ie8 fix

Microsoft admits its GPL violation; will reissue Windows 7 tool under open-source license

By | November 13, 2009, 1:36pm PST

Summary: Microsoft officials confirmed on November 13 — a few days after pulling a Windows 7 download tool that allegedly contained improperly-licensed open-souce code — that the company did, indeed violate the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL). It plans to reissue the source and binaries for the tool next week under the GPL v2.

Microsoft officials confirmed on November 13 — a few days after pulling a Windows 7 download tool that allegedly contained improperly-licensed open-souce code — that the company did, indeed violate the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL).

Microsoft pulled the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool from the Microsoft Store on November 10 after a report by “Within Windows” blogger Rafael Rivera that he had found what looked to be open-source code in the tool. Inclusion of open-source code isn’t a no-no, but Microsoft’s decision to put a restrictive, non-open-source license on the tool incorporating that code was. (The USB 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.)

From a November 13 blog posting by Microsoft Open Source Community Manager Peter Galli:

“After looking at the code (within the USB tool) in question, we are now able to confirm this (inclusion of improperly licensed GPL v2 code) 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.”

Galli said Microsoft plans to make the source code and binaries for the Microsoft tool available the week of November 16 under the terms of the General Public License v2 “and are also taking measures to apply what we have learned from this experience for future code reviews we perform.”

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.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
106
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Microsoft admits its GPL violation; will reissue Windows 7 tool under open-source license
jackson1984-24316069205748857739440257893812 10th Oct
Hi there there,excellent piece of writing. Informations are definitely enjoyable and saved me monumental sum of time which I've make investments with a minor some thing else in its place for buy jerseys googling happy A large number of many thanks an terrible good deal!
0 Votes
+ -
Tar and feather them (nt)
Economister 13th Nov 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
There appears to be hope!
kd5auq 13th Nov 2009
If more incidents were handled with this candor MicroSoft could re-established TRUST with many skeptics and many dollars would be saved on unnecessary litigation.
It's Microsoft - hurt them even when they do admit their errors and make good on them!

Seriously Dude, see a shrink!
0 Votes
+ -
A tad serious?
Economister 13th Nov 2009
Lighten up a bit - a shrink? I will put my mental health up against yours any day.

In any event. If I pirated some MS SW and got caught, said sorry and stopped using it, I guess they would let me go eh? Fat chance.
0 Votes
+ -
re: A tad serious?
kevinddavis 13th Nov 2009
Actually, if you pirate a single copy of Windows,
yes, they will let you off. You can even
continue. Just can't download a lot of their
"free" software.

Now, get caught loading hundreds of copies on used
PCs or selling burned DVDs, and you'll find that's
a different story.
0 Votes
+ -
And if
Economister Updated - 13th Nov 2009
you are audited and found in non-compliance?
0 Votes
+ -
You do realize...
TylerM89 13th Nov 2009
that Microsoft has always stated that they are after counterfeiters - For example, the WGA screens alert users that their copy may be counterfeit, not that they are somehow unlawful.

If you make hundreds or thousands of copies of Windows and sell it, then yes, expect to be charged, maybe your company is using 1 Windows key for a few hundreds desktops, then yes, you'll get charged.

Every business knows that the cost of legal action should not outweigh the cost of lost sales. Windows costs $200 or less? Unless Microsoft can file and win a case in 30 minutes, the cost of legal action exceeds the lost sale of 1 copy of Windows.

The only exception would be if you're a blogger who hates Microsoft, then they might not care about the cost.
0 Votes
+ -
Hate may be a strong word, but
Economister 13th Nov 2009
are they watching me? wink
0 Votes
+ -
Ever hear of the BSA?
Spikey_Mike 16th Nov 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Software_Alliance

And our favorite guitar string company's story:
http://news.cnet.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html

ONE machine out of compliance - you get to license it and then pay a fine. Doesn't sound like 'Sorry - our mistake!' would cut it.
0 Votes
+ -
The difference is intention
mikefarinha 14th Nov 2009
If you pirate something you are purposefully breaking the law. If you bought a PC where the OEM put a pirate copy of Windows on you wouldn't be prosecuted.
Why do talkbackers tend to be so humor-challenged?

Some people here is too sad to watch, good grief.
0 Votes
+ -
Is that tar.gz or tar.bz2? (NT)
bendib 14th Nov 2009
NT
It was brave of Microsoft to admit this but in the end they are the bigger man for doing so. This was resolved in a very professional way. Its just too bad the linux fanboys had to get up in a frenzy over this when there really wasn't much of a story to begin with. And to show good faith Microsoft is releasing it as source code and binaries. If only all incidents could be handled this way instead of linux fanboys foaming at the mouth with ridiculous demands the world would be a better place.
0 Votes
+ -
Yeah...
Economister 13th Nov 2009
and if caught pirating their SW, MS will accept an apology and ask you to please stop.
0 Votes
+ -
Laughable!
The Mentalist Updated - 13th Nov 2009
They pirate software, when they get caught they apologize and with that they achieve moral grandeur status.

I wonder what I will get if I pirate software supposedly theirs (as we can see one can never be sure) and then apologize. A medal of honor perhaps, a Nobel Peace Prize, who knows?
0 Votes
+ -
More likely a Purple Heart
Ole Man 13th Nov 2009
and a grandioso lawsuit by a stable full of lawyers.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, you are laughable (nt)
TylerM89 13th Nov 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
What is this?
The Mentalist 13th Nov 2009
.
0 Votes
+ -
GPL Compliance
yozzman 15th Nov 2009
You do realize that MS did exactly what the GPL compliance lab from the FSF would have asked them to do, right? Before being formally asked to? So apparently, their supplier made a mistake, once informed MS directly did the right thing (their other option, which would also have been legally compliant, would have been to pull the code and replace the GPL'ed code, but no, they preferred to release the whole package), and yet somehow they are still evil in your book?

And by the way, given how industrial software development works, comparing this kind of issue to piracy in the sense of cracking MS software is laughable. It's a whole other issue, the huge difference being, as another poster pointed out, intention. Catching the fact your supplier re-used existing code, let alone it's license, is extremely difficult. And it looks like this is the situation MS is in. Hardly comparable to cracking COTS software.
0 Votes
+ -
Not So Thick With The Whitewash Lovey!
PreachJohn 13th Nov 2009
'And to show good faith Microsoft is releasing it as source code and binaries.'
'Good faith', nothing!
They cannot maintain it proprietary!
0 Votes
+ -
He's not as wrong as you think
yozzman 15th Nov 2009
Nope, but they could simply stop distributing the code. That would not be in the spirit of the GPL, but a Judge would have accepted that (+, eventually paying damages to the author). But they rather chose to respect the spirit of the GPL, that's rather a good thing in this context.
0 Votes
+ -
Yep
Viva la crank dodo 16th Nov 2009
It was brave and hopefully this will become their approach when they feel the infringement goes the other way.

I definitely agree that Linux zealots acted way to much like you with respects to the incident and if they and yourself would quit foaming at the mouth at perceived wrongs, the world would be a better place. Why don't you start setting the example here by not spewing bile when it is a perceived infringement from the other side?
MS (or its supplier) got caught only because being MS it is under intense scrutiny.
0 Votes
+ -
Silly season
Economister 13th Nov 2009
I guess MS does not have the resources to make sure, so others have to do it for them.
0 Votes
+ -
Nope
curph 13th Nov 2009
They got caught because .Net code is insecure. It was trivial to take apart (de-compile) and see the innards.
0 Votes
+ -
Um was it .net code?
DevGuy_z 16th Nov 2009
Not a lot of GPL'ed .Net code out there. I am aware of Mono but still I suspect this was C/C++

It is true you can see the IL for .net code if you do nothing to obscure it but it is quite possible to make it very obscure.


0 Votes
+ -
This is only even news just because its MS.
andrej770 Updated - 13th Nov 2009
There are tons of violations all over the place in everyones tools and software. They were only caught cause someone gets their jolly's searching for this stuff in MS code cause they don't have any other real purpose in life. Its not like they get paid to find this stuff.

MS admitted that they had a third party create the tools and didn't code check (a common occurance) and they remediated the situation.

Lets move on! Next Issue Please!!!!!!
an apology from all those who pirate software supposedly theirs as a suitable form of compensation.
0 Votes
+ -
Funny you should say that...
LiquidLearner 13th Nov 2009
if you buy a PC from someone who sells you a pirated copy of Windows they are indeed understanding. They'll prosecute the person who sold it to you. You may have to buy a legal copy (which is normal for any stolen product, btw).

If you knowingly pirate software it's a different story. It doesn't sound like they knowingly violated the GPL license, someone else did.
0 Votes
+ -
Well of course!
Ole Man 13th Nov 2009
Microsoft is so busy patenting such things as sudo they don't have time to "check their own code".

And other such things that only Microsoft knows about.

Poor things! Y'gotta pity them............
0 Votes
+ -
That's right.
AllKnowingAllSeeing 15th Nov 2009
The more I read here the more I see the usuall "It's OK to lie, cheat, and steal, unless of course you're MS, then even an oversight is far worse then others that intentionally lie, cheat, and steal.

Go figure.
0 Votes
+ -
A bigger picture
Economister 13th Nov 2009
MS has a long and continuing history of trying to undermine, discredit, spread FUD etc. about open source/free SW. That is one of the most despicable parts of MS's conduct IMHO. People spend countless hours volunteering their time to make better and cheaper tools available for computer users because they care. MS is essentially pi$$ing on them all with its conduct. As far as I know, MS still claims that Linux violates MS intellectual property but will not say specifically what it is.

This incident is really nothing. It is however part of the bigger picture of how MS deals with open source. Until MS REALLY changes its attitude/conduct, I will not let them get away with even minor transgressions without a public flogging.

Are things getting better? Maybe, but that is probably due to MS realizing it has no choice, rather than some decency creeping into the MS DNA.

That is all I am going to say on this issue.
0 Votes
+ -
I won't say much either.
Arm A. Geddon 13th Nov 2009
I'll let the link to the talking. wink

http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_history
0 Votes
+ -
of current behind-the-scenes actions.

Questionable motive = devious intentions.
... I bet you that the reason is not as commendable as one my think.

The fact that they admitted the mistake so quickly and based on past behavior, I can assure you that the main reason is not wanting more attention to the violation .... because they know there are many more.
0 Votes
+ -
Now you're talking...
The Mentalist 13th Nov 2009
so much software, so little time to scan it before they patent it all, then it will be too late.

They sure have lots of stuff to patent. This is a boon for lawyers as M$ will have to hire many more lawyers to file so many patents.
0 Votes
+ -
The second you say "M$" you..
TylerM89 13th Nov 2009
Lose all crediability (As if you ever had any).

At least Economister is intelligent enough to actually say "MS".

Is it really that hard to mistype 4 for S? Really? Do you and the other FOSS zealots have Tourette syndrome or something, where all you can say is Windoze and M$?
here , and here , and here , and here, well... you get the picture, it's pretty much everywhere.

Have you lost your mind? What are you trying to achieve?
0 Votes
+ -
Call FOSS people freetards and more, and Apple people Mactards etc are just as lame. Here's hoping you will be equally astounded by the attitude of such who comment like that.

Note however, I'm not above posting quite lamely if I want to, but sometimes I'm "nice" too :P
0 Votes
+ -
Arbitrary Edict
PreachJohn 13th Nov 2009
Because YOU decree these spellings and acronyms as the definitive standard fact, it must be so! We snap to attention!
Sounds as imperial, arrogant and paternalistic, as M$ is too often known to be.
0 Votes
+ -
I didn't decree anything.
TylerM89 14th Nov 2009
Almost every FOSS zealot I've read uses "M$", "Windoze" - It's a matter of pride. Can you not have an educated debate? Must the FOSS zealots sink so low as in creating names?

You don't see my posting "Freetards". I may call someone an idiot, but facts are facts. There is no fact in "M$" or "Windoze", it's just a perosnal attack, well in this case purely childish name calling of a corporation/brand.

I don't believe in name calling on either side - I may agree with NonZealot and the others most of the time, but in this article - I don't. Microsoft should have verified the code was open source before hand, but it didn't. At least they didn't try to fight it saying it wasn't open source, or somehow violated their patents.
0 Votes
+ -
Wow.
CobraA1 13th Nov 2009
Wow.

I don't think there's a single thing Microsoft can
do to satisfy some people. Even when they do
what's right, you just suspect them of more wrong.

I'm surprised they even took responsibility for
somebody else's code. That's something that even
individuals often won't do.
0 Votes
+ -
All companies should be scrutonized
AllKnowingAllSeeing 15th Nov 2009
I think it's about time we had a look at some of Google's code, Yahoo's, Salesforce, ect.

I can assure you that the main reason why any company that uses open source code, but doesn't let anyone see it, must be doing it because they have stolen IP embedded in it.
0 Votes
+ -
then they would be safe.
0 Votes
+ -
Sudo's Creator...
PreachJohn 13th Nov 2009
...himself is on record as concluding that there are significant enough differences. That it is emphatically not sudo, they've patented.
MS doesn't need any false raps.
There's plenty of other legitimate gist for the fodder.
0 Votes
+ -
legitimate miscarriages of justice certainly are grounds for suspicion of illegitimate miscarriages of justice.

Either way, somebody else loses. The only question is WHAT they lose.
0 Votes
+ -
While we had contracted with a third party to create the tool

MS didn't even write this code yet they did exactly the right thing by taking it down. MS isn't even directly responsible yet they took responsibility and still held true to a license that someone else broke.

But I guess that is an inconvenient truth that all the ABMers on this thread want to ignore. Flame on! Don't mind the fact it makes you all look like idiots. happy
A lways B uy Microsoft.
0 Votes
+ -
More like
TylerM89 Updated - 13th Nov 2009
Anything But Microsoft...

And, yes, you do look like an idiot
0 Votes
+ -
Hi there there,excellent piece of writing. Informations are definitely enjoyable and saved me monumental sum of time which I've make investments with a minor some thing else in its place for buy jerseys googling happy A large number of many thanks an terrible good deal!

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