2 ms·
Services for Unix was full of GPL stuff. They're not protecting anything they have any sane threat model on. It's Microsoft being Microsoft.
by davidgerard 12y ago
Services for Unix was full of GPL stuff. They're not protecting anything they have any sane threat model on. It's Microsoft being Microsoft.
- istvan__ 12y agoWere they in violation of GPL with anything? I can't find credible reference. I know that they identified the USB/DVD tool and re-released it under GPL. http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-admits-its-gpl-violation-will-reissue-windows-7-tool-under-open-source-license/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-admits-its-gpl-violat...
- davidgerard 12y agoNo, as far as I know they fulfilled all GPL obligations on the SFU stuff. And I know of no cases of Microsoft violating the GPL (and I would have heard if there were). Not wanting GPL is entirely "won't" rather than "can't".