OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/22529/Microsoft_Delays_Open_Source_Release_Windows_7_Tool Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Wed, 22 May 2013 18:29:17 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com Comment by Redeeman http://www.osnews.com/thread?396034 http://www.osnews.com/thread?396034 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.. Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Redeeman) Comments RE: Comment by Redeeman http://www.osnews.com/thread?396052 http://www.osnews.com/thread?396052 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). Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sukru) Comments RE: Comment by Redeeman http://www.osnews.com/thread?396058 http://www.osnews.com/thread?396058
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. Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (umccullough) Comments RE[2]: Comment by Redeeman http://www.osnews.com/thread?396059 http://www.osnews.com/thread?396059 I realize that, what im trying to do is expose their decietful half-compliance.... Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Redeeman) Comments RE[3]: Comment by Redeeman http://www.osnews.com/thread?396062 http://www.osnews.com/thread?396062
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. Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (umccullough) Comments Link to Port25 article http://www.osnews.com/thread?396063 http://www.osnews.com/thread?396063 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... Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (umccullough) Comments RE[3]: Comment by Redeeman http://www.osnews.com/thread?396071 http://www.osnews.com/thread?396071
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. Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (BluenoseJake) Comments RE[4]: Comment by Redeeman http://www.osnews.com/thread?396126 http://www.osnews.com/thread?396126
"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. Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Redeeman) Comments RE[5]: Comment by Redeeman http://www.osnews.com/thread?396142 http://www.osnews.com/thread?396142 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. Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (bornagainenguin) Comments RE[5]: Comment by Redeeman http://www.osnews.com/thread?396143 http://www.osnews.com/thread?396143 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. Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Bill Shooter of Bul) Comments RE PS: http://www.osnews.com/thread?396145 http://www.osnews.com/thread?396145 Seconded. We should write an OSNews spam notification program for Thom's Iphone. Or is there an app for that? Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Bill Shooter of Bul) Comments RE PS: http://www.osnews.com/thread?396157 http://www.osnews.com/thread?396157
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 ;) Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (umccullough) Comments RE PS: http://www.osnews.com/thread?396208 http://www.osnews.com/thread?396208 Yeah... I wonder if sending notifications automatically to Thom would get me banned for the number of emails. Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Bill Shooter of Bul) Comments RE[5]: Comment by Redeeman http://www.osnews.com/thread?396242 http://www.osnews.com/thread?396242 if they don't own all the source, they can only distribute the GPL portions of it. That's the way it works. Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (BluenoseJake) Comments RE[6]: Comment by Redeeman http://www.osnews.com/thread?396269 http://www.osnews.com/thread?396269
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. Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (umccullough) Comments RE[7]: Comment by Redeeman http://www.osnews.com/thread?396290 http://www.osnews.com/thread?396290 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 Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (BluenoseJake) Comments RE[8]: Comment by Redeeman http://www.osnews.com/thread?396300 http://www.osnews.com/thread?396300
MS has no right at that point to distribute that code, and must excise it from the code released under the GPL.


Which really means that they cannot legally correct their violation without another violation. It's a shame that it had to happen that way. Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (umccullough) Comments RE[9]: Comment by Redeeman http://www.osnews.com/thread?396350 http://www.osnews.com/thread?396350 Yeah, but sometimes mistakes occur. Hopefully MS has learned yet another lesson. Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (BluenoseJake) Comments