«

Microsoft yanks Windows code on GPL violation claim

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11...n_imagemaster/

""Microsoft appears to have violated the Free-Software Foundation's license in two ways: by modifying
and then distributing the ImageMaster code without making its source-code available, and by actually
bolting on its own, restricted licensing terms to the code.""

Microsoft can't very well complain about people "pirating" its software when it blatantly steals people's
GPL'd code and releases it under a restrictive Microsoft license.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

"Carnations" <> wrote in message
news...
> Microsoft yanks Windows code on GPL violation claim
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11...n_imagemaster/
>
> ""Microsoft appears to have violated the Free-Software Foundation's
> license in two ways: by modifying
> and then distributing the ImageMaster code without making its source-code
> available, and by actually
> bolting on its own, restricted licensing terms to the code.""
>
> Microsoft can't very well complain about people "pirating" its software
> when it blatantly steals people's
> GPL'd code and releases it under a restrictive Microsoft license.
>

And vice versa. Pirates can't complain when they're caught blatantly
stealing proprietary software. Well said, ConTheNation.

On Nov 12, 2:01*am, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> "Carnations" <Beauti...@Carnations.com> wrote in message
>
> news...
>
> > Microsoft yanks Windows code on GPL violation claim
>
> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11...iolation_image...
>
> > ""Microsoft appears to have violated the Free-Software Foundation's
> > license in two ways: by modifying
> > and then distributing the ImageMaster code without making its source-code
> > available, and by actually
> > bolting on its own, restricted licensing terms to the code.""
>
> > Microsoft can't very well complain about people "pirating" its software
> > when it blatantly steals people's
> > GPL'd code and releases it under a restrictive Microsoft license.
>
> And vice versa. Pirates can't complain when they're caught blatantly
> stealing proprietary software. Well said, ConTheNation.

Or caught stealing ANY copyright software - Microsoft included!

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:05:15 -0800, peterwn wrote:

>> And vice versa. Pirates can't complain when they're caught blatantly
>> stealing proprietary software. Well said, ConTheNation.
>
> Or caught stealing ANY copyright software - Microsoft included!

I presume you meant "copyrightED" software - or do you refer to software that writes copies
correctly? ;o)


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

On Nov 12, 11:36*pm, Carnations <Beauti...@Carnations.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:05:15 -0800, peterwn wrote:
> >> And vice versa. Pirates can't complain when they're caught blatantly
> >> stealing proprietary software. Well said, ConTheNation.
>
> > Or caught stealing ANY copyright software - Microsoft included!
>
> I presume you meant "copyrightED" software - or do you refer to software that writes copies
> correctly? ;o)
>
> --
> "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

No. A creative work in NZ is copyright by default and as a starting
point all rights are reserved to the creator subject to the Copyright
Act and for books subject to deposit copies for the National and
Parliamentary libraries. In USA similar but AFAIK the first 30 pages
of printout of software needs to be lodged with the Library of
Congress to enable damages to be claimed. This does not need to be
done at the time of creation.

It is then up to the creator or to whom he or she assigns the rights
to determine to what extent if any others may copy or use the creative
work.

So saying it is 'copyrighted' would only pertain to lodging library
copies as required, but even then the work was automatically copyright
to start with.

Adding a copyright notice asserts that there is copyright. By saying
the work is subject to a licence (eg the GPL, Creative Commons, an
EULA etc) has not 'copyrighted' the work, it is merely an announcement
to the world that the creator allows its use under certain terms, in
other words assuming property rights are a bundle of sticks, the
creator has given some but not all the sticks to the world.. For a
'pure' licence (eg GPL) no act of acceptance (eg ticking a box is
required) is needed, as long as the user uses it in terms of the
licence, he or she has the perfect defence to any copyright breach
claim. The user must note however infringe the remaining property
rights held back ('reserved') by the owner. There is nothing
objectionable to a licence requiring some 'penance' when the work is
used. A pure licence is NOT a contract in 'common law'
administrations, a licence is a much older concept than the modern
'contract'.

On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:43:10 -0800, peterwn wrote:

> So saying it is 'copyrighted' would only pertain to lodging library
> copies as required, but even then the work was automatically copyright
> to start with.

I presume you're meaning "...was automatically copyrightED to start with" - because "copyright" is a
noun.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

Carnations wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:43:10 -0800, peterwn wrote:
>
>> So saying it is 'copyrighted' would only pertain to lodging library
>> copies as required, but even then the work was automatically copyright
>> to start with.
>
> I presume you're meaning "...was automatically copyrightED to start with" - because "copyright" is a
> noun.
>
>

But "copyrighteED" is the past tense of a verb.
epic pedant fail

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:29:22 +0000 (UTC)
Carnations <> wrote:

> Microsoft yanks Windows code on GPL violation claim
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11...n_imagemaster/
>
> ""Microsoft appears to have violated the Free-Software Foundation's
> license in two ways: by modifying and then distributing the
> ImageMaster code without making its source-code available, and by
> actually bolting on its own, restricted licensing terms to the code.""
>
> Microsoft can't very well complain about people "pirating" its
> software when it blatantly steals people's GPL'd code and releases it
> under a restrictive Microsoft license.
>
>
They are going to release the source next week;
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/it...ol-859774.html

--
Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 11 (x86_64) Kernel 2.6.27.37-0.1-default
up 1 day 23:31, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.09, 0.08
GPU GeForce 8600 GTS Silent - CUDA Driver Version: 190.18

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:10:48 -0600, Malcolm wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:29:22 +0000 (UTC) Carnations
> <> wrote:
>
>> Microsoft yanks Windows code on GPL violation claim
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11...n_imagemaster/
>>
>> ""Microsoft appears to have violated the Free-Software Foundation's
>> license in two ways: by modifying and then distributing the ImageMaster
>> code without making its source-code available, and by actually bolting
>> on its own, restricted licensing terms to the code.""
>>
>> Microsoft can't very well complain about people "pirating" its software
>> when it blatantly steals people's GPL'd code and releases it under a
>> restrictive Microsoft license.
>>
>>
> They are going to release the source next week;
> http://www.h-online.com/open/news/it...-in-Windows-7-
tool-859774.html

Hi Malcolm,

Microsoft didn't really have a choice - it must release the source code of all modifications it makes to
GPL licenced software.

Moreover, it must comply with the terms of the license if it wishes to continue to complain about other
people not complying with its own hideously restrictive licenses.


--
"Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"

On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:23:34 +0000 (UTC)
Carnations <> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:10:48 -0600, Malcolm wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:29:22 +0000 (UTC) Carnations
> > <> wrote:
> >
> >> Microsoft yanks Windows code on GPL violation claim
> >>
> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11...n_imagemaster/
> >>
> >> ""Microsoft appears to have violated the Free-Software Foundation's
> >> license in two ways: by modifying and then distributing the
> >> ImageMaster code without making its source-code available, and by
> >> actually bolting on its own, restricted licensing terms to the
> >> code.""
> >>
> >> Microsoft can't very well complain about people "pirating" its
> >> software when it blatantly steals people's GPL'd code and releases
> >> it under a restrictive Microsoft license.
> >>
> >>
> > They are going to release the source next week;
> > http://www.h-online.com/open/news/it...-in-Windows-7-
> tool-859774.html
>
> Hi Malcolm,
>
> Microsoft didn't really have a choice - it must release the source
> code of all modifications it makes to GPL licenced software.
>
> Moreover, it must comply with the terms of the license if it wishes
> to continue to complain about other people not complying with its own
> hideously restrictive licenses.
>
>
Hi
Actually looking forward to getting it (and the source) and giving it a
whirl for the openSUSE iso's as an alternative to UNetbootin

--
Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 11 (x86_64) Kernel 2.6.27.37-0.1-default
up 1 day 23:57, 2 users, load average: 0.01, 0.06, 0.08
GPU GeForce 8600 GTS Silent - CUDA Driver Version: 190.18