Microsoft yanks Windows code on GPL violation claim

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Carnations, Nov 11, 2009.

  1. Carnations

    Carnations Guest

    Microsoft yanks Windows code on GPL violation claim

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/10/microsoft_gpl_violation_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, Nov 11, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Carnations

    impossible Guest

    "Carnations" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > Microsoft yanks Windows code on GPL violation claim
    >
    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/10/microsoft_gpl_violation_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.
     
    impossible, Nov 11, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Carnations

    peterwn Guest

    On Nov 12, 2:01 am, "impossible" <> wrote:
    > "Carnations" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:p...
    >
    > > Microsoft yanks Windows code on GPL violation claim

    >
    > >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/10/microsoft_gpl_violation_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!
     
    peterwn, Nov 11, 2009
    #3
  4. Carnations

    Carnations Guest

    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"
     
    Carnations, Nov 12, 2009
    #4
  5. Carnations

    peterwn Guest

    On Nov 12, 11:36 pm, Carnations <> 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'.
     
    peterwn, Nov 12, 2009
    #5
  6. Carnations

    Carnations Guest

    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, Nov 13, 2009
    #6
  7. Carnations

    victor Guest

    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
     
    victor, Nov 13, 2009
    #7
  8. Carnations

    Malcolm Guest

    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/2009/11/10/microsoft_gpl_violation_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/item/Microsoft-confirm-GPL-violation-in-Windows-7-tool-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
     
    Malcolm, Nov 14, 2009
    #8
  9. Carnations

    Carnations Guest

    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/2009/11/10/microsoft_gpl_violation_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/item/Microsoft-confirm-GPL-violation-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"
     
    Carnations, Nov 14, 2009
    #9
  10. Carnations

    Malcolm Guest

    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/2009/11/10/microsoft_gpl_violation_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/item/Microsoft-confirm-GPL-violation-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
     
    Malcolm, Nov 14, 2009
    #10
  11. Carnations

    Carnations Guest

    On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:43:43 -0600, Malcolm wrote:

    > 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/2009/11/10/microsoft_gpl_violation_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/item/Microsoft-confirm-GPL-violation-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


    Cool!

    I'm looking at pulling down the new OpenSuSE 10.2. It looks like it has KDE4.3 included and all reviews
    that I have read have been very positive.

    I think I'll do it as a brand new install onto all new hardware rather than as an update to my current
    desktop box.

    I hadn't bought a new PC for a couple of years - largely because I've found my newest one to be fast
    enough for desktop stuff. :eek:)


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Nov 14, 2009
    #11
  12. Carnations

    Malcolm Guest

    On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:49:38 +0000 (UTC)
    Carnations <> wrote:

    > On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:43:43 -0600, Malcolm wrote:
    >
    > > 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/2009/11/10/microsoft_gpl_violation_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/item/Microsoft-confirm-GPL-violation-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

    >
    > Cool!
    >
    > I'm looking at pulling down the new OpenSuSE 10.2. It looks like it
    > has KDE4.3 included and all reviews that I have read have been very
    > positive.
    >
    > I think I'll do it as a brand new install onto all new hardware
    > rather than as an update to my current desktop box.
    >
    > I hadn't bought a new PC for a couple of years - largely because I've
    > found my newest one to be fast enough for desktop stuff. :eek:)
    >

    Hi
    Yes, fresh install is the best, from 11.2 > should be fine for zypper
    dup command. I have it running on my ASUS eeePC 1000 HE netbook (gnome
    and KDE 4.3.1 partitions) and have virtual machines built as well.

    There are some issues with a few programs users on the forum have found
    for example Adobe Air doesn't like to install on 64bit, works
    fine on 32bit for the Air/Flycast combination.

    I managed to download the 11.2 GM a few days before the official
    release (being an openSUSE forum Moderator and recently got nominated
    to the Novell Knowledge Partner program has it's perks ;) )

    --
    Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
    SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 11 (x86_64) Kernel 2.6.27.37-0.1-default
    up 2 days 0:21, 2 users, load average: 0.01, 0.14, 0.20
    GPU GeForce 8600 GTS Silent - CUDA Driver Version: 190.18
     
    Malcolm, Nov 14, 2009
    #12
  13. Carnations

    Carnations Guest

    On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:10:40 -0600, Malcolm wrote:

    >> I'm looking at pulling down the new OpenSuSE 10.2. It looks like it has
    >> KDE4.3 included and all reviews that I have read have been very
    >> positive.
    >>
    >> I think I'll do it as a brand new install onto all new hardware rather
    >> than as an update to my current desktop box.
    >>
    >> I hadn't bought a new PC for a couple of years - largely because I've
    >> found my newest one to be fast enough for desktop stuff. :eek:)
    >>

    > Hi
    > Yes, fresh install is the best, from 11.2 > should be fine for zypper
    > dup command. I have it running on my ASUS eeePC 1000 HE netbook (gnome
    > and KDE 4.3.1 partitions) and have virtual machines built as well.


    My current desktop box has seen upgrades all the way from OpenSuSE 10.0.


    > There are some issues with a few programs users on the forum have found
    > for example Adobe Air doesn't like to install on 64bit, works fine on
    > 32bit for the Air/Flycast combination.
    >
    > I managed to download the 11.2 GM a few days before the official release
    > (being an openSUSE forum Moderator and recently got nominated to the
    > Novell Knowledge Partner program has it's perks ;) )


    Nice for some. :eek:)


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Nov 14, 2009
    #13
  14. In message <>, Carnations wrote:

    > ""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.""


    After pulling the WUDT, it’s going to make it available again, along with
    the relevant GPL’d source code
    <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/13/microsoft_gpl_violation_imagemaster_apology/>.

    Also mentioned: companies are increasingly building on open-source code to
    gain an competitive advantage: “Not Invented Here†is rapidly going out of
    style.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 14, 2009
    #14
  15. Carnations

    k9nick Guest

    On 15 Nov, 00:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In message <>, Carnations wrote:
    >
    > > ""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.""

    >
    > After pulling the WUDT, it’s going to make it available again, along with
    > the relevant GPL’d source code
    > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/13/microsoft_gpl_violation_image...>.
    >
    > Also mentioned: companies are increasingly building on open-source code to
    > gain an competitive advantage: “Not Invented Here” is rapidly going out of
    > style.


    I reckon at least half the software you lot own is nicked anyway.

    Put your hand up if you can say ALL of your software is above board.

    LIARS!
     
    k9nick, Nov 14, 2009
    #15
  16. Carnations

    Peter Guest

    k9nick wrote:
    > On 15 Nov, 00:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >> Also mentioned: companies are increasingly building on open-source code
    >> to gain an competitive advantage: “Not Invented Here†is rapidly going
    >> out of style.

    >
    > I reckon at least half the software you lot own is nicked anyway.
    >
    > Put your hand up if you can say ALL of your software is above board.


    Of course, 100% from Ubuntu repositories (and partners, etc).
    GPL software can't be "nicked" by just using it.

    I've only seen "nicked" software on Microsoft systems.


    Peter
     
    Peter, Nov 15, 2009
    #16
  17. Carnations

    Gordon Guest

    On 2009-11-14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
    > In message <>, Carnations wrote:
    >
    >> ""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.""

    >
    > After pulling the WUDT, it?s going to make it available again, along with
    > the relevant GPL?d source code
    ><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/13/microsoft_gpl_violation_imagemaster_apology/>.
    >
    > Also mentioned: companies are increasingly building on open-source code to
    > gain an competitive advantage: ?Not Invented Here? is rapidly going out of
    > style.


    " ?Not Invented Here? " Why do the ? appear in my newsreader? Always thought
    that they were web/Netscape produced.

    Usenet is about ASCII, font and other bits. yes?
     
    Gordon, Nov 15, 2009
    #17
  18. Carnations

    Richard Guest

    victor wrote:

    >> 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


    What is the present and future tense of it? I dont think it has any so
    then saying is copyright and will be copyright are the only ways to
    express it?
     
    Richard, Nov 16, 2009
    #18
  19. Carnations

    Richard Guest

    Gordon wrote:

    > " ?Not Invented Here? " Why do the ? appear in my newsreader? Always thought
    > that they were web/Netscape produced.
    >
    > Usenet is about ASCII, font and other bits. yes?


    Lawrances post was in normal UTF-8 character set which has the correct
    quote marks in it as he used, sounds like something you are using is not
    honoring the character set request and dumbing it down to 7 bit.

    Usenet has handled 8bit for a very very long time now, yet some people
    insist on crap like quoted-printable or similar encodings still.
     
    Richard, Nov 16, 2009
    #19
  20. Carnations

    Carnations Guest

    On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:55:10 +1300, Richard wrote:

    >>> 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

    >
    > What is the present and future tense of it? I dont think it has any so
    > then saying is copyright and will be copyright are the only ways to
    > express it?


    "Copyrighted" is an adjective. you can describe someone as having received a copyright, and that the
    object of the copyright is therefore copyrighted or that it will be copyrighted.

    you need to remember that a copyright is a thing - a noun - and not a verb - an action.

    Jane doesn't "copyright" a book - she owns the copyright that was granted to her automatically.

    The publishing shorthand to indicate who owns the copyright is to print "(c) [date] [copyright owner]".


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Carnations, Nov 16, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. asummit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,968
    asummit
    May 11, 2005
  2. Boomer
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    479
    Jimmy Dean
    Sep 20, 2003
  3. 7
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    937
    Dan Evans
    Jan 9, 2006
  4. steve
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    590
    Bling-Bling
    Aug 13, 2005
  5. Daeron

    Contractors fired for using GPL code

    Daeron, Oct 27, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    894
    Thomas Wootten
    Oct 29, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page