5 ms·

> 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

> 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.

jdale27 17y ago
Couldn't they have instead rewritten their code so that it didn't use the GPL-licensed code?
- freetard 17y ago
  Nope, 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.
  - jmillikin 17y ago
    This is not correct; please stop upvoting mindless talking points. Nothing in the GPL or in copyright law compels infringers to divulge their source code.
    - eli 17y ago
      Huh? You mean other than the fact that if they don't they're violating their agreement with the copyright holder of the GPL'd code?
      - jmillikin 17y ago
        They're violating the license, which means they no longer have the right to distribute the GPL'd code. In some cases, they may have to pay damages. However, in the US (laws may be different where you live), the violator can't be forced to divulge their source code; the author of the GPL'd code has no right to it. An analogy might help; say I distribute CDs, with 6 songs I wrote and 6 songs by the Beatles, without a license. A judge can place an injunction to stop me. The copyright owner might seek damages. The judge might put me in jail/prison, if I continue infringement or don't pay. But they can't force me to give up the copyright on my songs, merely because they're distributed together.
        freetard 17y ago
        You're wrong, by using the GPL you agree to abide by it and this means giving the source in case of redistribution of the binary, plane and simple. Many companies have been sued and forced to give the source, look it up.
makmanalp 17y ago
Also, I don't know how just open sourcing the code is fine by the law. An example, If I stole money from a bank and then brought it all back the next day, and the bank had no net loss because it didn't do anything with the hard currency anyway, wouldn't I still be prosecuted? Not likening Microsoft's actions to stealing money here, it's just an example.
- jmillikin 17y ago
  Copyright infringement is a civil, not criminal, law. It's up to the copyright owner to sue, if he wanted to. Not that it would do much in this case -- worst case, a judge places an injunction against Microsoft and they're not allowed to distribute the utility. The author would have a very hard time proving damages, since both the original code and utility are distributed for free.
jmillikin 17y ago
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 17y ago
  > 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 17y ago
    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.
    - freetard 17y ago
      You're wrong, by using the GPL you agree to abide by it and this means giving the source in case of redistribution of the binary, plain and simple. Many companies have been sued and forced to give the source, look it up.

> 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.

jdale27 17y ago

Couldn't they have instead rewritten their code so that it didn't use the GPL-licensed code?

freetard 17y ago
Nope, 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.
- jmillikin 17y ago
  This is not correct; please stop upvoting mindless talking points. Nothing in the GPL or in copyright law compels infringers to divulge their source code.
  - eli 17y ago
    Huh? You mean other than the fact that if they don't they're violating their agreement with the copyright holder of the GPL'd code?
    - jmillikin 17y ago
      They're violating the license, which means they no longer have the right to distribute the GPL'd code. In some cases, they may have to pay damages. However, in the US (laws may be different where you live), the violator can't be forced to divulge their source code; the author of the GPL'd code has no right to it. An analogy might help; say I distribute CDs, with 6 songs I wrote and 6 songs by the Beatles, without a license. A judge can place an injunction to stop me. The copyright owner might seek damages. The judge might put me in jail/prison, if I continue infringement or don't pay. But they can't force me to give up the copyright on my songs, merely because they're distributed together.
      - freetard 17y ago
        You're wrong, by using the GPL you agree to abide by it and this means giving the source in case of redistribution of the binary, plane and simple. Many companies have been sued and forced to give the source, look it up.

makmanalp 17y ago

Also, I don't know how just open sourcing the code is fine by the law. An example, If I stole money from a bank and then brought it all back the next day, and the bank had no net loss because it didn't do anything with the hard currency anyway, wouldn't I still be prosecuted? Not likening Microsoft's actions to stealing money here, it's just an example.

jmillikin 17y ago
Copyright infringement is a civil, not criminal, law. It's up to the copyright owner to sue, if he wanted to. Not that it would do much in this case -- worst case, a judge places an injunction against Microsoft and they're not allowed to distribute the utility. The author would have a very hard time proving damages, since both the original code and utility are distributed for free.

jmillikin 17y ago

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 17y ago
> 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 17y ago
  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.
  - freetard 17y ago
    You're wrong, by using the GPL you agree to abide by it and this means giving the source in case of redistribution of the binary, plain and simple. Many companies have been sued and forced to give the source, look it up.