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.
     
    Carnations, Nov 11, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Carnations

    impossible Guest

    And vice versa. Pirates can't complain when they're caught blatantly
    stealing proprietary software. Well said, ConTheNation.
     
    impossible, Nov 11, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Carnations

    peterwn Guest

    Or caught stealing ANY copyright software - Microsoft included!
     
    peterwn, Nov 11, 2009
    #3
  4. Carnations

    Carnations Guest

    I presume you meant "copyrightED" software - or do you refer to software that writes copies
    correctly? ;o)
     
    Carnations, Nov 12, 2009
    #4
  5. Carnations

    peterwn Guest

    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

    I presume you're meaning "...was automatically copyrightED to start with" - because "copyright" is a
    noun.
     
    Carnations, Nov 13, 2009
    #6
  7. Carnations

    victor Guest

    But "copyrighteED" is the past tense of a verb.
    epic pedant fail
     
    victor, Nov 13, 2009
    #7
  8. Carnations

    Malcolm Guest

    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
     
    Malcolm, Nov 14, 2009
    #8
  9. Carnations

    Carnations Guest

    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.
     
    Carnations, Nov 14, 2009
    #9
  10. Carnations

    Malcolm Guest

    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
     
    Malcolm, Nov 14, 2009
    #10
  11. Carnations

    Carnations Guest

    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:)
     
    Carnations, Nov 14, 2009
    #11
  12. Carnations

    Malcolm Guest

    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 ;) )
     
    Malcolm, Nov 14, 2009
    #12
  13. Carnations

    Carnations Guest

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

    Nice for some. :eek:)
     
    Carnations, Nov 14, 2009
    #13
  14. 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

    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

    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

    " ?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

    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

    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

    "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]".
     
    Carnations, Nov 16, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.