ie8 fix

Did Microsoft Windows 7 download tool violate the GPL?

By | November 10, 2009, 7:30am PST

Microsoft has pulled an update tool for Windows 7 from the Microsoft Store site after a report indicating that the tool incorporated open-source code in a way that violated the GNU General Public License.

Rafael Rivera of the “Within Windows” blog reported on November 6 that he had found something suspicious when mucking around int he code for the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool. (That tool, which Microsoft made available on October 22, is designed to help netbook users upgrade from XP to Windows 7 in a more streamlined way.)

On November 9, Microsoft pulled the download tool from its site. A spokesperson sent me the following update:

“Microsoft is looking into this issue and is taking down the WUDT tool from the Microsoft Store site until its investigations are complete. We apologize to our customers for any inconvenience.”

Rivera noted that the Microsoft tool may violate more than a few GPL terms and conditions. From his post:

“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 (yikes) GPLv2-licensed ImageMaster project. (The author of the code was not contacted by Microsoft.)…

“Microsoft did not offer or provide source code for their modifications to ImageMaster nor their tool…. Second, Microsoft glued in some of their own licensing terms, further restricting your rights to the software (TermsOfUse.rtf).”

Microsoft has run afoul of the GPL licensing terms on a few occasions. Most recently, there were questions raised by some in the open-source community about Microsoft’s motives for making some of its drivers available for inclusion in the Linux source tree. (Microsoft officials maintained that the company didn’t release the source code because of potential legal issues; some in the open-source community begged to differ.)

Stay tuned for more on this, as Microsoft proceeds with its investigation….

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 25 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Disclosure

Mary-Jo Foley

Freelance journalist/blogger Mary Jo Foley has nothing to disclose. WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). I do not own Microsoft stock or stock in any of its partners or competitors. I have no business ventures that are sponsored by/funded by Microsoft or any of its partners or competitors.

Biography

Mary-Jo Foley

Mary Jo Foley has covered the tech industry for 25 years for a variety of publications, including ZDNet, eWeek and Baseline. She has kept close tabs on Microsoft strategy, products and technologies for the past 10 years. In the late 1990s, she penned the award-winning "At The Evil Empire" column for ZDNet, and more recently the Microsoft Watch blog for Ziff Davis.

Got a tip? Send her an email with your rants, rumors, tips and tattles. Confidentiality guaranteed.

85
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Did Microsoft Windows 7 download tool violate the GPL?
jackson1984-24316069205748857739440257893812 10th Oct
Great Running a blog page I genuinely much like the lay out likewise because wholesale jerseys the coloring scheme could it be prospective to obtain a duplicate of one's concept?
0 Votes
+ -
Probably
Ceridan 10th Nov 2009
A microsoft programmer probably used code he found in the net(IE code-plex...) instead of developping his own code...

At school the programmer would have failed his course, here MS will face, once aggain, the wrath of Stallman's little cultists.
0 Votes
+ -
Deleted Duplicate Post
Looks Confused Updated - 11th Nov 2009
Deleted Duplicate Post
0 Votes
+ -
Dang
Looks Confused 11th Nov 2009
Sorry about the double post. Is there a way to delete one or the other of them?

Hans
0 Votes
+ -
Do I have to reply to both? (nt)
Economister 11th Nov 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
And no....
Economister 11th Nov 2009
I believe you can only edit (down to nt/nt I guess) If you do that at the bottom, I will have to do the same. Cheers.
0 Votes
+ -
if true they should get penalize (nt)
Quebec-french 10th Nov 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
No they shouldn't
John Zern 10th Nov 2009
Unless of course we start penalizing Open Source, too.

Seems to me that some open source companies have run afoul of that very GPL in the past.

If you're not willing to penalize them for what may have been a mistake or oversight, then you shouldn't penalize MS for that same reason.

I mean, you allways talk about doing things fairly, right?
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong comparison
Economister 11th Nov 2009
"Fair" would be to treat MS violations of GPLed code the same way as MS treats violations of their IP/copy right.
0 Votes
+ -
Fair is as fair does...
jasonp@... 11th Nov 2009
To ditto what economister said, a more apt fairness test would be to apply to Microsoft the same standards they apply to everyone else. Of course, a real honest fairness test would have to consider both and nobody really wants to be that truly fair. That would require things like critical thinking skills and the application of various shades of grey to an otherwise black and white world so many people seem to be stuck in.
0 Votes
+ -
I doubt that...
Ceridan 11th Nov 2009
there is a big conspiracy at MS to use (or steal) GPL code.

If I have to guess either it's code from a 3rd party that had some programmer who "stole" GPLed code from codeplex or some soon to be fired programmer at MS who was too lazy.

It could also be just coincidence... or plain stupidity from the researcher(IE:
"Oh the tool is using a readbyte() function and ImageReady also uses a readbyte() function so MS stole the idea from ImageReady")...
0 Votes
+ -
Assume for a moment that......
Economister 11th Nov 2009
MS indeed did violate the GPL. Also assume that it was an accident. No big deal, right?

Wrong. MS makes users/customers spend significant resources to MAKE SURE they are in compliance. Any violations, accidental or intentional, are treated the same. If the customers are not in compliance, they are penalized.

It therefore is reasonable to expect MS, with its vast resources, to act likewise in respecting others' IP. They should spend the resources to MAKE SURE they do not violate the GPL, but they don't, because the consequences are trivial.

That is IMHO what is despicable in these cases. The ruthless enforcement of your own IP and the casual disregard for that of others. But that is MS for you. That is another reason why it is often despised.
0 Votes
+ -
It was a CodePlex project?
BFD 10th Nov 2009
Well unlikely then that the cult of Stallman or anyone else will give much of a crap here.
0 Votes
+ -
FSF should sue M$
Linux Geek 10th Nov 2009
and ask for triple damages.
0 Votes
+ -
triple damages?
hjagla 10th Nov 2009
What damages? $0.00 x 3 = $0.00.
0 Votes
+ -
Shush you...
Ceridan 10th Nov 2009
you'll make young Linux Geek's head explode with your logical math.
0 Votes
+ -
Maths?
The Evangelist 10th Nov 2009
But for the RIAA 50 songs x $1.00 a song = $250,000,000.

Certainly the math isn't as simple as "the author didn't charge anything so they don't get anything." Copyleft is copyleft, not public domain.
0 Votes
+ -
Who cares?
No_Ax_to_Grind 10th Nov 2009
No users care one way or the other.
0 Votes
+ -
"No" is rather a glib generalilzation...
HypnoToad72 10th Nov 2009
"Most", maybe, but most end users aren't particularly bright either.

0 Votes
+ -
so if its ok for ms to violate gpl
Quebec-french 10th Nov 2009
its ok for linux to violate ms big time ... btw
until proven other wise linux doesnt violate
anything
0 Votes
+ -
Wow bit...
Tim Patterson 10th Nov 2009
If it's MS violating the GPL license then "who cares?"

If someone is violating MS' license terms you are outraged and everyone should care.

Can you say zero credibility?
0 Votes
+ -
Make that veracity
Ole Man 10th Nov 2009
and I'm witcha......

As has been pointed out, credibility must first be established before it can register zero.
0 Votes
+ -
If that's the case
Michael Kelly 10th Nov 2009
then the fact that no users care one way or the other about Windows piracy, or DVD piracy, or music piracy should mean something to you.
0 Votes
+ -
While
Cylon Centurion 10th Nov 2009
Your typical user may or may not know or understand what is going on here, the law says otherwise.

Violating the GPL is still violating the GPL.


Knowing Ballmer's hot headedness, my gut feelings say this could get interesting.
0 Votes
+ -
We have it
Richard Flude 10th Nov 2009
No_Ax_to_Grind believes anything is acceptable from his MS, including
stealing others IP.

Why am I not surprised?
0 Votes
+ -
No users care one way or the other.
Yagotta B. Kidding 10th Nov 2009
Exactly -- nice to see you and Steve Balmer on board with the whole movement to abolish (or at least ignore) copyright.

According to the BSA, most software is already pirated. Good to see you get with the times!
0 Votes
+ -
The point is that Microsoft needs to adhere to the GPL, or develop their own solution from scratch. The purpose of the GPL is to share. This is normally against Microsoft's beliefs, so it's no surprise that this happened. You can't tell me that they didn't know that they were violating the GPL before it happened.
Has no one heard of the Microsoft "open source shop"? Or noticed that Microsot have been gradually incorporating open source in their wares? And considered that since their code is closed secretive proprietary and reverse engineering is forbidden, they can sneak anything they want into it? Is there anyone here who thinks Microsoft is above such shenanigans? If so, I have a bridge............

http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS6208628442.html

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/33504.html?wlc=1257876999
"recognize that Microsoft's software security depends crucially on keeping its source code secret. That's not a comment from an anti-Microsoft bigot -- it's the testimony given under oath by Microsoft vice president Jim Allchin."

A wolf dons sheep's clothing not to become popular, but to get himself a good bloody meal.
0 Votes
+ -
That Murphy article is astounding!
peter_erskine@... 10th Nov 2009
The article from 2004 was spot-on, in the light of what's happened since.
when it is so easy to go along with the majority, head in orifice.......

Be warned, however. You are now in danger of being labeled a nut, or a crazy old man, though a young lad or wee lassie ye may be.
0 Votes
+ -
But then again
John Zern 10th Nov 2009
You are now in danger of being labeled a nut, or a crazy old man

But as the saying goes, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"
0 Votes
+ -
Again, but then again......
Ole Man 11th Nov 2009
sometimes cigars are loaded with explosives.

The sometimes are not relevant, but the motives are.
0 Votes
+ -
As long as .....
Economister 10th Nov 2009
the world is full of Little Red Riding Hoods
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft won't give him a chance to..... they protect their own..... meals, that is.
0 Votes
+ -
Really. And whose IP does Google
John Zern Updated - 10th Nov 2009
or Yahoo, or any company violate since none of those companies allow anyone to see their code either, hiding behind "they're trade secrets"?

You and I both bnow that many of those companies are using stolen IP and code in their "open source programs that we'll never show you".

The most sucessfull thieves are the ones that never brag about their thefts
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong, wrong, wrong........
Ole Man 11th Nov 2009
The most sucessful thieves are those who have the resources to cover up the theft, and a stable of slick lawyers to deny the theft when disclosed by others. Not to mention a zoo full of yes-men/women (well paid or "profit" motivated, I'm sure).

Microsoft qualifies on all three counts.
0 Votes
+ -
But of course no other company
GuidingLight 12th Nov 2009
that keeps code hidden from view would ever, ever, do anything wrong.

Yet they all have lawyers... wink
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, there is no honor among thieves
Ole Man 12th Nov 2009
and honest ethical lawyers are as scarce as hen's teeth (if there is in fact such a thing).

Your point was??????????????
0 Votes
+ -
Probably not, no need for them to use GPL tools. Even if they did there is nothing to do about it because Microsoft complied and stopped distributing the tool per GPL agreements. Such a non-issue.
0 Votes
+ -
So I guess it is OK
Economister 10th Nov 2009
if I pirate some MS software as long as I stop using it when caught.

Splendid logic.
0 Votes
+ -
possibly a better analogy...
Fark 10th Nov 2009
IF your firm bought PC's with pirated software and as soon as you found out it was pirated you stopped using it - that's all anyone can ask.

If a MS coder messed up, and MS stopped using the code as soon as they figured it out, that's the best outcome (unless you want to bring back the tar and feathers - which I would pay real money to watch). I'm not saying they shouldn't apologize for it - but I think asking them to fall on their sword is a bit much in this case.

They took responsibility, they took it down.

Maybe they should be forced to release any updates that MS made to the code. They can't use Open Source code and then hide it - they should have to release new code.
0 Votes
+ -
Is MS happy...
Economister 10th Nov 2009
if you either stop using their product or pay the OEM license fee if they catch you during an audit?
0 Votes
+ -
you either stop using their product

There you go. It seems Microsft just stopped using the product, so why are you so unhappy?

You just said that was a viable option.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't know
Economister 10th Nov 2009
whether you have a reading problem, a comprehension problem or possibly both, but try again.
0 Votes
+ -
why are you still breathing?
ljenux-23043766007667558234416105604265 10th Nov 2009
you are stealing air from decent humans, animals and plants

and bacteria
0 Votes
+ -
So I guess...
awasson@... 11th Nov 2009
You'll unleash a torrent of vitriol at Microsoft on par with what you direct at those Linux developers who you typically accuse of theft.

...or not.
0 Votes
+ -
So what?
Yagotta B. Kidding 10th Nov 2009
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 (yikes) GPLv2-licensed ImageMaster project.

That's what CodePlex is for. Microsoft's site, their code to use as they see fit.
0 Votes
+ -
Not their code...
verrick 10th Nov 2009
As per Microsoft, they just host the site for the open source community.

CodePlex is hosted by Microsoft. Microsoft does not control, review, revise, endorse or distribute the third party projects on this site. Microsoft is hosting the CodePlex site solely as a web storage site as a service to the developer community. For more information, read the CodePlex Terms of Use.

Also from the terms of service...

Use of the Software is governed by the terms of the end user license agreement, if any, which accompanies or is included with the Software ("License Agreement").



Just so we're all arguing about the same thing, at least.


0 Votes
+ -
Thanks again
Drakaran 10th Nov 2009
You always have the best Microsoft news. Thanks again for keeping us abreast of what's happening.
0 Votes
+ -
Bottom line
Michael Kelly 10th Nov 2009
They're taking the proper measures to rectify the situation. That's all you can ask.
0 Votes
+ -
No it isn't !!!!!!!!
Economister 10th Nov 2009
Rectifying the situation after being caught does not really count. Try that one on a judge after you have been caught breaking the law.

Try that one on the BSA or the RIAA after they caught you, to see if they will drop the case.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Did Microsoft Windows 7 download tool violate the GPL?
jackson1984-24316069205748857739440257893812 10th Oct
Great Running a blog page I genuinely much like the lay out likewise because wholesale jerseys the coloring scheme could it be prospective to obtain a duplicate of one's concept?

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix