Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft

Microsoft Interoperability and the GPL? 50

Posted by Cliff from the corportate-dirty-pool dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Interoperability and the GPL? More

Microsoft Interoperability and the GPL?

Comments Filter:

  • Exactly because the GPL permits. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mirabilos ( 219607 ) on Monday April 29, 2002 @08:17AM (#3428402) Homepage
    The GPL does not permit combinated code
    (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.
    • I think the question was a moral one.

      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
      • Using this logic. I won't be able to use any of the software they have bundled with the system.

        Can Microsoft realy be selling me something I can't use :-)
        • Can Microsoft really be selling me something I can't use

          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! :-)

      • I haven't seen such things yet in an EULA (and
        yes I read them _when_ I encounter them), but
        you have made a good point.
        I'll think over it.

      • 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.

        • The advocates for Microsoft's position in this thread are completely ignoring the actual question.

          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?

          Note the second half of the question.

          as for anthony_dipierro's comments.

          If it was, then it would be immoral for RMS to use copyright against copyright.
          Anthony, can you please explain exactly how the GPL license uses copyright against copyright?

          ... but the fact that they use GPLed products legally doesn't change that one way or the other.
          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?

          • 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?

          • Of course its immoral. But when did you ever think business had anything to do with morals? There's a reason they teach a business ethics. Because business doesn't necessarily have to be conducted ethically. And thus we have monopolies and anti-trust legislation, anti-competitive corps, and generally the most greedy people on earth running the show. Is it right or wrong? Does it matter? How much money did you make? Because that's what its all about.... in the words of a very famous CEO. *sigh*
    • doesn't ****** the other code

      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".
      • The choice of "viral" and "infection" with
        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)

    by Ivan Raikov ( 521143 ) on Monday April 29, 2002 @08:57AM (#3428561) Homepage
    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?

    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.
    • How do Microsoft, or Microsoft's advocates claim that Microsoft can, justify their position?
      • They've been consistantly hypocritical from the start.
        • What is hypocritical about what they are doing?

          • 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.

            • 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.

        • 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.

      • 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".

        • There is no requirement that those rules be uniform across all people.

          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.

          They own the copyright to their products, so they make the rules.

          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.

  • i may be mistaken, but i believe that using gcc's output for whatever purpose is allowed; its merely using the gpl'ed source code that makes up gcc that wouldn't be allowed. for instance, if they used gpl'ed gcc code in their visual c++ compiler, that would be a violation.

    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)

    by NZheretic ( 23872 ) on Monday April 29, 2002 @09:06AM (#3428610) Homepage Journal
    The question makes more sense if you check out the last link to the slashdot article on Microsoft's CIFS and SAMBA. [slashdot.org]

    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?

    • 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.

      Good point -- I wonder if this would give the SAMBA team any legal ammunition if in fact they do get sued. By demonstrating that Microsoft itself evidently does not consider the GPL to be "IPR-imparing", could they get a judge to rule the CIFS Technical Reference license null and void?
      • European Commerce Commission initiates additional proceedings against Microsoft [eu.int],Brussels 30 August 2001.
        To enable alternative server software to interoperate in the prevailing Windows PC and server environment, technical interface information must be known. Without such information, alternative server software would be denied a level playing field, as it would be artificially deprived of the opportunity to compete with Microsoft's products on technical merits alone. The Commission believes that Microsoft may have withheld from vendors of alternative server software key interoperability information that they need to enable their products to 'talk' with Microsoft's dominant PC and server software products. Microsoft may have done this through a combination of refusing to reveal the relevant technical information, and by engaging in a policy of discriminatory and selective disclosure on the basis of a "friend-enemy" scheme.

        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.''..

    • 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.

      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.


  • "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.

  • pfah. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pb ( 1020 ) on Monday April 29, 2002 @10:07AM (#3428851)
    I am anything but a microsoft fan, but I see no problem with this as long as Microsoft obeys the GPL [microsoft.com]. And it looks like they are.

    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.
  • Is microsoft making the source for the GPL'd utilities they distribute available? Or could this be Microsoft's attempt to challenge the GPL?
    • The important thing here is that they are making a product to inter-operate with unix/linux (which is in conflict with their "Linux" isn't a threat train of thought). The thing I can't understand is the fact Microsoft sees a opertunity for users (business and home) to migrate from Unix/Linux to Windows. When they left Windows for another OS to begin with. *** Just my Cents worth ***

  • No license probs here (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Linux_ho ( 205887 ) on Monday April 29, 2002 @12:26PM (#3429455) Homepage
    Actually, if you read the license for the CIFS spec, it doesn't prohibit you from distributing your work with some other GPL'd work. It does prohibit you from using their spec to create a work and then license it for distribution under an "IPR Impairing License". A quote from Microsoft:

    "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...
    • I may be wrong, but my understanding was that in their embedded XP or Win CE or one of the license for some of their .net stuff they prohibit the use of GPL software with the system. If they are using gcc which is gpl in their4 unix migration tools and the fist sentance is true (or somewhat true) then aren't they violating their own license if they sell .net with SFU?

    • 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.

    • Actually, you can't fork off the GPL/LGPL because
      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.
      • > Actually, you can't fork off the GPL/LGPL because
        > 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?!?
      • Licenses, and other legal documents, cannot be copyrighted, so I don't know where you're getting this.

        The FSF doesn't want you calling your license the GPL, of course.

        • Any document which I wrote is copyrighted, and
          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.
  • What about distributing as much as possible from interix (the GPL parts) ?

    They can even be included in debian ;)

    (I'm probably wrong at some point, but I don't care)

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close