Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Jul 2009 09:43 UTC
Permalink for comment 374937
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
Not quite. microsoft took some of their own code, and then stactically linked some GPL code in with it, in order to make their product.
Microsoft's distributed product therefore actually contained the GPL code. Included within it. That makes the product as distributed a derived work of the original GPL code, as defined by copyright law.
The definition, in copyright law, of a derived work, is a work containing all or parts of an earlier work.
The GPL isn't viral ... Microsoft were distributing GPL code as part of their product. Someone else's code. The terms of the GPL then applied to the derived work. Microsoft's options then were either:
(1) re-write the parts that were originally GPL code so that the whole product as distributed was Microsoft's own code, or
(2) make the whole product GPL, or
(3) stop distributing the product.
Microsoft chose option 2. That was Microsoft's choice. It was not their only choice.