Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Nov 2009 00:06 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft has delayed the open source release of their Windows 7 USB/DVD tool, which contained GPL code. "As you know, Microsoft recently committed to making the source code as well as binaries for the Windows 7 USB/DVD Tool available this week, under the terms of the General Public License v2 as described here. While we worked extremely hard to try and get the code ready for release by today, we still need to test and localize it. Our goal is now to release the tool in all languages on the same day in the next few weeks. We appreciate your patience and understanding as we work to make the Windows 7 USB/DVD Tool available once again."
Order by: Score:
Comment by Redeeman
by Redeeman on Tue 24th Nov 2009 00:31 UTC
Redeeman
Member since:
2006-03-23

why do they need to stability test it? they should release the EXACT code used to create the binaries they distributed before, no less, no more..

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Redeeman
by sukru on Tue 24th Nov 2009 01:27 UTC in reply to "Comment by Redeeman"
sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

That "exact" part may not be there. The tool probably contains some extra code, which MS cannot open, and replaced quickly.

This happened with other open source releases in the past (i.e.: Java).

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Redeeman
by umccullough on Tue 24th Nov 2009 01:58 UTC in reply to "Comment by Redeeman"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

why do they need to stability test it? they should release the EXACT code used to create the binaries they distributed before, no less, no more..


Well, basically they've violated the GPL...

So it looks like they're *trying* to make good with the original GPL authors and release a work-a-like tool based on the same source code at this point.

The end result is that they still violated the GPL, but in a goodwill effort, intend to provide something similar based on the same GPL code instead.

For all we know, the company they outsourced the original project to has "lost" the code... meaning that Microsoft may have to re-create everything from scratch now as they were the ones caught violating the terms of GPL by releasing it to the public.

All speculation on my part, of course.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Redeeman
by Redeeman on Tue 24th Nov 2009 02:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Redeeman"
Redeeman Member since:
2006-03-23

I realize that, what im trying to do is expose their decietful half-compliance....

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Redeeman
by umccullough on Tue 24th Nov 2009 03:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Redeeman"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

I realize that, what im trying to do is expose their decietful half-compliance....


Makes one wonder if they've already contacted the authors of the GPL code in question and worked out a compliance deal with them or not.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Redeeman
by BluenoseJake on Tue 24th Nov 2009 05:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Redeeman"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I realize that, what im trying to do is expose their decietful half-compliance....


There is no evidence of deceit on Microsofts part. The tool was written by a contractor, so it may be just what MS says it is, a mistake on their part, and an infringement by the subcontractor. At least they owned up to it and are abiding by the GPL.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by Redeeman
by Redeeman on Tue 24th Nov 2009 16:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Redeeman"
Redeeman Member since:
2006-03-23

"I realize that, what im trying to do is expose their decietful half-compliance....


There is no evidence of deceit on Microsofts part. The tool was written by a contractor, so it may be just what MS says it is, a mistake on their part, and an infringement by the subcontractor. At least they owned up to it and are abiding by the GPL.
"
except they are NOT abiding by the GPL, as they are not distributing the EXACT source required to build the original tool.

and using a subcontractor is not a valid excuse, THEY distributed the tool, THEY have the responsibility.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Redeeman
by bornagainenguin on Tue 24th Nov 2009 17:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Redeeman"
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

Redeeman explained...

except they are NOT abiding by the GPL, as they are not distributing the EXACT source required to build the original tool.


Exactly. I find mysel;f wondering with each day of delay what other GPL'd code might be inside that Microsoft is desperately scrambling to remove before they get caught...

I hope that experienced hackers are going to be bringing scrutiny to bear and carefully doing a code comparison between what Microsoft gives and what they had before...

--bornagainpenguin

PS: Could we please have a report spam button? -1 Troll doesn't cut it and there is no way to mod these dumb spammers down now that I'm making this post.

Reply Score: 2

RE PS:
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 24th Nov 2009 17:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Redeeman"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Seconded. We should write an OSNews spam notification program for Thom's Iphone. Or is there an app for that?

Reply Score: 2

RE PS:
by umccullough on Tue 24th Nov 2009 18:35 UTC in reply to "RE PS:"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Seconded. We should write an OSNews spam notification program for Thom's Iphone. Or is there an app for that?


It would never be accepted to the AppStore - Apple would probably deny it on grounds that it provides direct access to vulgar content ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by Redeeman
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 24th Nov 2009 17:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Redeeman"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

To put on my hat of suspicion, I think they may not be releasing the full, original source, because it violates more than just the GPL.

I wouldn't be surprised if it also contains some code under the Sun Community Source License, and Apple Public License, and some code stolen from IBM, and some code stolen from Adobe. So by admitting to as little as possible, they can avoid a lawsuit from a major player.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Redeeman
by BluenoseJake on Tue 24th Nov 2009 22:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Redeeman"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

if they don't own all the source, they can only distribute the GPL portions of it. That's the way it works.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Redeeman
by umccullough on Wed 25th Nov 2009 01:18 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Redeeman"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

if they don't own all the source, they can only distribute the GPL portions of it. That's the way it works.


Well, technically, anyone who puts their own source together with GPL code and distributes the derivative work must release all the code...

If the company that did this could not release the other source code, then they were not allowed to use the GPL code in the first place - thus making it a violation from step 1.

It's very simple, that's the way it works.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by Redeeman
by BluenoseJake on Wed 25th Nov 2009 02:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Redeeman"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

well, they may not own all the code. If they do not own the code, they cannot release it, regardless what the GPL says. Say for example, some of the code is derived from commercial code to decode DVDs, that MS hasn't licensed, and neither did the contractor. MS has no right at that point to distribute that code, and must excise it from the code released under the GPL.

It's that simple, and that's how it works.

Edited 2009-11-25 02:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Link to Port25 article
by umccullough on Tue 24th Nov 2009 03:10 UTC
umccullough
Member since:
2006-01-26

Here's the article (that probably should have been linked from OSNews):

http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/11/20/update-on-the-windows-...

Interesting is the indication in the comments that imagemaster was pulled from codeplex by the author's request... hmm...

Reply Score: 2