Microsoft GPL violation hits memory hole

FSF...

...please sue! (unless of course some other entity should do it)

GPL

before all the 'GPL is crap' comments I'll say "if you write the code, you decide how it's licensed". NOBODY has the right to say otherwise.

If you want to use that code follow the rules.

If you don't like the rules, a) go without, or b) do it yourself.

Hahahahahahahaha!

No, seriously, what did you expect?

Anyway, I always thought the idea was that the unstable OS in a VM on the stable OS...

WIN!

I hope the FSF sues them for as much as Mickey$shaft has made suing other people for license infringement!

Hehehe

So that answers the ¨what are they trying to hide¨ question that was bugging the whole community, then. Now for the bonus question: if the infinitesimal fraction of code they released for everyone to see features such a blatant IP infringement, what about the rest of their code? There goes the (blatantly moronic to begin with) claim that ¨useful Linux features are just reverse-engineered MS stuff¨. It would seem that MS did not even care to reverse-engineer GPL code: nicking it ¨as is¨ is so much more convenient... just slap a dumbed-down interface on it and sell it for an arm and a leg, now *that* is a successful business model!

I wonder how much I would get for pointing the BSA at microsoft... what do you mean by ¨we really only protect thieves with very deep pockets¨?

Ye Olde Evile Gates, not evil Jobs, as if Apple had stolen the patented MacOS look-and-feel from someone else it would have been noticed, shurely?

That´s the US economy model for you folks: smash and grab, mostly.

gpl is so pinko commie

Thats right I said it. Everything must be owned by a select few elite people or else it is dirty socialism that will end the world. Tragedy of the commons is a lesson my preacher taught me well and applies equally to bits that last forever. I mean honestly how can anything be good if everyone owns it? How can anything be good if it is not making a few select people rich at the expense of everyone else?

Hey!

Hey, could you interview people with less confusing names in future please?

Hey I used to work for Hey

Back in the Heyday

GPL Corrections

"Under the terms of the GPL, any module that's been combined with code licensed under GPL must be released under the GPL."

Incorrect; Microsoft could have chosen to cease distributing their code, and optionally re-written it in a non-infringing way.

Furthermore, the FSF has no right to sue in this case as the Linux kernel copyright isn't owned by the FSF. Only copyright owners whose rights have been infringed have the option of suing.

Their own code?

Seems like nobody (including the author) did bother checking what happened. I have tried, taking into account the very few facts that this article references.

MS (in this case, I'm not speaking about th rest of what they did) did not "steal" GPL code. As the article pointed to by the author says: "Microsoft originally was licensing the Linux drivers, also known as the Linux Integration Components (LIC), in a way that was in violation of the GPL. It was offering them under a combination of the GPL and a closed source license.".

In summary (unless somebody can bring more facts to the case to prove I'm wrong), what they did was:

- write some product (Hyper-V) and a bunch of Linux drivers to make the OS work with the hypervisor

- license parts of the drivers code (which they did write) under GPL, so that these parts can be integrated in the Linux kernel

- people complain that this newly GPL-ed code now is beeing linked with non-GPL code

So yes, technically they did infringe the license, but with their own code. Not like if they had taken parts of existing Linux code to put in their closed software(OK perhaps they have done it, but this story does not show it).

If id had been possible to write linux drivers which are not GPL code, probably MS would not have GPL-ed anything at all. They thought they could go away with releasing "stub" code which works with their closed code. Like others do (hint: look how some gfx card drivers are implemented).

Zentity

I perked up for a second when I read you could conjour boobies with the power of your mind.

Then i remembered where I was. Blast!

RE- GPL Corrections

"Furthermore, the FSF has no right to sue in this case as the Linux kernel copyright isn't owned by the FSF. Only copyright owners whose rights have been infringed have the option of suing."

Actually they do, if they sued Microsoft they would be protected the GPL license.

Why Do This At All?

I know that M$ needs this but why do Linux users need this. As one of the entries stated that isn't the idea to put the wobbly OS inside the stable OS, not the other way around. Anyway, for Linux users I can't imagine why we'd want this. I can't see how it benefits us other than to put us into the cold, spikey grips of the benevolent destroyer, M$. This helps them far more than it helps us. The amount of kudos it gives having M$ smile warmly down on Linux is infinitely less than the danger posed by being in their litigious grip. Screw Stevie "I'm goina f**king kill Google" balmy-Ballmer & his old mate, Billy Gates who gives so many millions of his own dollars away to the starving through the Bill Gates Foundation. It's such a huge chunk of his oh so few, hundred billion it makes me weep. The fact that his name is on the door makes it even more warm & wonderful.

As for ASDF, who wrote in above, I believe that his last post in another forum to be as intelligent as the one printed here & almost as inspiring. What genius is here, whoops ...nope & as I stated in the other forum has no point to offer so why do it. Not because you're a moron ... oh sorry, you are after all.