

Contractor had included GPL code, so Microsoft decides to publish its own source - dctoedt
http://lawandlifesiliconvalley.com/blog/?p=306

======
jacquesm
Weird how it gets spun as a 'danger of open source'.

It's simply being careless. If they have a review process and it did not catch
this it can't be much of a review.

The really worrying thing here is not that a chunk of gpl'd code made it into
the distribution but that apparently subcontractors can put chunks of code in
to microsofts main distributions without proper oversight.

~~~
lanstein
I would not say this is "spun." Furthermore, from his bio, "I am the General
Counsel, pro bono, of the Open Source Initiative."

My reaction to the HN title was "wow, imagine if someone came on the Windows
team and 'accidentally' included GPLed code..." ;)

~~~
shpxnvz
Then they would simply remove the GPL code and push out an update. The GPL
does not compel the release of source code - if they accidentally distribute a
product that does not comply with the requirements of the included GPL
software then they simply lose the right to distribute the GPL software at the
copyright holder's discretion.

------
kevinpet
Microsoft could have quite legitimately just yanked the app until they could
rewrite it without the GPL code. The contractor would be toast (probably had
an indemnification clause), MS wouldn't have been on the hook for that much
even if the copyright holders of the GPL code sued for infringement, as it
wasn't willful.

The GPL absolutely does not force them to do so. It cannot, as it is simply a
copyright license. The GPL actually terminated as soon as MS distributed the
code, since they weren't following it's rules.

I don't know if they have a formal agreement with the copyright owner, or if
they're just following what is an accepted practice in opening the source, but
technically GPL v2 cannot be "reactivated" on its own.

~~~
eli
Hmm, so I can give away copies of MS Office so long as I stop when someone
points out it's copyright violation?

~~~
jmillikin
You would probably have to pay damages; see the ongoing drama of RIAA v. The
Public for an example.

------
jrockway
Don't tell anyone, but I really want to try this technique on Android. Cut-n-
paste some GPL3 code from somewhere, get it accepted, wait for the binary
using the code to be released, and then you can get root on your phone simply
by sending a nastygram (as the GPL3 prohibits devices from locking out the
user without their consent).

No more wasting time finding a security hole!

(Perhaps this has already been done!)

~~~
wmf
Such a trick only works if the code doesn't matter. For something as important
as Android, Google would just remove the offending code. Also, all code coming
into important projects like Android has to have someone to vouch for it, so
perhaps Google could shift the blame to the submitter (who would have had to
remove the GPLv3 notice before submitting the code).

~~~
jrockway
Doesn't matter who they blame. Once the GPL3 code is in your hand, on the
phone, they are stuck. Removing the code is fine, just like how they fix
security holes that let you get root.

------
freetard
> Microsoft decides to publish its own source

"Decides"? The very gpl license forces them to do so, this headline basically
says "Microsoft decides to respect the law". Nothing to see here.

~~~
jmillikin
Microsoft had four options:

1\. Stop distributing the utility

2\. Publish the utility's source code under the GPL

3\. Arrange a separate licensing agreement with the owner of the GPL'd code

4\. Remove the infringing code from their utility

Nothing about the GPL "forces" the infringer to divulge their code -- that's
simply one available option.

~~~
freetard
> Nothing about the GPL "forces" the infringer to divulge their code -- that's
> simply one available option.

Wrong, as soon as you publish your app publically, you are forced to give the
whole source code of that version of the app to anyone who downloaded the
binary.

~~~
tspiteri
No, as soon as you publish your infringing app, your license to distribute the
app is terminated. You are not forced to provide your source code, but you are
forbidden from further distribution of the GPL part, even if you then publish
your own source code as GPL.

If I remember well, in the GPL version 3 there is a mechanism so that if you
publish an infringing app but then correct the infringement by publishing the
whole source as GPL within a certain number of days, your license to
distribute the app is not terminated.

