Microsoft's copyright infringement | The Coffeehouse

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

Hey, note how I'm not accusing Microsoft of "stealing" GPL code (because then I wouldn't be morally consistent when talking about torrenting moviez and empeethreez, lol).

It's been widely reported that Microsoft apparently has been using GPL-licensed code in a proprietary EULA piece of software without a license from the original author. The discovery was made by Rafael earlier.

My bet's on Microsoft going "omg! we had nooo idea!" (whether they're sincere or not, I've no idea) and coughing up a few grand to the original author as a means of coercing him into dropping any idea of legal action and providing them with a license. I do not believe Microsoft would ever consider licensing their infringing tool as GPL (imagine what Steve Ballmer would say).

Discuss.

May28th2018
May 28th, 2018

All violations of GPL must be reported to the EFF and or the Free Software Foundation's GPL monitoring team.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html

license-violation@gnu.org

The normal policy of the FSF is to remedy the situation first by sending a letter or email with remedial steps to the parties involved such as it did with DLink.

http://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt.html

If it was not reported, then nothing will come of it.

contextfree

Why wouldn't they license it as GPL? It's not like it's crucial to their business in any way.

Bass
Channel 9, best used in moderation

In reply to May28th2018

#Nov 7th @ 5:57 PM

If the copyright holder is the Free Software Foundation, please send the report to <license-violation@gnu.org>.

I don't think this is the FSF's responsibility. They write licenses and let software developers use them, it doesn't mean they own the copyright to all code under GPL. It's the responsibility of the author of ImageMaster to press charges against Microsoft if he so desires. He also has every right to let this slide completely, demand the code (which wouldn't be the end of the world for Microsoft), settle with Microsoft (maybe for a nice touchscreen PC like jamie got?), or sue the hell out of Microsoft. Either way it's his decision, not anyone elses. Smiley

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

In reply to May28th2018

#Nov 7th @ 5:57 PM

That's only the case where copyright has been transfered to the FSF. Whilst I'm personally in favour of the GPL, I'm not comfortable with transfering away my rights to my code.

stevo_
Human after all

I'm not really sure theres any standing anyway given the code they 'stole' is considered to be pretty standard.. the original topic contains links to various 'age old' native versions of the code.

figuerres
???

In reply to stevo_

#Nov 8th @ 11:32 AM

from some of the comments i am not even sure it was ....

i would have to look closely but if the comments are right the code may have been sample code microsoft published in the first place.

it may have then been copied by a developer who then claimed GPL on part of the app and published it.

*IF* that is the case then it's just confusion on what bits came from where and who wrote what when.

the cited software that is the starting point of the whole thing appears to be using some non-gpl software from microsoft to create an app. and in doing so they may have copied msft sample's and then published as thier work.

if that is the case then this whole thing is more like the GPL app is more of an issue than the msft app.

I would say that we would need to review the app and determine what bits came from where and when before any claim can be made of anything at all.

LeoDavidson

In reply to figuerres

#Nov 8th @ 11:55 AM

It looks like the original code was written for 7zip, which is C++, under the LGPL. That was converted into C# for ImageMaster, under the GPL, and that was apparently used in the Win7 download tool as well.

Comparison of the ReadFromFile code in 7zip, ImageMaster and the download tool:

http://www.withinwindows.com/files/gpl/comparison_1.txt

I haven't seen anyone claim that 7zip code in question wasn't written from scratch. I think that MSDN sample idea was just (valid, at the time) speculation about the early ReadFromFile example, given how "canonincal" it looked, but there's another example now which looks unlike sample code. (Could still be from a sample, I guess.)

I guess it's possible the MS code was an independent conversion of the 7zip code to C#, which would (I think) mean it's LGPL and not GPL, which might be alright (or mean they only have to release code to their changes to the library code, not the whole module). Commenters say all the class names are identical to the ImageMaster code, though, and not (from looking at the examples myself) identical to the 7zip class names, so seems likely the ImageMaster code is what was copied.

Whatever the status of the MS code, ImageMaster's GPL code is fine (assuming 7zip's LGPL code is fine) as you're allowed to turn LGPL code into GPL.

blowdart
Peek-a-boo

In reply to LeoDavidson

#Nov 8th @ 2:58 PM

I guess it's possible the MS code was an independent conversion of the 7zip code to C#, which would (I think) mean it's LGPL and not GPL

Not so sure about that - the GPL is a license for code, not an approach or algorithm. A rewrite in another language may not be covered, although I don't think it's been tested.

LeoDavidson

In reply to blowdart

#Nov 8th @ 10:42 PM

Look at the comparison text file. It's not a re-write. It's the same exact same code with the odd word/symbol changed to turn it from C++ to C#.

AndyC

In reply to LeoDavidson

#Nov 9th @ 4:46 AM

but there really are only so many ways you can write a ReadBytes type method, it's far too small a sample set to claim it was a copy. Doubly so given that the Microsoft version is the result of running Reflector on (presumably) optimised code, so what you are seeing may well differ more substantially from the original written code.

The ReadLogicalDescriptor method would be a better sample, except the Microsoft code is clearly different there, so I'm not really sure quite what the logic is in claiming that was copied either....

LeoDavidson

In reply to AndyC

#Nov 9th @ 4:59 AM

The ReadLogicalDescriptor code is identical, except for an if statement which was inverted, presumably by a compiler for optimisation.

figuerres
???

In reply to LeoDavidson

#Nov 9th @ 5:15 AM

well in any case i will bet that *IF* a msft staff or contractor or intern did copy the code as the current guesses think that the error will be fixed as far as i recall msft has a policy about staff not using gpl code for msft projects.

how they fix it i am not sure.... first they will have to review the stuff we are all wondering about and get a clear story form the coders and pm's on what they say.

and study the claim.

LeoDavidson

The tool + source are being released under the GPL.

figuerres
???

In reply to LeoDavidson

#Nov 13th @ 1:54 PM

Sounds Good then, they admit the error and are doing "the right thing" given the issue.

blowdart
Peek-a-boo

In reply to LeoDavidson

#Nov 13th @ 1:54 PM

It's an interesting spin isn't it "Now that Microsoft has admitted to what it did". Well what it did was fail to check that someone else didn't break the GPL. Now, how exactly can you do that? How do you check that a function, or a class or anything else for that matter is not released under the GPL somewhere?

CannotResolveSymbol
{insert caption here}

In reply to LeoDavidson

#Nov 13th @ 1:54 PM

Good.

Also means users might have a chance to fix some of the tool's bugs and make it actually useful.

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

In reply to blowdart

#Nov 13th @ 2:16 PM

Welcome to the wonderful world of software patents.

Of which I own four Smiley

blowdart
Peek-a-boo

In reply to PaoloM

#Nov 13th @ 2:22 PM

Well, your employer at the time owns them, no?

And the GPL is a license, not a patent issue. But yes, the same problem applies

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

In reply to blowdart

#Nov 13th @ 2:24 PM

Blah, shuddup with all that technospeek. If you don't comply, I'll hurl my cubes at you! Smiley

May28th2018
May 28th, 2018

In reply to PaoloM

#Nov 13th @ 2:22 PM

"Of which I own four "

PUB. APP. NO. Title

20090248728 AGGREGATING SCHEMA DATA FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES

20090248706 SCHEMA FOR FEDERATED SEARCHING

20090222411 LOCATION DESCRIPTION FOR FEDERATION AND DISCOVERABILITY

You have exactly zero patents. There are 3 patents which were just filed with your name as the co-inventor, which means they will only be reviewed by a USPTO patent lawyer in 2 years, and they are all assigned to Microsoft, which means you do not own even the pending patents.

Patent applications are different than owning an approved patent. One or more of your applications may not be approved with the claims as they are.

You can confirm this by viewing Google Patents and searching for your name.

One of the patent applications is so new, it hasn't even been scanned into the USPTO yet. Probably an E-File.

Paolo, did you forget to take your meds today?

LeoDavidson

In reply to figuerres

#Nov 13th @ 2:10 PM

Yeah, seems like a win all round. MS aren't gonna lose any money or face any problems by opening up that particular tool. Other people might find it useful. Bit of egg on the face for MS but these things happen and it's virtually impossible to avoid it when you've got so many people (internal + external) writing code for you. I think they dealt with it quickly and properly.

Bass
Channel 9, best used in moderation

In reply to May28th2018

#Nov 13th @ 6:38 PM

Although AFAIK Microsoft does not provide any royalites from patent enforcement directly to their inventors, Microsoft does pay employees who patent things in their behalf, as well as provide them with some kind of a cube like structure with the name of the patent engraved on them. Some employees (most in MSR) have hundreds of these cubes. However I do think this only occurs if the patent is actually granted, and since PaoloM is no longer a MSFT employee, I don't think he'll be getting his bonus. Sad I don't think it's much money anyway.

Microsoft is pretty good with getting patents granted, since they have an entire division in the company (reportly composed of over 100+ lawyers and patent experts) working with the mess that is the USPTO. But even then I've seen some of their patents applications being struck down outright.

PS: I think software patents are the spawn of Satan, and make it really hard to write software legally. Because there are hundreds of thousands of them, and they cover all aspects of software. It's very likely anyone who writes software past the utmost trivial constructs is infringing on someone's patent. And there is no inexpensive way to ensure you are in compliance, because patents have devolved to a point where they are more like legalize designed to provoke as much infringement as possible (infrigement = money). Believe it or not they are intended to be usable engineering specifications. And a patent injunction can be more devastating to a software company then the fines themselves, for instance Microsoft was close to being barred from selling Microsoft Word (it was only reversed in a emergency appeal). Writing software is simply like playing Russian roulette with your finances. It's amazing people still want to be software developers after exposed to this crap. I am seriously looking to getting into the patent trolling business.

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

In reply to May28th2018

#Nov 13th @ 6:38 PM

Tsk tsk, boy...

I see you know how to use the Google.

Congratulations.

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

In reply to Bass

#Nov 13th @ 6:45 PM

Bass, at filing time (after having the filing approved, and that's not guaranteed) you get the cube and, on the next disbursment period, the monetary rewards (got both cubes and teh monies already).

Once the patent is approved, about 4 to 5 years later, you get an engraved plaque with the abstract of the patent.

That said, I'm the principal inventor in those patents and I have nothing to hide. I am also proudly a subject of the Queen, safe in the knowledge that if the heatlth system in this country goes to where it's been heading for the past thirty years, I'll have no problems in driving up north two hours and get all my free socialist care.

Oh, and the plan is to retire in Italy, where I'll live - decently - on a state pension that I've already accrued while working there in my youth, supplemented by the optional income of my (future) B&B on Lake Como.

Niners will get a discount of course. Smiley