OSNews

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Redeeman explained...

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.

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

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.

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.

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