses and people.
- FatHed, on 10/12/2007, -10/+12The author states that nearly anyone would come up with the same 15 lines as he did, so there is a slim possibility that MS created the code on their own.
- danboarder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@i440 - google GPL --- it does allow commercial use ... that's how IBM, Novell, RedHat, and so many other companies have commercialized GPL software. You can sell GPL software (even though the source is free) as well as sell support contracts, subscriptions, etc. There are a lot of ways companies are commecializing Open Source software. Do a bit a research and you'll find out - a good place to start is by searching Google News and Wikipedia for "GPL", OSS, FOSS, and "open source".
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The original author releasing this as dual licensed one of which being the Apache license, essentially gives Microsoft the right to do what they want with the code without distributing source. This assumes that Microsoft is truly only using the dual licensed code and not any LGPL/GPL code linked with it.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Reminds me of when MS was found to have used a pirated version of Sound Forge 4.5 to record the .wavs for Windows XP.
Gotcha: Did Microsoft use Warez for Windows XP?
http://www.pcwelt.de/know-how/sicherheit/104830/index.html - phidong, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11Exactly. Other than the mispelling of his surname, I don't see what the big deal is.
- akinder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Idiot. If you don't want your code to be used, then don't open source it. You guys really need to get your ***** straight.
- freonchill, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6well, i don't know about the Apache license, but isn't the LGPL allow you to use it as long as your release the source. its seems that currently - assuming that the author links to the MS source for this code that they are following the LGPL - unless they added something to it i didn't know of.
- nickiank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, they're not doing the right thing by releasing a plug-in. The plug-in is a plug in and works as such: you have to put it in, you have to "import" an ODF to read it, and you have to "export" in order to write an ODF. As such, it's not native functionality. It's a half-assed solution that's only being made to prevent MS from losing market share due to the slow-but-steady popularization of the format while allowing non-native read/write so that ODF is available to its current customers but not in a convenient, easy, or reliable fashion.
- atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2LGPL allows commercial use (you can sell it if you want), it doesn't allow to use the code under other license, which makes sense.
- pagefault, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm not sure that this even matters if they grab it or steal it. It's not anything new for Microsoft to take code from open-software and turn it into gold. That's how they've reached into everyone pockets for years....
Breaking a license for 15 lines of ODF code isn't the most unethicial action they've done... - nkassi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@chaosmachine: They would argue with you by saying that they only hate the GPL. I wonder why :0)
Nic - Magadass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If any other company did it no one would give a *****, I get tired of this *****!
- bosewicht, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Because that is the license, if you (not you in particular) don't like the GPL don't use the code or find a similar project and/or code with a different license.
- nkassi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@i440: What you are describing is pretty much the BSD license.
- babbling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The FTP client, maybe, but the TCP/IP stack? I think that's just a false rumour:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/6/19/05641/7357 - nkassi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2So why did they have to release it under a BSD type license ?
Nic - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1ok so m$ are using open source to enable office use open documents
and yee nerds are still complainig? isnt that what yee wanted? - robbyt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2RTFA noob:
Now, some of Spider's code (possibly all of it) was based on the TCP/IP stack in the BSD flavors of Unix. These are open source, but distributed under the BSD license - jay7890, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5The short of it is that LGPL can be incorporated into proprietary software without acknowledgement. What's probably on your mind is the more "restrictive" GPL.
- darkchild, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Not sure why gharding was voted down. Its a well known fact that some of the networking stuff in Windows and the ftp client is originally from from the BSDs.
- robbyt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1oops... wrong thread...
- FatHed, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7That's what I get for not looking at the code :P
- i440, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware
- KevinJ, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2What would have happened if Apple did this?
Wait...they wouldn't...at least I don't think so
Then again....Berkely Unix anyone? - Langford, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8For some reason, I prefer the idea of a plug-in developed independently from Microsoft. That's not to say I think they will intentionally screw-up documents in the saving process, but I think they may intentionally not-avoid screwing-up documents in the saving process.
-
Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
