 GrepLaw |
|
|
|
This site is a production of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society. Please email if you have questions, contributions, or ideas about improving this site.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Is Micro$oft using GPL'd code?
|
|
|
|
posted by scubacuda
on Monday July 28, @12:08AM
from the shoulders-of-giants dept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about Open Source/Free
Software code
having been used by
Micro$oft?
Given what is known about
Micro$oft, it is reasonable
to suspect that Micro$oft
has used Open Source/Free
Software code to enhance
its software.
What do you we
know about Micro$oft?
We know:
- Micro$oft's programmers are lazy.
(What programmers are not? :)
- Micro$oft's programmers are
subject to deadlines, and therefore
are probably more willing to cut
corners or engage in shady practices
to meet those deadlines.
- Micro$oft's programmers have access
to all Open Source code (as does
everybody else).
- Open Source/Free Software
is a great source (pun not intended)
of well documented, well written
code.
- Micro$oft has a history of
appropriating other companies'
innovations.
- Micro$oft is willing to break
the law to improve their bottom
line. (This has been amply
demonstrated by their activities
before, during, and after their
antitrust conviction.)
- Micro$oft considers Open
Source/Free Software to be a direct
threat to its very existence.
- Micro$oft is incapable of
competing with the speed and
quality that results from
Open Source/Free Software
programming methodologies.
- Micro$oft's source code is
not subject to review outside
of the company. Appropriated
software in unaudited source
code may as well be written
from scratch for all the general
public knows.
- Micro$oft did not apply to
the Open Source/Free Software
community for a licence to
use GPL'd software for commercial
gain at the expense of the code's
authors.
Given all this, it seems more
than reasonably likely that Micro$oft
has unlawfully appropriated Open
Source/Free Software code into its
operating system and tools.
This brings me to the question:
Can the Open Source/Free Software
community audit Micro$oft's source
code for GPL compliance?
If they did use GPL'd code, is
the Micro$oft now required to
Open Source all of the code that
depends on the appropriated code?
In this case, Micro$oft might
finally be able to acurately claim
that Open Source/Free Software is
"viral".
Can the Open Source/Free Software
community receive a billion dollars
from Micro$oft, as SCO is asking from
IBM? (A billion dollars would go a
long way for the EFF :)
Micro$oft may be using its closed
source approach to conceal illegal
activities. It seems it is time
for the Open Source/Free Software
community to ask Micro$oft to
demonstrate that their
code is free of taint before they
can continue to accuse Open
Source/Free Software programmers
of "stealing" code.
Is this a case of the pot calling
the kettle black? Or worse, the
pot calling the white porcelain cup
black?
PS: I also posted this as
a comment to the mentioned Slashdot article. I am not attempting to cross post. I just feel that comments submitted later on in Slashdot discussions tend to get buried, and I think this idea is worthy of some public exposure.
"
|
|
|
|
< Sys Admin Day
| Japanese Hacking Contest Cancelled >
| |
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Is Micro$oft using GPL'd code?
|
Login/Create an Account
| Top
| 5 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guys:
As I understand the situation. DOS v1 was so bad that IBM threatened to switch to CPM 86 if Microsoft did not clean up their act.
Becuase Microsoft could not restructure the DOS v1 calls for backward compatability, they elected to build a second operating system on top of the first. This second operating system was basically the Interrupt 21 service calls which duplicated most of the original DOS v1 service calls and was called DOS v2. So basically DOS is two operating systems in one.
Where did Microsoft get this new code? My understanding is that they copied it over from the ZENIX operating system which was a UNIX implementation. Now Microsoft purchased ZENIX from some third party, so the actual origins of that code are probably lost in antiquity.
I seriously doubt that anyone today could trace all of that code back to its origins. Since the INT 21 vector table is still implemented in WINDOWS XP, INT 21 calles still function, that old UNIX (ZENIX) code (whatever) is still there.
Could there be ownership issues, I do not know. Shurely Microsoft retained rights to ZENIX when they sold ZENIX to SCO twenty years ago.
This seems to be part of the problem. Nobody can trace the origins of this code, any patents on it have long since run out, and much of it was probably never copyrighted. In fact the original writters of some of these routines probably do not even remember if they wrote it ( assuming that they are not dead).
That may be a stumbling block in the SCO's claim to UNIX, what did AT&T own, and what was contributed by third parties.
NO one knows.
TOm
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Monday July 28, @12:10PM (#899)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should Greplaw really be running stories containing unverified accusations and undocumented suspicions? Really, this is tabloid journalism at its worst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where was it said that Microsoft was guilty of these things?
The difference between the phrase "Microsoft did it" and the phrase "Microsoft can be reasonably suspected of having done it" is massive. The phrase "more than reasonably likely" was used instead of "definitely." Hypothetical discussions do not rely on people talking only about what they know, if they did, they would not be hypothetical.
It is certainly possible that MS used GPL'd code. Even if it is probable
(which was pointed out to depend on various other factors such as portability [harvard.edu]), that does not mean it happened.
"There' s no question that in cloning activities, IP from many, many companies, including Microsoft, is being used in open-source software," Gates said. "When people clone things, that often becomes unavoidable."
That is from the article. Bill Gates made the same style "unverified accusation" as this posting did. He meant bascially, "OSS has appropriated IP from proprietary software because everybody does." He has no evidence for this except to say that all software is influenced by other software. By extrapolation, we are to assume that he has some proprietary claim to some OSS. It is pure FUD.
Reminding people of what MS did in the past and/or suggesting that they may continue to perpetrate rotten schemes to improve their bottom line is not "tabloid journalism". Now, if it said that Bill Gates had sex with aliens, that would be another thing entirely, but it did not.
Finally, this is a discussion forum, not a newspaper. You can take your stone age tools and go back to your cave now.
"Anyone who doesn't quote me is paraphrasing."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be
lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.
- Isaac Asimov
|
 |
|
|
|
[
home |
contribute story |
older articles |
past polls |
faq |
authors |
preferences ]
|
