GPL allegations ; Windows 7 USB/DVD download tool

[LinuxMint-4]

Microsoft pulls Windows 7 USB/DVD download tool amid GPL allegations

http://vista.blorge.com/2009/11/11/micr ... legations/

It was good news when Microsoft released its Windows 7 USB/DVD download tool to enable owners of netbooks without an optical drive to upgrade to Windows 7. However, it’s bad news to learn that the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download tool possibly contained source code from the GPLv2-licensed ImageMaster project. Oh dear.

Microsoft has long shunned the open source community. But it has kind of changed its stance of late, with the CodePlex open source group and site. The CodePlex Foundation has the simple job of bringing proprietary and open source companies together and to work on joint projects. Unfortunately, it looks as though Microsoft might have taken advantage of the ImageMaster project.

Within Windows found that the Windows 7 USB/DVD download tool contained source code that is highly likely to have come from a supposedly open source project.

While poking through the UDF-related internals of the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool, I had a weird feeling there was just wayyyyyyyyy too much code in there for such a simple tool. A simple search of some method names and properties, gleaned from Reflector’s output, revealed the source code was obviously lifted from the CodePlex-hosted (yikes) GPLv2-licensed ImageMaster project. (The author of the code was not contacted by Microsoft.)

The problem is that as well as not contacting the author of the code, Microsoft released the download tool under its own name, with Microsoft licenses all over it. What’s more, there was no attempt to allow users access to the source code. All of which goes against the GNU’s General Public License (GPL).

Microsoft refused to comment on the accusations at first but has now removed the download tool from its servers completely. The company then issued a statement saying:

Microsoft is looking into this issue and is taking down the Windows 7 USB/DVD download tool (WUDT) from the Microsoft Store site until its investigations are complete. We apologize to our customers for any inconvenience.

This is either an embarrassing mistake or a complete undermining of the GPL depending on who you believe. The fact is that the download tool has now disappeared and, I suspect, is unlikely to reappear.

[MattKingUSA]

Bravo, good post.

[MattKingUSA]

http://www.techspot.com/news/36967-micr ... -tool.html

Microsoft
confirmed today that its Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool had indeed contained open-source code -- but it wasn't intentional. As first suspected by the blog Within Windows, Redmond had contracted the project to a third party, and simply didn't catch the code during its review process.

Microsoft has gone a step further, conducting a review of other code provided through the Microsoft Store -- though, the company didn't find any other offenders. The software giant said it will reintroduce the tool to the Microsoft Store next week, and will also disclose its source code as well as the binaries in compliance with the General Public License (GPL v2).

The company pulled its Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool earlier this week after being accused of using code from a utility called ImageMaster in a way that violated the GPL v2.

[eddie]

When I worked for an auditor years ago, it was customary if you found one inconsistency, there were usually more because of rubber stamping of like kind transactions. A deeper inspection was made of similar records to see if a red flag was warranted. I really think this should be done to Microsoft. A real savvy lawyer could attempt to force MS to open up their code. Would not that be interesting? Though a special master would have to be engaged to do it. If MS did not open up their code, it could become a hotbed issue. I think even Apple has their source code available.

[MattKingUSA]

When I worked for an auditor years ago, it was customary if you found one inconsistency, there were usually more because of rubber stamping of like kind transactions. A deeper inspection was made of similar records to see if a red flag was warranted. I really think this should be done to Microsoft. A real savvy lawyer could attempt to force MS to open up their code. Would not that be interesting? Though a special master would have to be engaged to do it. If MS did not open up their code, it could become a hotbed issue. I think even Apple has their source code available.

That would be very interesting and I hope that it happens.

[NYbill]

its funny how part of MS's FUD campaign is allegations of patented code in linux. and here they are caught with GPL'ed code in their OS. classic!