Microsoft Interoperability and the GPL? 50
NZheretic asks: "Microsoft will be including Interix in it's next release of Services For Unix (SFU). How can Microsoft use GPL licensed products, such as GNU GCC, for the express purpose of 'interoperating' with Unix and Linux systems and at the same time deny everybody else the right to use GPL licensed products to interoperate with Microsoft's own products?"
Exactly because the GPL permits. (Score:5, Insightful)
(i.e. linked-together programmes) being
under a different license than the GPL.
But because the gcc etc. in the example
are not linked to that other code, just
packaged with it, it doesn't infect the
other code as it would if e.g. it would
be linked to libreadline etc.
Re:Exactly because the GPL permits. (Score:1)
But it has further implications; It seems like MS are prohibiting combining use GPL software with windows except those GPL packages which they sell themselves.
Sam
Re:Exactly because the GPL permits. (Score:1)
Can Microsoft realy be selling me something I can't use
No warranty of fitness for any particular purpose (Score:1)
Well, it depends on your definition of use, doesn't it? According some people, they've never sold something one could use -- just stuff you struggle against.
Seriously, though, it's perfectly legal for them to sell you something "you can't use", especially if it's licensed under the GPL(!) they so despise. Yes, really. Read the GPL again. Now, did you see that bit about "without warranty" of "merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose"? Well, there you have it! :-)
Re:Exactly because the GPL permits. (Score:2)
yes I read them _when_ I encounter them), but
you have made a good point.
I'll think over it.
Re:Exactly because the GPL permits. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the question was a moral one.
It's not immoral to use someone else's product against them. If it was, then it would be immoral for RMS to use copyright against copyright.
It may be immoral for Microsoft to have such a draconian EULA in the first place, but the fact that they use GPLed products legally doesn't change that one way or the other.
But it is immoral to say one thing... (Score:2)
Note the second half of the question.
as for anthony_dipierro's comments.
Anthony, can you please explain exactly how the GPL license uses copyright against copyright? Actual, IMO it does. As I have pointed out, Microsoft's exclusionary practices are in breach of the intent of the US Antitrust laws [slashdot.org] and the EU Commerce Commision are concerned over Microsoft's policy of discriminatory and selective disclosure on the basis of a "friend-enemy" scheme. [slashdot.org] Microsoft need to present very valid arguments to excuse their exclusionary practices.The inclusion of GPL license code in Interix and SFU 3.0 runs counter to the rational Microsoft uses for the GPL and LGPL exclusion clauses in Microsoft's license agreements. Without such an "excuse", how can Microsoft deny everybody else the right to use GPL licensed products to interoperate with Microsoft's own products?
Re:But it is immoral to say one thing... (Score:1)
Anthony, can you please explain exactly how the GPL license uses copyright against copyright?
RMS does not believe that copyright should prohibit people from freely distributing software, yet the GPL prohibits people from distributing their software once they have broken the terms of the GPL.
Actual, IMO it does. As I have pointed out, Microsoft's exclusionary practices are in breach of the intent of the US Antitrust laws and the EU Commerce Commision are concerned over Microsoft's policy of discriminatory and selective disclosure on the basis of a "friend-enemy" scheme. Microsoft need to present very valid arguments to excuse their exclusionary practices.
I don't see how that's relevant to whether or not Microsoft uses GPLed software.
The inclusion of GPL license code in Interix and SFU 3.0 runs counter to the rational [sic] Microsoft uses for the GPL and LGPL exclusion clauses in Microsoft's license agreements.
Now I see what you're getting at, but it's not true. Microsoft has a patent on CIFS. While they are willing to license the rights to that patent directly, they are not willing to give others the right to sublicense the rights to that patent. The GPL itself explicitly states that "If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all."
When Microsoft includes GPLed software directly, it's a different story, because they do have the right to grant patent licenses, so they can simultaneously satisfy the obligations of the GPL and the obligation to obey patent law.
There are plenty of people here on slashdot that call the Microsoft EULA a cancer but go ahead and use the OS anyway. Actually, I'm one of them. Does that make me a hypocrite?
Is it immoral? (Score:1)
Re:Exactly because the GPL permits. (Score:2, Insightful)
what an unfortunate choice of words... I'm sorry I read this message, since I don't particularly want to associate a license which GRANTS rights which would otherwise be denied under copyright and ENABLES developers around the world to work together to do something good for the world with (let me put that word far beneath the rest of this message...)
"infection".
Re:Exactly because the GPL permits. (Score:2)
regards to the GPL is a choice that I made
willingly once I realized that RMS and the
FSF think that dynamic (as opposed to sta-
tic) linking of GPL'd libraries does af-
in-fect your main programmes' code, too.
It's a matter of taste which can't be dis-
cussed, but I rather archive it here.
If you think different, it is one right of
yours, but this very point was exactly why
I converted to the BSD group (in fact, the
license used by me includes a clause which
isn't GPL-compatible, namely the jurisdic-
tion is specified). Also look how RMS dis-
criminates (bad word, but English isn't my
native language) against the LGPL renaming
from "Library" to "Lesser" and that all.
It's just a philosophy fact (check out the
philosophy page at FSF's) but IMHO the way
the FSF wants to get all software free may
lead to anger. The BSD/MIT/X11 group tries
to get all software better instead.
ATTN Moderators, this expresses my private
opinion, and I hope to have made clear the
post is not a flamebait.
PS: Writing in paragraph style is cool
Asking the obvious... (Score:3, Insightful)
Heh. I take it this question is rhetorical. Greed, arrogance, and blatant disregard of professional honor are, I think, the distinguishing marks of Microsoft. But, as other posters have pointed out, it's okay to bundle GPL with non-GPL products.
Not rhetorical, I want an answer. (Score:2)
It's simple (Score:1)
Re:It's simple (Score:1)
The other shoe dropped. (Score:1)
Microsoft maintains the GPL and LGPL are "cancer"s to "intellectual property" in an attempt to dissuade you from even using (much less developing and shipping) GPL and LGPL'd software in your organization. If they took that seriously, they would never ship GPL or LGPL'd software for their customers to use. It is hypocritical of Microsoft to discourage others from doing what Microsoft is about to engage in itself.
The question here is not a legal one—Microsoft was always welcome to share and modify Free Software. The question is ethical—in regards to the GPL and LGPL, Microsoft has made statements it is apparently unwilling to live by.
Another question is how this plays out if Microsoft tries doing something in violation of the GNU GPL. It will be interesting to see how many copyright holders actually defend their license. I'm sure the FSF will (GCC is part of Interix). The FSF has demonstrated the will to get involved, they have the money to get involved, and they have the legal expertise to defend their license in court. Not all copyright holders are in such a position.
Re:The other shoe dropped. (Score:2)
It is hypocritical of Microsoft to discourage others from doing what Microsoft is about to engage in itself.
That's just silly. If I own copyright on a work, the whole point is to discourage others from doing what I am engaged in. Copyright is an exclusive right in a work.
I think the problem is you're confusing morality with legality. Microsoft's license terms state that it is illegal to do certain things, not that it is immoral to do those things. Hypocrisy is when you don't follow the morals you possess. It is not simply when you try to force others to do things that you yourself do not do.
Copyright is not a law of morality. It's not immoral to copy something. Copyright is not a God-given right. Rather, the people who created our country have decided that giving artists exclusive rights to their works would encourage science and the useful arts.
When dealing with legalities, as opposed to moralities, it's perfectly legitimate to exploit every loophole in the system.
"consistantly [sic] hypocritical" (Score:1)
That's pretty funny, Dokta_C; after all, hypocrisy is a form of inconsistency -- in rendering value judgments. I am assuming that Dokta_C's epigram is "new to Slashdot" in the context of Microsoft bashing, BTW; if it is, someone should mod it up.
Re:Not rhetorical, I want an answer. (Score:2)
What about their position are you claiming is immoral?
How can Microsoft use GPL licensed products, such as GNU GCC, for the express purpose of 'interoperating' with Unix and Linux systems and at the same time deny everybody else the right to use GPL licensed products to interoperate with Microsoft's own products?"
It's really simple. They own the copyright to their products, so they make the rules. There is no requirement that those rules be uniform across all people. They have every right to say "We can do X with our product, but no one else can".
Sherman Antitrust Act (Score:2)
Well actually there is such a requirement and in the USA, its called the Sherman Antitrust Act. [usdoj.gov]
Once a "consortium", corporation or even an individual gains a dominant position in the marketplace, they are required not to abuse their dominant position to control or eliminate the competition.
Microsoft has marketed DOS,Win1/2/3.11,Win9X,WinME,Win2k and XP as general purpose operating systems for the use of not only Microsoft's own applications but also third party vendor's applications.
By restricting the class or terms that other vendors can develop competing products under, Microsoft is in serious breach of the entire intent of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
As for it being immoral, just look at number of clauses in the act which include the phrase "imprisonment not exceeding three years". Those clauses are at the discretion of the court for good reason.
gcc's output isn't gpl'ed (Score:1)
Now, if you were speaking in more metaphoric terms, i agree, its completely unethical. but its no secret that microsoft is the worlds most morally bankrupt company. i wouldn't expect any less of them.
SAMBA Vs Interix - Why one and not the other? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even so ...
There is nothing stopping Microsoft from bundling GPL licensed software on it's CDroms, as long as they provide the end customers with a copy of the particular modified source under the same GPL license.
There is nothing stopping Microsoft from linking LGPL licensed software in their own software, as long as they provide the end customers with a copy of the particular modified source under the same LGPL license. ( You might want to check out what LGPL licensed libraries come with Interix )
Aparently neither of the above restrictions prevent Microsoft from including such licensed code in their Interix and SFU 3.0 products, for which Microsoft charges a fee. This runs entirely counter to most of the arguments presented by Microsoft against GPL and LGPL licensing.
If the GPL was such an Intellectual Property Destroyer then how is Microsoft able to bundle it in with SFU 3.0 and charge for the result?
But far more important is how much Microsoft is the hypocrite on GPL License.
If Microsoft can use, distribute and sell products containing GPL and LGPL licensed code for the specific purpose of "interoperating" with Unix AND Linux, EXACTLY what gives Microsoft the moral right to prevent anybody else using GPL or LGPL source code for the purpose of Unix, BSD and Linux "interoperating" with Microsoft's own products?
Re:SAMBA Vs Interix - Why one and not the other? (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft should be more concerned over EUCC (Score:3, Interesting)
The Microsoft license conditions for the documentation of CIFS is precisely ``engaging in a policy of discriminatory and selective disclosure on the basis of a "friend-enemy" scheme.''..
M$ proves RMS right + M$ should cut FSF a check (Score:1)
I'm sure you meant that as a rhetorical question, but I am going to take advantage of it and elaborate on the implied logical conclusion, which is not (only) "those bastards...". The answer, I think, is that so-called intellectual property doesn't have to remain exclusive in order for it to make money for its creators and distributors. I may be going out on a precarious limb by saying this, but IMHO if Bill & Co. were to make money from Unix interoperability products built around GNU tools, they would be (albeit unwittingly) legitimizing the Free Software approach as a business practice; that is, by selling GPL'd software, Microsoft is validating Stallman's claim that you can sell free (libre) software for profit, and further shows that this is true even when it's no longer a "first sale", which implies that the value (commercial or otherwise) of ideas (so-called intellectual property) is not bound inextricably to their exclusivity.
The question that now suggests itself is whether the creators of those GNU tools are adequately compensated for their effort in such a scheme. The answer to that depends on what kinds of compensation is deemed adequate; I, for one, think that money is in order. Yep, I think Microsoft should cut the FSF a check, with no strings attached, just as many other (re)distributors have. Now, I do realize that some features of the Free Software ecosystem rely on the legal framework while others rely on the Honor System, and that the latter may be legally unenforceable, but I still think that we can and should demand of Microsoft that they make a financial contribution to support the community whose work makes it possible for them to release Yet Another Microsoft Product and enter yet another market.
Re:Interesting (Score:1)
Maybe Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer never adjusted. (Score:1)
"How can Microsoft use GPL licensed products..."
Sometimes it seems that Microsoft's main product is abuse, not software.
Some teenagers react to having an insufficient, abusive family life by testing the limits of the adults around them. Usually they adjust and stop making their anger a problem for everyone around them by the time they are 25 or so. Maybe Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer never adjusted. Maybe they are still abused teenagers at heart, who see themselves as separate, and not connected, with other people in the world.
Whatever theory explains their behavior, they are building up a truly awesomely intense dislike. They often have the complete opposite of customer loyalty, even among people with little technical knowledge.
Re:Maybe Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer never adjust (Score:2)
Sometimes it seems that Microsoft's main product is abuse, not software.
No, Microsoft's main product isn't abuse or software. It's stock [fool.com].
Microsoft is a pyramid scheme. It only looks like a mountain because it's grown so darned large.
-- Markus
So, they are abusing the shareholders too? (Score:1)
That's interesting. Someone in my city wrote several long papers about this. I had forgotten about them. I can't find the link immediately.
So, they are abusing the shareholders too?
Re:So, they are abusing the shareholders too? (Score:1)
"Microsoft is incurring massive losses..." (Score:1)
Thanks!!! That's what I was looking for.
Here's a quote from the article by Bill Parish, Microsoft Financial Pyramid [billparish.com]: "The fundamental problem is that Microsoft is incurring massive losses and only by accounting illusions are they able to show a profit." (The quote is from the second paragraph of the article.)
Re:"Microsoft is incurring massive losses..." (Score:1)
pfah. (Score:3, Insightful)
As for accusing a company like Microsoft of, say, having inconsistent values, I have this to say.
1. Duh.
2. Any company of that size willl have different divisions (legal, marketing...) that do different things. And sometimes the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. In cases like that, don't expect consistency, because you won't find it.
Duh, how could they not know? (Score:2)
As for one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing, how could the management of Microsoft's "server section" not know?
Microsoft's SFU is targeted at the market currently using Unix, BSD and Linux. Practically all of the competition in that market use SAMBA to provide an interoperating SMB server [samba.org]( including the other Unix vendors not listed there ). How could Microsoft's Marketing and Management teams not be fully aware of what the competition is using?
Source code? (Score:1)
Re:Source code? (Score:1)
No license probs here (Score:3, Insightful)
"IPR Impairing License" shall mean the GNU General Public License, the GNU Lesser/Library General Public License, and any license that requires in any instance that other software distributed with software subject to such license (a) be disclosed and distributed in source code form; (b) be licensed for purposes of making derivative works; or (c) be redistributable at no charge.
What's funny is that the GPL and LGPL don't fall into any of categories (a), (b), or (c). There is nothing in the GPL that puts any sort of limitations on software distributed with the GPL'd software. It only limits linking and derivative code. So, you could take the GPL, re-arrange one sentence without changing the meaning, change the name to "Bob's Public License", and then it could not be considered an "IPR Impairing License", according to Microsoft's definition.
They are trying to spin the GPL so people think it limits what software you can distribute with GPL'd stuff. They are trying to convince commercial developers that they will have legal problems if they try to get their commercial packages distributed with Linux.
Either that, or their lawyers suck and can't read the simplest contract. After all, they say never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence. Funny how that phrase keeps coming up in every discussion I've had about Microsoft lately...
Re:No license probs here (Score:2)
Re:No license probs here (Score:2)
They are trying to spin the GPL so people think it limits what software you can distribute with GPL'd stuff. They are trying to convince commercial developers that they will have legal problems if they try to get their commercial packages distributed with Linux.
So it's kind of like Felton and the DMCA.
Re:No license probs here (Score:2)
recently the FSF has made clear that they own
copyright on them and only wish verbatim copies.
However with written OK it is allowed.
Earlier (in 1999 I remember, for example) they
said, people look at the GPL and take it as
an example how to write a license.
Nowadays, they rename the LGPL to "Lesser"
and want everything GPL'd.
In my eyes viral, which I stated more above
in this postings.
Re:No license probs here (Score:2)
> recently the FSF has made clear that they own
> copyright on them and only wish verbatim copies.
Haha, this is funny. Does this mean the FSF's most important product (the GPL) is not copylefted and you are not allowed to redistributed modified versions?!?
Re:No license probs here (Score:1)
Cooler Nick, btw.
Oh, it is that mean != meinen(.de)
Re:No license probs here (Score:1)
The FSF doesn't want you calling your license the GPL, of course.
Re:No license probs here (Score:2)
Licenses are not Laws, which are open (even more
than, e.g. RFCs).
I can forbid publishing and distributing my license
except verbatim and bundled with the software, for
example.
Distribute GPL parts of Interix (Score:2)
They can even be included in debian
(I'm probably wrong at some point, but I don't care)