Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Microsoft violates GPL

Microsoft has long ripped off free software. The canonical case is that when Microsoft needed to create its own TCP/IP stack, the company instead swiped one from the BSD-licensed Unixes. Years later, it seems Microsoft still can't resist stealing from open-source software.

Rafael Rivera, a Microsoft fan, reports in his "Within Windows" blog that Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool, a program to help netbook XP Home users to upgrade to Windows 7, contains "source code [that] was obviously lifted from the CodePlex-hosted (yikes) GPLv2-licensed ImageMaster project."

CodePlex is Microsoft's open-source-project-hosting site. It's also the name of Microsoft's new "open-source" non-profit group, the CodePlex Foundation. The Foundation's job is to bring open-source and proprietary software companies together to work on open-source projects. Now we know why: so Microsoft can walk off with any goodies they produce.

The Windows 7 tool, of course, has Microsoft licenses all over it, doesn't allow users any access to its source code, and makes no acknowledgments to the debt it owes to ImageMaster. So much for the GPL.

I never bought for a moment that Microsoft had any real interest in working with open-source developers except for its own benefit. This case just underlines it.

Microsoft has pulled the program for the time being. The Evil Empire has told ace-Microsoft reporter Mary Jo Foley that "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."

I doubt we'll ever see it again. This is a little too raw for the Microsoft of 2009.

Ironically enough, even as Microsoft was doing this, Novell was further cementing its developer ties with Microsoft by announcing Mono Tools for Visual Studio. This program enables Microsoft .NET developers to develop Mono/.NET applications with Visual Studio.

Unlike some people, I don't hate Mono, the open-source version implementation of C# and the CLR (Common Language Runtime) that is binary compatible with Microsoft.NET. I've just never believed that Microsoft would ever keep .NET stable long enough for Mono to be anything more than .NET's little brother, who was always lagging behind in any race.

With this latest example of how Microsoft really sees open-source, as an enemy to be taken advantage of whenever possible, I have even fewer reasons to trust Microsoft. I really can't recommend any open-source programmer work with Microsoft. In the end, Microsoft's goals aren't your goals: they'll do what's best for them, and if that means screwing you and open-source over, so be it.

What People Are Saying

Mono Tools for Visual Studio

Hey, that's cool - porting .NET apps to Linux, or creating new apps for Linux and from inside Visual Studio - that's unique.

How good it is at doing this??

Has anyone used it?

Get informed

Stallman warns of Mono 'risk':
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10276101-83.html

Microsoft violates GPL?

Nah,

They're switching to Linux the only way they know how!
Lie, Cheat and Steal :-)

Look in the mirror. Who do you see?

"The last refuge of the incompetent (Name Calling, arrogance, general bad attitude.)

You have just described your own comments here.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!!!!

Time to renew your prescription.

Or perhaps you just stopped taking them?

CAPTCHA: thumb management--I presume you know where that goes...

Ahhh, Inuendo!

Just another stupid comment that has nothing to do with the article. WoW, I'm surprised you could make the connection!

Maybe if you did something novel, like make an intelligent comment about the original article, I wouldn't feel like having fun at your expense and pointing out how moronic those comments are!

You might want to examine the insides of your brain and look for some intelligence. It's there somewhere, just not sure where though!

Lawyers where none exist

When SJVN's blogs touch on legal issues such as software patents and licensing, lawyers actually DO post comments here.

What lawyer is dumb enough to waste their time here?

This is geek central. lawyers do not exist here except in some geek's imagination. If you are the lawyer then you need to get a real life and maybe finish your degree and try the Bar one more time.

No, in general, lawyers do not post here. they might, but if there is a lawyer out there posting to this blog, please raise your hand!

Crickets -

By the way, any lawyer posting opinions here ought to identify their training and research as well. Case law reference to refute or back SJVN would be nice.

Only fools believe that anyone of importance cares about this blog anyway. No one that reads this drivel makes decisions based on Steven's opinions. This is an entertainment forum only.

I think mostly for his entertainment watching people argue about things that don't make a difference.

Sadly, no one here seems to recognize that. They are arrogant enough to think their opinions or Steven's opinions are of any value.

Nope, no value here, hence the Stupid Recaps from time to time.

No, I'm not the lawyer ...

... nor do I ever pretend to be one. But I do takes notice of many of SJVNs blogs. Here's one where a lawyer commented several times:

"Microsoft banned from selling Word
http://blogs.computerworld.com/14532/microsoft_banned_from_selling_word

True to your MO, you continue with name calling, insults and misinformation. And zero information content.

The Nasty Old Troll needs some reading glasses

A patent attorney actually did leave comments on the "Microsoft banned from selling Word" blog article. Check it out.