What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
81 Comments
- krystalo, on 11/16/2009, -2/+148Good job Microsoft.
- FormerBabby, on 11/16/2009, -7/+72Gimme me sweater, hell is getting cold.
- captininsanity, on 11/16/2009, -2/+47General policy of any corporation is source code is secret. Of course they would try to keep it secret, but it's nice to know that they're ok releasing it open source. They could have just discontinued it. Maybe this could set a trend for some of the Microsoft utilities, possibly at least among MSDN members.
- esc27, on 11/16/2009, -1/+44They could probably avoid any legal issues just by pulling the tool and never re-releasing it (or spent several weeks rewriting it...) I think this is a nice move on Microsoft's part to get the tool back into the hands of its customers.
- fendereff, on 11/16/2009, -3/+27Wait....Microsoft did what?
- KingFog, on 11/16/2009, -1/+22Well, it works doesn't it?
We get our computers, the poor get aid that they need... Everybody's happy! - stillhateyou, on 11/16/2009, -10/+30Yes, in doing so they've avoided a lawsuit. Open sourcing this was a no brainer. They really had no choice.
- lukedamonkey, on 11/16/2009, -0/+20I'd say most copyright laws in the U.S. are retarded.
- Lane, on 11/16/2009, -2/+18I would highly recommend anyone who got a digital copy of 7 to make a back up disk with this program, it works like a charm. It's a huge relief they are releasing it instead of just doing away with it. I was screwed, 7 stored boot files on my external drive, locked them so they couldn't be copied off of it, and would not boot up without it but once I could boot off my thumb drive 7 fixed the problem in 2 minutes. Microsoft just keeps getting better and better in my book.
- Rothbardosaurus, on 11/16/2009, -0/+15I think you read only my first 7 words. No, there's not a "gotcha", but copyright was designed so people could lock up information and hold it ransom. The GPL uses copyright in reverse to defend free information, and does it so that it stays in effect forever.
Very elegant move and I'm glad to see it working. - Rothbardosaurus, on 11/16/2009, -4/+18GPL was designed to be infectious like this, to use the whole "intellectual property" anti-idea-sharing system against itself. Single most brilliant tactical move in the whole FOSS campaign. Nice one, RMS!
- Mejogid, on 11/16/2009, -3/+16Copyright violation is a technicality now? I'd say it's pretty clear cut, myself.
- GhostFreeman, on 11/16/2009, -0/+13Microsoft has a company policy at place that strictly prohibits any of their developers from using GPLed or Copyleft code in Microsoft products. I'm grateful that Microsoft will follow through with the policies of the GPL, but someone's gonna get hung from their balls over this.
- 4321234, on 11/16/2009, -0/+12Software patents, on the other hand, seem to be having the exact reverse of their intended purpose. Instead of protecting the ip of the enterprising innovator, they're used as threat weapons to keep the little guy squeezed out and stifle competition / innovation.
- s73v3r, on 11/16/2009, -2/+14They already had been distributing it, though. Under the terms of the GPL, even if they pulled it, they still would have to provide source to those they distributed it to.
- Rothbardosaurus, on 11/16/2009, -0/+11Absolutely.
Such things should be abolished. - soopafly, on 11/16/2009, -1/+12You just made yourself look like an ass.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 11/16/2009, -0/+10Complying with a license always matters.
- DifferentAngle, on 11/16/2009, -5/+14He's like Robin Hood - steals from the rich (people who can afford computers) and gives to the poor.
- s73v3r, on 11/17/2009, -0/+9The point is that this tool was based off an existing one which was already GPLed. As such, the Microsoft version should have been open from the get go.
- mikedzl, on 11/16/2009, -4/+11This tool works great, simple and effective.
I am quite glad I no longer have to hear the cries and whining of injustice that made the utility not available for a bit over a technicality with the open source code. - oriondr, on 11/16/2009, -0/+7Microsoft isn't really sweating it, they've released a lot of their code to open/shared source.
Including a couple of their commercial games. - awhiteflame, on 11/16/2009, -1/+7Who said it was a first?
- directedition, on 11/16/2009, -3/+8Someone's getting fired. Or at least not having their contract renewed.
- Jaxim, on 11/16/2009, -1/+6For those that don't click to read the article, here is the quote from Microsoft's open source community blog (http://port25.technet.com/):
"After looking at the code in question, we are now able to confirm this was indeed the case, although it was not intentional on our part. While we had contracted with a third party to create the tool, we share responsibility as we did not catch it as part of our code review process. We have furthermore conducted a review of other code provided through the Microsoft Store and this was the only incident of this sort we could find.
When it comes to our attention that a Microsoft component contains third party code, our aim is to be respectful of the terms under which that code is being shared. As a result, we will be making the source code as well as binaries for this tool available next week under the terms of the General Public License v2 as described here, and are also taking measures to apply what we have learned from this experience for future code reviews we perform. " - s73v3r, on 11/17/2009, -0/+5What I was referring to, and apparently what everyone who dugg me down missed, was when companies use GPL or other open source code, and don't contribute back to it or try to keep their changes closed source, violating the license.
- directedition, on 11/17/2009, -0/+4Indeed, that's what I meant about not getting your contract renewed. Microsoft probably won't want to do business with them anymore. And whoever snuck the code in at that 3rd party is probably fired.
- ammundsen, on 11/17/2009, -1/+5Actually, Robin Hood stole from the state and gave back to the people.
- 4321234, on 11/16/2009, -1/+5>Microsoft backdoors funding to SCO for legal fight over unix ownership.
>Legal battle shapes up like Novell owns unix.
>MS make outrageous patent violation claims against open source and thinly veiled threats.
>MS makes software patent 'won't sue each other's customers' deal with Novell.
**I don't know, but maybe there might just be a line or two of nix in your win*** - SLuM, on 11/16/2009, -12/+16That's some good decision making on their side. Microsoft has done some shady stuff in the past but I think Bill Gates dedication to charity has made up for it.
- jeriqo, on 11/16/2009, -2/+5Like they had any choice?
- Thistlejack, on 11/16/2009, -1/+4It says in the press release that they contracted with a 3rd party to develop the software. If that's true, I'd say MS is well within their rights to refuse to pay for some or all of the work that was done by the vendor. You don't usually pay for code when it's been illegally been lifted from copyrighted material (GPL or closed).
- s73v3r, on 11/17/2009, -0/+3So far in the US, such a thing has not happened. Usually when a company is faced with a copyright violation suit regarding the GPL, they tend to find it easier to get into compliance, and the case is settled out of court.
In the international community, there was a story not too long ago in France regarding an educational software vendor making changes to a GPL edutainment program. The company was forced to release the source, and pay a fine for violating copyright. - mrBitch, on 11/17/2009, -0/+2Correct, Microsoft have never released their own code as open source. MS only release source when they were caught out "borrowing" other people's GPL'd source code.
Once caught, MS HAVE TO release the source, otherwise it's back to the court room (again) for Microsoft. - mrBitch, on 11/17/2009, -0/+2@ Stoyanov, RE: " .. Microsoft has released a lot of code under the Shared Source Initiative and Reference Source License."
This has nothing to do with that.
This was about Microsoft (and their contractor) being caught out using GPL'd code.
Once caught, they HAVE TO release the GPL'd code and modifications, since that's what you agree to as soon as you use any GPL'd code. - d0brii, on 11/16/2009, -4/+6What about code they stole and we don't know about ?, if exception proves the rule,....
- Stoyanov, on 11/16/2009, -3/+5Microsoft has released a lot of code under the Shared Source Initiative and Reference Source License. This is not a first.
- IphtashuFitz, on 11/16/2009, -1/+3Go learn what the GPL says. Fully proprietary code does not need to be released. Only modifications to GPL'd code. So if a vendor like Cisco/Linksys releases a new wireless router that requires modifications to the linux ethernet driver then they have to release whatever changes they made to that driver. The don't have to release their proprietary application that runs on top of that modified linux kernel.
If Microsoft's tool makes significant use of GPL'd code then it may simply be easiest for them to comply with the GPL by releasing the tool in its entirety. Their alternative would be to fully redesign the application so that any GPL'd code is in an external library and then they'd only have to release the sources to that library. But chances are they simply didn't feel it was worth the effort. - oriondr, on 11/16/2009, -0/+2http://www.microsoft.com/games/allegiance/home.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?di ...
http://www.smithandtinker.com/news/mechwarrior-to- ... (MW4 isn't open source, but I believe MekTek has been given the source) - stillhateyou, on 11/17/2009, -0/+2Microsoft would disagree with you on that one.
- PinkyTheWinky, on 11/17/2009, -0/+2This is a good thing for MS. Now they get a free PR injection. I would be weary to think they did this to pat the GPL on the back. The day .Net or SQL server or Office is GPL I will changemy mind about them, but there isn't much else that could give me faith in them as a "do no evil" company.
- pauldy, on 11/16/2009, -0/+2Excuse me let me find my coat, it's about to be a cold bitch up in here.
- d0brii, on 11/16/2009, -0/+1it sounds like plan.
- WauloK, on 11/16/2009, -0/+1Couldn't get it to work for my Asus eeePC. It didn't like the USB build for some reason...
- TrendyTim, on 11/18/2009, -0/+1this is an update to that story, that MS will now OS it now that its been confirmed to violate the GPL.
- retinalfetish, on 11/16/2009, -0/+1ah.. I didn't think you were referring to the more abstract concept. My apologies. :)
- IphtashuFitz, on 11/16/2009, -2/+3I'm glad to see that Microsoft is doing the right thing. Plenty of companies have refused to release GPL'd code until faced with lawsuits (or actually losing lawsuits). I'm sure they could have slugged this out in court for a long time if they wanted to but realized it wasn't worth it. If nothing else this is yet another validation of the legitimacy of the GPL.
- MiguelGomez, on 11/17/2009, -0/+1Interesting series of events, and really everyone handled it the way right on all sides. Theeir press release that you quoted is spot on and settles this issue.
- mrBitch, on 11/17/2009, -0/+1Exactly, once caught using GPL'd code, Microsoft HAD TO release the whole thing as that's what the GPL license specifies.
- AlienMushroom, on 11/16/2009, -0/+1Grammar fail.
-
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is