Shark Bait

Knowledge Centers

Operating Systems

Networking & Internet

Mobile & Wireless

Security

Storage

Business Intelligence

Servers & Data Center

Computerworld Reports

Industry

See your link here

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Cyber Cynic

Microsoft does the right open-source thing

17 comments

TAGS:GPL, licensing, Microsoft, open source, Windows
IT TOPICS:Development, Management, Open Source, Operating Systems, Software, Windows & Microsoft

I'm staggered. Microsoft has admitted that it violated the GPL2 with its Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool. That's not too surprising, since the violation was about as clear-cut as you could get. What's surprising, even shocking, is that Microsoft is going to re-release the tool under the GPL2!

In a note on Microsoft's open-source Web site Port 25, Microsoft's Peter Galli, a former colleague of mine as it happens, said "After looking at the code in question, we are now able to confirm [that GPL code from the ImageMaster open-source program had been put in Microsoft's proprietary program] ... although it was not intentional on our part."

The Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool is meant to help netbook users upgrade from XP to Windows 7. It makes it possible to take a Windows 7 DVD image and place it on a USB stick. Since many netbooks don't have a built-in DVD drive, this was an essential program for users who wanted to install Windows 7 on their XP desktops -- not an easy job on any PC. ImageMaster is a general-purpose tool for moving DVD images to USB sticks.

Galli continued: "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."

Now for the amazing part. Galli added: "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 ... and are also taking measures to apply what we have learned from this experience for future code reviews we perform."

Microsoft admitting to taking open-source code, albeit by accident, and then doing right by the open-source community. Amazing.

Maybe Microsoft is changing their ways when it comes to open source. I can't see Microsoft moving to Linux. But maybe, just maybe, Microsoft is going to become a good open-source citizen. Now that would be amazing!

Email this

Digg this

What People Are Saying

Add new comment

Validation of GPL

Submitted by Anonymous on November 17, 2009 - 7:00 A.M.

After years of claiming GPL was not valid/tested/cancer, Microsoft has forced to comply with GPL copyrights.

GPL is now the most prevalent software license ever to exist, and this is an absolute endorsement of GPL, its legal validity, and its strength in law by its most committed opponent.

Reply | Report this comment

But, Be Careful

Submitted by Anonymous on November 16, 2009 - 1:52 P.M.

Microsoft will surely have a patent on this software in a few weeks.

Reply | Report this comment

But, Be Careful

Submitted by Anonymous on November 16, 2009 - 1:52 P.M.

Microsoft will surely have a patent on this software in a few weeks.

Reply | Report this comment

Pressure Sensitive

Submitted by Anonymous on November 15, 2009 - 1:56 P.M.

Microsoft does the right thing? Puhleeeeeze!

Microsoft doesn't do anything unless it's in their own economic interests. They'll only "do the right thing" if doing otherwise looks like it will cost them money either in lost sales or judgments and penalties and damages via litigation in the courts. Or government fines.

When they do something as low as trying to profit from open-source code they should be swarmed by torch-bearing mobs of thousands descending on Redmond with pick-axes. The evil clone empire must be dismantled.

Reply | Report this comment

Well ya!

Submitted by Victor J Kinzer on November 16, 2009 - 8:30 A.M.

Really? Come on man, no company does anything unless it's in their best interests. It's why the term "Enlightened Self Interest" is the backbone of corporate philanthropy. The thing is as long as you are working in a system which requires openness and accountability part of "in their best interests" is doing the right thing because if they don't they'll be called on it. No one should trust any large corporation to act properly, but when they do act properly we should respond positively and encourage that behavior while doing everything we can within the system in place (our current economic/business laws) to make sure that behavior continues. This is a good day, because it means something is in place that makes it in Microsoft's best interests to do the right thing

Reply | Report this comment

Another victory for the GPL

Submitted by Niicolas on November 15, 2009 - 1:46 P.M.

That's a very good news. A proof that the approach the FSF has to free software can actually propagate freedom to other softwares.

When it is easier to reuse GPL code than code it again, new GPL projects arise...

Reply | Report this comment

They had no choice...

Submitted by Anonymous on November 14, 2009 - 12:00 P.M.

Really, the only way for them to come into compliance was to release the code, or do a deal with the copyright holder to get a waiver. Those were their only two options. If they withdrew it without doing a deal with the copyright holder, then they were opening themselves up to a lawsuit they would have lost.

At least this way they get some positive coverage, and can go around their partners whispering sweet FUD in their ears: "See what happens when you accidentally put GPL code in with your code, it really is viral, you lose your precious IP, better to stay well clear..."

Reply | Report this comment

It is all quite simple...

Submitted by Don on November 14, 2009 - 11:34 A.M.

The two main motives for Microsoft were to keep the move to Win7 trucking along and avoid being branded one more time as the code-thieves that they are.

If they pulled in the software until they could create the magical MS-only fix they'd slow Win7 adoption. They'd also have to endure endless stories about how they were caught red-handed in behavior that they thought they were better at covering up. Instead, the story becomes "Shock, horrors, MS releases GPLv2 code!!" and everyone is supposed to forget that they stole the code in the first place and tried to get away with it.

Fighting the GPL terms in court was definitely not an option. That would have been really fun to watch, but they didn't want that kind of loss of face.

Reply | Report this comment

didn't read the same thing

Submitted by ST on January 27, 2010 - 5:25 P.M.

Maybe you didn't read the whole article. Its been pretty clear in articles about this event that Microsoft hired someone else (third party) to create the tool for them. Apparently this third party stole all the code, and when Microsoft reviewed it, they didn't notice anything unusual.

In essence, Microsoft itself didn't steal the code, it was the third party. This, of course, makes Microsoft no less liable, and that's why they owned up to it here and said, "We'll watch out for this thing in the future when reviewing external code."

Reply | Report this comment

I'd like to know why MS

Submitted by Anonymouse on November 14, 2009 - 12:47 A.M.

I'd like to know why MS decided to release the code under GPL2. It may have been in their best interest after all; although they need only remove the GPL2 code and provide their own, that could be a long and costly exercise which would only interfere with their original intention of providing a tool to help migrate from XP to W7. Unfortunately all large projects are vulnerable to a similar threat from criminal coders and despite MS stating that they regret not catching the stolen code in their code review, I really can't imagine how anyone can hope to catch all stolen code.

Reply | Report this comment