4 ms·

> just GPL 2.0 perhaps you are not familiar with what the GPL requires of its users, and how wildly incompatible that is with what a company like Microsoft doe

> just GPL 2.0 perhaps you are not familiar with what the GPL requires of its users, and how wildly incompatible that is with what a company like Microsoft does. Microsoft employees are forbidden from looking at GPL code (as well as other virally licensed code) because they may unwittingly reproduce some GPL code they saw in a large Microsoft codebase. If that happens, and they are taken to trial over it, and lose, that entire codebase is now GPL. This is enough of a risk to them that MS employees have computers which simply can not view GPL code. that is also why they would not watch the video; it isn’t about his voice, it is about the code visible on stream. additionally, watching a video of GPL code being written could be perceived as an attempt to circumvent the restrictions on viewing GPL code, and would likely get the viewer into trouble. you not already knowing this bothers me a lot, given all the things you’ve said in this discussion. you are making a lot of assumptions that are just not true and basing your opinions on the belief that those assumptions are true. this is very similar to why software at microsoft is as bad as it is generally; a lot of people assuming they know things they don’t know, and producing results which are more flawed than they needed to be.

jiggawatts 4y ago
IF THEY COPY IT VERBATIM. They're free to look at the approach and simply rewrite it. They'd have to anyway to fit in with their codebase.
- jcelerier 4y ago
  Uh, no. You cannot e.g. listen to a Radiohead song and "look at the approach and simply rewrite it" for instance if you want to be entirely clear of copyright liability - same applies for software.
  - userbinator 4y ago
    No, otherwise authors of books would be suing everyone who read them and learned their ideas.
  - seba_dos1 4y ago
    Of course you can. That's what a huge chunk of art ever created does. You're only (potentially) in trouble when you make it obvious.
  - the_af 4y ago
    Isn't copyright about copying verbatim (or with trivial enough changes that it remains recognizably the same) large enough sections of the protected work?
    - jcelerier 4y ago
      At least not in my country (France). At the very least changing the pitch, and rhythm and interpretation of a melody is not enough to make it an original work there. To give a very concrete example: french singer Claude François made the song Comme d'habitude: https://youtu.be/avr5nvY4wxg https://youtu.be/avr5nvY4wxg It was translated and rewritten a few times but he still is recognized as one of the copyright owners on those covers, e.g. https://youtu.be/qQzdAsjWGPg https://youtu.be/qQzdAsjWGPg which are definitely not just a mechanical rewrite of the original score
      - seba_dos1 4y ago
        There's a difference between creating a derivative work and analyzing how something is done in order to create something new based on that knowledge. You can make songs in style of Led Zeppelin that sound like they could be written and performed by Led Zeppelin without violating any copyrights (and to be able to do that you obviously need to know some Led Zeppelin songs beforehand), but you can't take "Dazed and Confused", change the guitar solo and part of the lyrics and call it done... Well, at least unless you end up as big as Led Zeppelin was before someone catches you, I guess ;)
        jcelerier 4y ago
        > Well, at least unless you end up as big as Led Zeppelin was before someone catches you, I guess ;) Are you talking about the Led Zeppelin who get entangled in judicial pursuits for plagiarism every couple years? If it was as clear cut as you say it is it would never reach any judge. There is even one case where someone was condemned for not copying any specific song but the general style of another musician : Pharrell Williams had to pay 5M to the Marvin Gaye estate because of this https://rpjlaw.com/blurred-lines-copying-songs-musical-style-enough-warrant-copyright-infringement/ https://rpjlaw.com/blurred-lines-copying-songs-musical-style... https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2018/07/blurred-lines-between-inspiration-and-infringement https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2018/07/blurred-lines-b... Yes, this is extremely shitty but this is the world we live in
- ikiris 4y ago
  Do you just not understand copyright? That is totally in violation.
  - the_af 4y ago
    Wait, I'm also confused. I thought completely rewriting the implementation of an algorithm would not violate copyright. It may run afoul of other laws, but not copyright. Am I mistaken? I don't mean simply renaming variables or changing a couple of lines.
    - seba_dos1 4y ago
      > Am I mistaken? No.
    - ikiris 4y ago
      It does, but only if you can show its not a derivative work. See also the concept of clean room reimplementation.
      - kragen 4y ago
        "Derivative work" doesn't mean "a work made with knowledge of another work". WP explains, "In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work)." Canonical examples include translations into another language, dramatizations of novels, or phonorecords of sheet music. Algorithms, being purely functional, are not copyrightable in any country that I know of. So a new implementation that uses the same algorithm as the original, but without copying any of its non-functional aspects, is not a derivative work of the original and does not infringe its copyright. Cleanroom reimplementation is a defense against allegations of copying, because under, for example, US copyright law, access plus substantial similarity is sufficient to show copying. The "He's So Fine" lawsuit is one of the most extreme examples of this doctrine. Cleanroom reimplementations are a defense against copying by eliminating the access element. But copying the functional aspects of a program does not meet the "substantial similarity" bar.
- forgotpwd16 4y ago
  >They're free to look at the approach and simply rewrite it. If by "look at the approach" you mean the "look at the code", then no. You're giving a step for your code to be considered a derivative work. If by "look at the approach" you mean someone read the code, made a specification, and then someone else that hasn't looked the code, made a program based on the specification, then yes. But arguably this isn't "simply rewrite". Those aren't even baseless considerations. ReactOS project had paused development due to concerns that derived (read: rewritten) parts of leaked Windows code may have been used. It took years for ReactOS to show that everything was in fact a clean-room implementation (basically doing what wrote above). If they hadn't, they'll have made themselves open to be sued by Microsoft.
- naikrovek 4y ago
  can you, as a lawyer for Microsoft, make a guarantee to the business that if allowed, a software developer at Microsoft who works on the Windows source code will not ever reproduce a method they saw in a GPL codebase in the code they write for their job? You can not. So what do you do to prepare for a lawsuit which alleges that you've copied GPL code into the Windows codebase? You have technical and legal barriers in place so that those developers can't see GPL code where you can control that, and make them promise that they won't do anything to compromise the license of the Windows code that they work on. Technical and legal (read: contractual) measures to prevent this are the defense that one needs to have in order to defend against a case like this, in court. So, because you, as a Microsoft attorney, can't guarantee that GPL code won't be reproduced verbatim in any quantity in the Windows codebase, you do what you can to dissuade your developers from looking at GPL code. please think for 2 seconds on your own and I won't have to ELI5.
seba_dos1 4y ago
There's no reason other than lack of will for something like Windows Terminal to not be GPL compatible. The limits Microsoft places upon themselves are results of their own conscious choices. Also, Microsoft employees work on GPL2-licensed Linux just fine, so something seems off in your story.
- naikrovek 4y ago
  other Microsoft libraries are used in Windows Terminal, optionally in code form. cmd.exe is in the same source tree, and other proprietary code of Microsoft's relies on that code; it's a non-zero portion of the command-line stuff that ships in Windows. stuff that is not Windows Terminal but that lives in the Windows Terminal repo on GitHub gets shipped with Windows. so, yes, there are very good reasons they can't license Windows Terminal via GPL. WSL kernel folks get that repo whitelisted.
  - seba_dos1 4y ago
    None of what you said inherently prevents GPL licensing. I'm not sure you understand the implications of GPL license at all. Also, it's not just WSL people who work on GPL software inside Microsoft. I guess they are magically expected not to subconsciously reproduce any GPL code in their work ever ;)
    - naikrovek 4y ago
      you're right, nothing i said inherently prevents GPL licensing, but the existing license terms of the code they write themselves and license from others does inherently prevent GPL licensing. I thought that was clear, but apparently I need to be more deliberate with my comments.

jiggawatts 4y ago

IF THEY COPY IT VERBATIM. They're free to look at the approach and simply rewrite it. They'd have to anyway to fit in with their codebase.

jcelerier 4y ago
Uh, no. You cannot e.g. listen to a Radiohead song and "look at the approach and simply rewrite it" for instance if you want to be entirely clear of copyright liability - same applies for software.
- userbinator 4y ago
  No, otherwise authors of books would be suing everyone who read them and learned their ideas.
- seba_dos1 4y ago
  Of course you can. That's what a huge chunk of art ever created does. You're only (potentially) in trouble when you make it obvious.
- the_af 4y ago
  Isn't copyright about copying verbatim (or with trivial enough changes that it remains recognizably the same) large enough sections of the protected work?
  - jcelerier 4y ago
    At least not in my country (France). At the very least changing the pitch, and rhythm and interpretation of a melody is not enough to make it an original work there. To give a very concrete example: french singer Claude François made the song Comme d'habitude: https://youtu.be/avr5nvY4wxg https://youtu.be/avr5nvY4wxg It was translated and rewritten a few times but he still is recognized as one of the copyright owners on those covers, e.g. https://youtu.be/qQzdAsjWGPg https://youtu.be/qQzdAsjWGPg which are definitely not just a mechanical rewrite of the original score
    - seba_dos1 4y ago
      There's a difference between creating a derivative work and analyzing how something is done in order to create something new based on that knowledge. You can make songs in style of Led Zeppelin that sound like they could be written and performed by Led Zeppelin without violating any copyrights (and to be able to do that you obviously need to know some Led Zeppelin songs beforehand), but you can't take "Dazed and Confused", change the guitar solo and part of the lyrics and call it done... Well, at least unless you end up as big as Led Zeppelin was before someone catches you, I guess ;)
      - jcelerier 4y ago
        > Well, at least unless you end up as big as Led Zeppelin was before someone catches you, I guess ;) Are you talking about the Led Zeppelin who get entangled in judicial pursuits for plagiarism every couple years? If it was as clear cut as you say it is it would never reach any judge. There is even one case where someone was condemned for not copying any specific song but the general style of another musician : Pharrell Williams had to pay 5M to the Marvin Gaye estate because of this https://rpjlaw.com/blurred-lines-copying-songs-musical-style-enough-warrant-copyright-infringement/ https://rpjlaw.com/blurred-lines-copying-songs-musical-style... https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2018/07/blurred-lines-between-inspiration-and-infringement https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2018/07/blurred-lines-b... Yes, this is extremely shitty but this is the world we live in
ikiris 4y ago
Do you just not understand copyright? That is totally in violation.
- the_af 4y ago
  Wait, I'm also confused. I thought completely rewriting the implementation of an algorithm would not violate copyright. It may run afoul of other laws, but not copyright. Am I mistaken? I don't mean simply renaming variables or changing a couple of lines.
  - seba_dos1 4y ago
    > Am I mistaken? No.
  - ikiris 4y ago
    It does, but only if you can show its not a derivative work. See also the concept of clean room reimplementation.
    - kragen 4y ago
      "Derivative work" doesn't mean "a work made with knowledge of another work". WP explains, "In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work)." Canonical examples include translations into another language, dramatizations of novels, or phonorecords of sheet music. Algorithms, being purely functional, are not copyrightable in any country that I know of. So a new implementation that uses the same algorithm as the original, but without copying any of its non-functional aspects, is not a derivative work of the original and does not infringe its copyright. Cleanroom reimplementation is a defense against allegations of copying, because under, for example, US copyright law, access plus substantial similarity is sufficient to show copying. The "He's So Fine" lawsuit is one of the most extreme examples of this doctrine. Cleanroom reimplementations are a defense against copying by eliminating the access element. But copying the functional aspects of a program does not meet the "substantial similarity" bar.
forgotpwd16 4y ago
>They're free to look at the approach and simply rewrite it. If by "look at the approach" you mean the "look at the code", then no. You're giving a step for your code to be considered a derivative work. If by "look at the approach" you mean someone read the code, made a specification, and then someone else that hasn't looked the code, made a program based on the specification, then yes. But arguably this isn't "simply rewrite". Those aren't even baseless considerations. ReactOS project had paused development due to concerns that derived (read: rewritten) parts of leaked Windows code may have been used. It took years for ReactOS to show that everything was in fact a clean-room implementation (basically doing what wrote above). If they hadn't, they'll have made themselves open to be sued by Microsoft.
naikrovek 4y ago
can you, as a lawyer for Microsoft, make a guarantee to the business that if allowed, a software developer at Microsoft who works on the Windows source code will not ever reproduce a method they saw in a GPL codebase in the code they write for their job? You can not. So what do you do to prepare for a lawsuit which alleges that you've copied GPL code into the Windows codebase? You have technical and legal barriers in place so that those developers can't see GPL code where you can control that, and make them promise that they won't do anything to compromise the license of the Windows code that they work on. Technical and legal (read: contractual) measures to prevent this are the defense that one needs to have in order to defend against a case like this, in court. So, because you, as a Microsoft attorney, can't guarantee that GPL code won't be reproduced verbatim in any quantity in the Windows codebase, you do what you can to dissuade your developers from looking at GPL code. please think for 2 seconds on your own and I won't have to ELI5.

seba_dos1 4y ago

There's no reason other than lack of will for something like Windows Terminal to not be GPL compatible. The limits Microsoft places upon themselves are results of their own conscious choices. Also, Microsoft employees work on GPL2-licensed Linux just fine, so something seems off in your story.

naikrovek 4y ago
other Microsoft libraries are used in Windows Terminal, optionally in code form. cmd.exe is in the same source tree, and other proprietary code of Microsoft's relies on that code; it's a non-zero portion of the command-line stuff that ships in Windows. stuff that is not Windows Terminal but that lives in the Windows Terminal repo on GitHub gets shipped with Windows. so, yes, there are very good reasons they can't license Windows Terminal via GPL. WSL kernel folks get that repo whitelisted.
- seba_dos1 4y ago
  None of what you said inherently prevents GPL licensing. I'm not sure you understand the implications of GPL license at all. Also, it's not just WSL people who work on GPL software inside Microsoft. I guess they are magically expected not to subconsciously reproduce any GPL code in their work ever ;)
  - naikrovek 4y ago
    you're right, nothing i said inherently prevents GPL licensing, but the existing license terms of the code they write themselves and license from others does inherently prevent GPL licensing. I thought that was clear, but apparently I need to be more deliberate with my comments.