Did Microsoft Borrow GPL Code For a Windows 7 Utility? 493
Goatbert writes "Rafael Rivera over at WithinWindows.com has found evidence that Microsoft has potentially stolen code from an open source/GPL'd project (ImageMaster) for a utility made available on the Microsoft Store to allow download customers to copy the Windows 7 setup files to a DVD or USB Flash Drive. If Rivera's evidence holds up, this could be some serious egg in the face for Microsoft at a time when they're getting mostly good press from the tech media."
"Obviously lifted" not so obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
The code in question seems to be called into scrutiny because the two areas of code bear the same name (ReadBytes) and operate similarly.
The longer you work in the development of software, the less magical it all becomes. The first time you plugged some code into a terminal and it worked, it seemed like an amazing amount of wizardry and behind-the-scenes stuff that you could never fully fathom. Compilers, binary code, arcane source languages, electronic signals. It's amazing to a neophyte just how much stuff is going on.
But the longer you plug away at it, the more you realize that it's just code. Nothing special is really going on. You're mostly moving data from one area of memory to another. It's almost a form of Nirvana once you reach this point.
So when someone comes along and says "OMG YOUR READBYTES METHOD IS JUST LIKE THIS ONE IN SOME GPL CODE!!!!11", it kind of pegs that person as someone who doesn't really have much experience with real programming. Sure, they may use a lot of tools, and know how to recompile their kernel, but they really don't have a firm grasp of what and why they are doing what they are doing.
Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
The code in question seems to be called into scrutiny because the two areas of code bear the same name (ReadBytes) and operate similarly.
(bold mine)
Actually, if the function is just something called "ReadBytes(char *buf)" or similar, then that's a bit strange. If it was truly Microsoft-written, it would be:
WINAPI DWORD ReadBytesW(LPCSTRWRAAXA szCharBufW_x, struct READBYTESINFO *srbinfArgs).
Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Except that a truly Microsoft-written ReadBytes method on the .NET Framework can be that simple, for example one int parameter http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.io.binaryreader.readbytes.aspx [microsoft.com]
So I wouldn't even jump to conclusions based on the signature of the method in question as to who it might have come from.
Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Except that a truly Microsoft-written ReadBytes method on the .NET Framework can be that simple, for example one int parameter http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.io.binaryreader.readbytes.aspx [microsoft.com] [microsoft.com]
There's a difference between a calling a method, where the object has internal state, and a C Win32 API function call, i.e., sans objects. I absolutely guarantee that you won't see many pretty signatures in the Win32 API. I'd bet that 99% of the Win32 API function SIGNATURES won't make it through a standards-compliant compiler without Windows.h. Anyway, my comment was supposed to be funny, but on second thought, it might actually deserve that informative mod.
Don't even get me started on the dual-version ANSI and Unicode functions, although given the mess that the Win32 API is, it's probably an elegant solution.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't even get me started on the dual-version ANSI and Unicode functions,
Transitioning from a system where strings were assumed to be in the local legacy encoding to a unicode based system (a transition all operating systems relavent today have had to go through) is a difficult problem with essentially no good soloution.
The way unix-like systems went for is to use UTF-8 and treat it as if it was just another legacy encoding. The problem with this approach is that it means that systems configured for unicode and systems configured for legacy use different encodings which tends to break stuff.
The way windows went for is to introduce duplicate APIs for unicode, this has the advantage that nothing that worked before breaks but requires all apps that want unicode support to be updated.
Can you think of any better soloutions?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious (Score:5, Informative)
The ReadBytes code was just one example
If you read TFA (yeah, I know...) you'll see the author has updated that original example with others [withinwindows.com].
It looks like Microsoft's defence will be that the EULA says "“You may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software". They'll probably charge the guy with a DMCA violation...
Re: (Score:2)
Which is great, because they themselves offer debug symbols and checked builds.
One hand giveth, the other taketh away.
Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious (Score:5, Informative)
OP clearly did read TFA since he was criticizing the specifics provided. I'm not sure why you're taking a shot at that since the update was clearly made after the comment was posted.
Why does it look like that exactly? Are you getting this from anywhere or just pulling it out of your ass?
Everyone Disassembles (Score:3, Insightful)
It looks like Microsoft's defence will be that the EULA says ""You may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software". They'll probably charge the guy with a DMCA violation...
Legally speaking, what does it mean to disassemble a program? Is it to convert its machine representation into a more readable format? Every processor in every computer does this, it just disassembles to a language that is not composed of English words and numbers. \
If someone owns Visual Studio and another program o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Especially in this case: the example code is part of a parser. Guess what, when you write a parser for any kind of file format without using a formal grammar tool, the most natural way to do it is read the individual components in the order the file format presents them. So the structure of the code is very much determined by the file format, and you have to expect a lot of similarities between different implementations, even if they were done completely independent of each other. Constants like the value 4
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
a) I am not the one making wild claims about out somebody - the author of TFA does. I mean I get it - we don't like MS here on /., blah, blah. Still, if he makes claims, the burden of proof is on him, not on people not on everybody else to disprove him.
b) I don't run windows, so getting everything set up with a .NET architecture would in fact be quite a pain in the ass.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
His new example is pretty weak too. It's another function to read some sort of header, and, surprise, the code operates in a similar way. Well, it pretty much has to... it's reading the same kind of header.
So far it's all pretty poor evidence.
Re:"Obviously lifted" not so obvious (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are getting copyright and patent confused. Copyright protects the words, not the process. Copyrighting a software program used to be registered with the same form a book was. If they cut and paste a bunch of copyrighted code, that is infringement. If they change it slightly, that is an unauthorized derivative of the work. They can however come up with a clean-room solution where someone who has never seen the code comes up with something that looks exactly like it, and that is not infringement becau
patents (Score:3, Informative)
Patents on the other hand dont protect the implementation, they protect the idea/process that is being implemented.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You misunderstand copyright. (Score:3, Informative)
Copyright protects a particular expression of an idea, not the idea itself. You're thinking of patents, which are completely different.
And you misunderstand patents. Look at my reply to the post above yours. Especially see what Findlaw [findlaw.com] says about patents.
Falcon
Knee jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
So the evidence is a ReadBytes snippet?
I'll wait till there's evidence before even commenting about the ramifications of something like this. This is just wild speculation at this point.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But this is Slashdot!
Without wild speculation there wouldn't hardly be any stories at all! And of course you have to get the 2-minutes hate for Microsoft going early.
Re:Knee jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
Moderated 'Flamebait.' 0 points left.
Seriously, whoever decided that we just get one dropdown and no 'confirm' button needs to be taken out back and shot. And I'd just used my other points on some actual trolls upthread, too. :(
Re:Knee jerk (Score:5, Funny)
Oh no. Evidence is not required in this case. This failure to comply with the GPL means that Microsoft is governed by Copyright law in this matter.
Their Internet service provider must be notified so that their Internet connection can be terminated.
Re:Knee jerk (Score:4, Interesting)
The new example is much clearer. Basic structure follows well. All the magic numbers in the code that I looked at matched too, and there are quite a few. Looks like it was massaged at least a bit, probably just to fit in with the local code environment not to obscure it.
But ...
The article points out only two weaknesses in this code borrowing. MS did not feed back any (unknown at this point) enhancements to the source. And they did not offer the source under the right license.
It is a real but very minor issue. If it wasn't MS it would not even be interesting.
MB
Re:Knee jerk (Score:5, Informative)
It's not "stealing"...right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on people, you can't have it both ways. If you can't "steal" music, you can't "steal" code. MS "stealing" this code didn't deprive the Open Source community from using the code (i.e. stealing my car), or at least that's the argument /.er use whenever the word is used in conjunction with music and movies. Eat your own dog food.
Re:It's not "stealing"...right? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think everyone here believes you can't steal music, first off. I believe you can steal music, books, printed art, all kinds of artwork. I come from a fairly serious artist background, and I know folks personally who have been scraping by for years on the meagre earnings of an average artist. It's not a fun life.
I believe large record syndicates are creeptastic and digital media is equation-changing, but that doesn't mean there's no evil in stealing non-physical works. Artists, unless they happen to be the pretty-close-to-literally one in a million shot, make almost nothing and they make a huge difference in how livable a society is. That's not changed by the fact that they can deliver media via digital channels; only people's expectations of the cost involved is changed. The number of consumers shrinks, but so does their expected price point. It's one of the reasons why there are still a lot of physical-media artists (the others including nobody's come up with good, cheap 3 dimensional sound, graphics, or texture delivery systems, physical media still work in some contexts, and art is large a physical act).
And if you can steal art, you can certainly steal code. Of course, in this case it's probably going to have no repercussions because you'd have to educate people on the struggle of open source in terms that wouldn't make a lawyer cry before you could really even get into it, but those of us who've self-selected have at least a notion of the violation and its meaning. And, happily, the irony - if MS really is using open source in its first "better" product in a long time, that's a fun little fact to know.
Plagiarizing != stealing != copying. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think everyone here believes you can't steal music, first off.
Speak for yourself. I do believe you can't steal music.
You could steal the original copies. You could steal a famous painting. But "stealing" music? For instance, what IS music? It's nothing but a mathematical concept involving harmonics and sound.
What are words? You can't "steal" what I said. This isn't like the little mermaid where you could steal someone's voice and leave him/her mute.
Non-physical works CANNOT be stolen. Unless you're talking about a PHYSICAL COPY, you cannot steal it by definition. Copying a work? That's completely different. But if it's a non-destructive process, you're not stealing it. You're just COPYING it.
If you want to use an appropriate term for what Microsoft supposedly did with this GPL code, it's called plagiarism [wikipedia.org]. Sure, it's called "stealing" nowadays, but using this word is oversimplifying.
Re: (Score:2)
Glad to see that you haven't even read what people are saying but rather making broad assumptions based on a very slim amount of "evidence."
If Microsoft did steal the code, then they should be punished. However, there really is no good evidence that they did indeed steal. Just because things are similar doesn't mean that one was stolen from another.
Re: (Score:2)
No, as the headline states, they borrowed it. And they promised to return it when they are done.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't "steal" music, you can't "steal" code.
A quick question here. Would I be dragged into court and fined thousands of dollars because my child or a buddy stole open source licensed code using my machine? In other words, it's unlikely that people will have their lives turned upside down by stealing code (assuming generously that they're doing something where that is even possible). The war on "stolen" music is something that can affect the typical slashdotter even if they had no part in the theft. I suppose you could say that this is a shining examp
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there are many people who hold both to be true. However, there are also people on Slashdot that realise that the two positions are to some extent, exclusive of one another.
Re:It's not "stealing"...right? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the correct argument, but you have it backward. If it's OK for MS to "steal" (by the definition that MS accepts for the word) then MS should allow people to "steal" Windows, and stop complaining about, trying to stop, prosecuting, software piracy. They should amend their EULA to allow users to decompile, reverse engineer, and modify their binaries.
Besides, it's not as though GPL code is anti-copyright.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please stop anthropomorphizing corporations. They get really pissed off when you do that.
I agree there was no corporate agenda to steal a dozen lines or so of code from the open source community. However, I could see the following:
1) Product A is behind schedule
2) Code Monkey B is under huge pressure to complete some feature for Product A. Luckily he finds some code on a blog which finishes off the routine he's working on. He doesn't perfo
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, corporations are made of individuals and these individuals can technically do as they please. However there is a strong incentive (i.e., not losing their jobs) to not do certain things, and I'd think Microsoft of all places would certainly make sure their employees avoid doing that sort of thing. I'm not saying it's entirely impossible, I'm just saying it seems rather unlikely.
And there's already a standard protocol in place for dealing with projects that are behind schedule at Microsoft: "drop WinFS".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, you are defrauding whoever you sold the property to.
Re:It's not "stealing"...right? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm fairly sure that by accepting money for someone else's property, you are stealing money from that person, whether you deprived that person of the property or not.
The actual code isn't anyone's property, only the copyright on the code is.
I, for one (Score:2)
I, for one, welcome our newest open source project to the community - Windows 7.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The code is not part of Windows 7, it's a tool to download copies of it.
That's his evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's his evidence? (Score:5, Informative)
They are both violating my copyright (Score:3, Funny)
Doesn't sound significant (Score:2)
Did a GPL project steal code from Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
With the amount of "evidence" in the article, the same accusation could be made against the GPL project. Perhaps the author of that project illegally gained access to Microsoft code and used it as a starting point for ImageMaster.
Umm - MS did not lift code from an OpenSource Proj (Score:3, Interesting)
Element109 wrote on: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/windowsopticalplatform/thread/421f3137-c9aa-45fb-8c5a-ec5dd6860036
The iso and udf parsing portions were ported from the 7-zip project. The credits.txt file contains all the sources used in creating my project.
7z
by Igor Pavlov
7-Zip is a file archiver with a high compression ratio.
http://www.7-zip.org
There are links to his source on his homepage. 7-zip is hosted on the SourceForge website.
If you checkout my initial upload there is a file in the reader directory that is a very early stage of the initial udf port. I had excluded it from the VS environment and forgot about it. It is the file I deleted in the latest changeset.
GPL Quiz (Score:3, Insightful)
It's that time again. Before anyone comments on GPL lifting, please take the GPL quiz:
The GPL Quiz [gnu.org]
Anyone who gets a perfect score may comment in this thread, all others please keep uninformed conclusions out.
Absolutely no indication of 'theft' here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, when you take to functions that do essentially the same thing, and you compile them, to optimized code, there is a good chance, if the compiler is doing its job that the compiled byte code looks a lot a like. This code HAS to act the same, its reading the same data format. Its no surprised that when you decompile different versions that they look the a like, I would be concerned if they didn't.
Go ahead and decompile it, so you aren't seeing the original source, you're seeing a decompilers version of the optimized code.
I could probably write that function 100 different ways in one day and get the exact same thing out after compiling it to optimized byte code and then decompiling it. Its a rather specific process at that point for dealing with a standard. You almost HAVE to do things in that function that way in order for your code to actually work. There are a few changes that could be made, some branches could be done in different orders, but once you throw the optimizer at it, those branches are likely going to be reordered the same way to reuse registers and such rather than wasting extra ones.
The author of the article is a newbie at best. Its fairly clear that he doesnt' actually understand what has happened in this process and has provided no evidence other than 'the end result looks the same!'. It could have went both ways, neither project was the first to write a UDF reader. My guess would be the first C# UDF code was actually a port of some C code to do it anyway.
Finally if you read the comments section of the article, the ImageMaster credits.txt contains a link to MS source, while I haven't bothered to download the linked SDK, its a safe bet that the reason the code looks the same is because it probably is, ImageMaster PROBABLY pulled that function from an MS example. It happens ALL THE TIME.
There is no MS conspiracy, just some douche bag blogger wanting to get posted on the front page of slashdot to increase his ad revenue.
The proper thing to do is to remove this story from the front page to deny that traffic to him.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They never lie, cheat, or steal. Never, ever, ever.
Microsoft is evil. Always has been. Always will be.
Re:not sureprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe you're very young, but I seem to recall that Microsoft was at one time held as a sort of liberator from IBM's hegemony. I guess it's all a matter of perspective...
Re:not sureprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Luckily IBM never lowered themselves to such despicable practices.
This isn't about IBM. We're over them. Microsoft is still an overwhelming force in the industry.
They abused their monopoly by forcing OEMs to give them unfair advantages over competition. This isn't just an opinion... the only real competitor (Apple) has complete control over their hardware systems, and that's why they can compete.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We aren't "over IBM". They are still one of the dominant forces in the industry. But IBM *did* actually reform. It took them decades, but they did. So far MS has shown no indication of even wanting to (outside of PR moves).
Re:not sureprised (Score:4, Insightful)
"But IBM *did* actually reform."
Really, how so?
IBM really were a malign force in this industry when they were dominant, using grossly unethical tactics against competitors and stifling innovation to an extraordinary extent. Between 1960 and 1980 IBM were the evil empire - probably worse than Microsoft have ever been. These days, ethically, IBM seems to be an 'average company'. It does some good stuff, it acts on the whole as a good citizen, it contributes to standards processes and mostly abides by the standards that are agreed. Of course, this may simply be because it no longer has the power to bully and intimidate like it once did - but this is nevertheless a huge change.
However, 'better' does not necessarily mean 'good', particularly if you start from where IBM started from.
And being 'not quite as bad as IBM at it's worst' doesn't make Microsoft good, either - they have always, from the very beginning, been an exceptionally unethical company.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, some companies try to make good products.
Re:not sureprised (Score:4, Insightful)
By whom?
My memory of the early days of Microsoft was surprise that their nasty behaviour was tolerated.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, there was a cheap and nasty OS based on a hacked version of CP/M that came with the original IBM PCs.
When the PC and PC clone market took off, the company making it went along for the ride. They got lucky.
Re: (Score:2)
I still see them that way. Have you ever *used* Lotus Notes? Can you imagine what work would be like if that was the only groupware option out there? Ugh.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:not sureprised (Score:5, Insightful)
I think most people think Outlook is pretty bad, until they actually have to *use* Notes... believe me, if you believe Outlook sets a low bar, Notes' bar is underground.
I'm certainly not going to suggest Outlook is perfect, or even good. But compared to the alternative, it's incredible.
Re:not sureprised (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft is evil. Always has been. Always will be.
Maybe you're very young, but I seem to recall that Microsoft was at one time held as a sort of liberator from IBM's hegemony. I guess it's all a matter of perspective...
Bill Gates' open letter to hobbyists [wikipedia.org]. Any questions?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, after reading the original letter I have one: how does that letter prove that Microsoft is evil? The only thing Gates is saying is that he and his company has invested around $40000 in building and supporting the software, and the return was so small, it was just enough to break even. The pay, he states, was $2 an hour. If you don't mind working for $2 an hour, that's ok of course, but most people probably wouldn't go to the university to learn computer science if their pay was less than that of a mcdo
Re:not sureprised (Score:4, Insightful)
You are believing "facts" quoted by Gates that you can't check. (I'll believe that he hired people for $2 / hr. I won't believe that that was *his* recompense...though he *might* have been living on his family.)
Still, his "open letter" wasn't as bad as his business practices at the same time...though that got a lot less publicity.
Companies that trusted MS tended to go out of business even then. MS was still small, though, so many of them just had trade secrets stolen, and their going out of business was delayed until MS became a more significant competitor. Also: Gates didn't invent dumpster diving, but he practiced it.
Still, there was a period when I though MS would be a less abusive company to deal with than IBM. And for around five-seven years it was true. This was probably because IBM wasn't allowed to compete by a consent decree, so IBM basically ignored the personal computer.
Re:not sureprised (Score:5, Interesting)
>> Microsoft is evil. Always has been. Always will be.
> Maybe you're very young, but I seem to recall that Microsoft was at one time held as a sort of liberator from IBM's hegemony. I guess it's all a matter of perspective...
Maybe YOU are very young. IBM was taking a beating and didn't manage to get their own PC done.
So they assembled a task force and said go and get us an IBM PC.
They did it -- without IBM parts!
The processor was from Intel and the OS from a small company who had to buy it from someone else, because they couldn't do it in time (little did we know then what these guys were up to).
In summary, there were a lot of good computers with other OSes, the main ones being CP/M and AppleDOS (not necessarily the better ones).
So:
1) M$ actually helped IBM (for money, of course) and
2) M$ is known to innovate after others innovated first.
I could cite sources, but this way we can argue longer. 8-)
Not that anyone reads ACs here anymore...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"They did it -- without IBM parts!"
Yes, because we know that all of IBM's computers before the PC were made up exclusively of IBM parts. You should have seen their steel foundry in those days - impressive!
Re:not sureprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:not sureprised (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe I am very young, but I seem to recall Gary Kildall having a few words to say about both Microsoft and IBM in this era of liberation you speak of. Something about Microsoft stealing CP/M through a thinly veiled Seattle Computer Products?
Wait, what? (Score:3, Insightful)
the Corporation of Microsoft behaves in an aberrant, selfish fashion. If there is GPL code that is being misused, it is not because "Microsoft is Evil', but more likely because they hired a contractor who lifted some open source code and though it would not get noticed. MS may be sociopathic and short sighted, but they are not going to as a official policy do something like this.
I have said it before here, Microsoft does some really stupid shit. Don'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever think that if this code was stolen it was done by a lower level employee and not an executive. It is way more likely that a small group of employees couldn't hit a deadline or something and so they borrowed code form other places to get it done. I know executives and have heard many executives speak... they don't like legal exposure, they don't want to do things wrong because it is their neck on the line. It is way more likely that it was the average slashdot user who did this than it was a "Microsof
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So it's Okay for MS to use open source code but any open source project that uses MS code can be hounded and threatened? Let's see, is it 238 patents [cnet.com] MS complains open source uses of MS's?
Falcon
You are displaying irrational MS hating behaviors. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're calling me an idiot and I'm the one displaying irrational hating behaviors?
Calling names is irrational.
Falcon
Re:not sureprised (Score:5, Insightful)
You make it sound like the evilness (read: utter lack of ethics) were a funny meme, not a plain, cold fact.
Re:not sureprised (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:not sureprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably those who get paid to work on GPL software...
Your point is? Do you have an accusation to make?
Re: (Score:2)
How many developers took code they wrote for their company and used it in a GPL project afterwards?
How many people speed without getting a ticket? How many people take a stapler from their employer and don't get fired? You imply that it's only wrong if everyone gets punished for it.
Besides, your example is flawed beyond that: There are cases where taking code from your company is perfectly legal and fine, like... If your employer decides to make the code produced open source. I understand that's not normally the case, but it's worth mentioning.
Re:not sureprised (Score:5, Informative)
Copyright infringement is not stealing. No mater who does it.
Re:not sureprised (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, then... If MS used GPL code, then they did not "Borrow" it either
They used it in violation of copyright
Re:not sureprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Because stealing BSD-licensed code is boring ;-)
Re:not sureprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Because people are making money off it.
Because the people violating that copyright are invariably the same people campaigning for the death penalty for other copyright violations.
There are other, less obvious rteasons. But in summary, there are a lot of differences between the two situations, assuming you're comparing this and the mp3 issue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering the existence of laws such as the "The Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005", the "The Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999", and various others, it seems clear that the US Congress disagrees with you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the US Congress is free to be as wrong as it wants to be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stealing is stealing. Period.
Yes, and copyright infringement ain't it, no matter how much your employer wishes otherwise.
Re:not sureprised (Score:4, Insightful)
No, there is one major difference. If I steal your car, you can't use it any more. If I copy your software, you can still use it. I don't take something away. In most cases, the copyright holder doesn't even notice.
It's the copyright holders that are trying to mislead people and contort the English language by saying stealing is the same as copying.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Saved your life!
See, I was going to kill you but I didn't, so I saved your life.
Re:not sureprised (Score:4, Insightful)
The differences you fail to make clear is that copyright infringement isn't stealing something physical as in all your cases. Copyright infringement is making a copy without the permission of the copyright holder. It isn't like you denied the copyright holder any of their possessions as NO ONE can guarantee that the infringer would have bought the work to begin with. This is well a established precept.
Re:not sureprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright infringement IS stealing
No, it isn't. Here is a handy guide illustrating the difference. [cslacker.com]
it just has a different legal definition.
And you know *why* that is? Because *IT'S NOT THE SAME*. If copyright infringement *WAS* the same as theft, we wouldn't need a special law dealing with it - it could be covered by theft laws. The fact that it isn't should tell you something.
It literally fits the non-legal definition.
No, it doesn't. It fits the propaganda term. Just because some media trade groups misapply a term as an act of propaganda does not make it so.
Re: (Score:2)
in the worst case, they could publish the full source of the application in order to comply with the gpl... I mean, it is just a tool to copy files from a to b, right? so it is kind of a silly article.
"Oh I'm sorry officer ... I didn't mean to speed 85 in a 35 School Zone. No one's injured so just let me go... "
Just because there are no apparent damages doesn't mean that it was in the right. MessySoft should pull a mea culpa and offer to license the code under a non-GPL license if they so choose from the author. He should add a penalty percentage when coming up with his quote for MessySoft not asking first.
Re:no big deal (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, they kind of have to *prove* that Microsoft actually copied their code first. You're missing a crucial step to the process in your scenario.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
well i think that the gpl only requires you to serve up the source code *upon request*, so MS has not yet broken the law, i suppose.
You also have to offer the source code - you can't keep your mouth shut and hope nobody ever asks for it.
Re: (Score:2)
That only applies if they provide a written offer to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
It's too late for them to publish the full source under the GPLv2. The GPLv2 termination clauses have already triggered, so they can't ever distribute (parts of) ImageMaster under the GPLv2.
Assuming that ImageMaster is under the GPLv2. I can't RTFA, because it is Slashdotted. The GPLv3 is more lenient.
Re:It's .NET code (Score:5, Insightful)
It's .NET code. It's already "Open Source" by virtue of tools like Reflector [red-gate.com] existing.
I do not think that that is what "Open Source" is generally taken to mean.
Re: (Score:3)
I do not think that that is what "Open Source" is generally taken to mean.
Well, yes, it is. That's why you will so frequently see people insist that "Free Software" is a better term.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"(for use by anyone for any purpose on any operating system for no charge)"
Did you ever read the GPL?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL
Re:Gpl violation (Score:4, Informative)
Not really, they just don't accept the license and deal with the copyright violation instead, just like they would if the programmer copied a piece of proprietary software.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)