Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Software => Topic started by: yz80nomo on 15 July 2004, 08:10
-
Ok, MS does not release their source code. We don't know what it is but we all base our ideas on the performance of their products... now to the point. If we don't know whats in the source code, then don't you think that they could just take bits and pieces from Linux and used it to fill in their blank spots? i dont think thats a violation of the GNU, becuause you are allowed to gain profit, but thats down right douche bagish (for lack of better terms). MS is allowed to create their own basterized verson of C, but allowed to "steal" another persons code because they can do any better? I want more information on this, because its legal, but its not fair. MS is taking advantage of open source.
Wait... arent you supposed to be open source if you use code from another opensource program, etc. ? arent you supposed to document it??
-
quote:
Originally posted by whix:
Wait... arent you supposed to be open source if you use code from another opensource program, etc. ? arent you supposed to document it??
Yes,
but you still can ask money for it and you still can combine it with closed source apps.
-
quote:
I want more information on this, because its legal, but its not fair. MS is taking advantage of open source.
Wait... arent you supposed to be open source if you use code from another opensource program, etc. ? arent you supposed to document it??
Yes. So what makes you think Microsoft have used code from open source software?
-
- For your future reference -
Licence is the noun, license is the verb.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
Yes. So what makes you think Microsoft have used code from open source software?
How could you prove it if they have?
-
Well you couldn't, but I thought he was suggesting Microsoft definitely has done that. Actually I don't think he is. However...
quote:
i dont think thats a violation of the GNU, becuause you are allowed to gain profit, but thats down right douche bagish (for lack of better terms).
Incorporating GPL code into proprietary software is illegal, it's not just "douche baggish".
-
"douche baggish"
Lol, that's a new one, it sound's French.
What does it mean?
I would guess it means dodgy/crooked by it's context.
-
MS bought SCO code for their OS.
All the rest are third party apps.
[ July 15, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
Okay, so this really is more MS douchebaggery considering that SCO Group never had, doesn't now , and never will own the rights to Linux. Torvalds created the kernel, and though it WAS based IN CONCEPT on UNIX, that does not mean that SCO can automatically cry foul over it. They have to prove that the code was stolen in the first place. They have the burden of proof and have, so far, chosen to bide their time rather than strike with whatever weakass evidence they THINK they may have against him.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Midnight Candidate:
Okay, so this really is more MS douchebaggery considering that SCO Group never had, doesn't now , and never will own the rights to Linux. Torvalds created the kernel, and though it WAS based IN CONCEPT on UNIX, that does not mean that SCO can automatically cry foul over it. They have to prove that the code was stolen in the first place. They have the burden of proof and have, so far, chosen to bide their time rather than strike with whatever weakass evidence they THINK they may have against him.
Well...
Their does exist a counter claim that SCO used some Linux code, but I don't think MS is stupid enough to buy these parts.
The real SCO vs Linux case has nothing to do with this.
SCO only claims that IBM used some shared code(based on UNIX code), taken from AIX(both SCO
and IBM) and placed it in the Linux kernel.
All the other(even more retarted) claims came later.
[ July 15, 2004: Message edited by: insomnia ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
"douche baggish"
Lol, that's a new one, it sound's French.
What does it mean?
I would guess it means dodgy/crooked by it's context.
How about, relating to a douche bag. See http://www.4woman.gov/faq/douching.htm (http://www.4woman.gov/faq/douching.htm) for some more information. I didn't pay attention in high school much either but still...
-
quote:
Incorporating GPL code into proprietary software is illegal, it's not just "douche baggish".
Don't tell Red Hat, SuSE, or Sun.
-
Why not?
-
I think he means don't have a go at Red Hat, SuSE, or Sun, for incorporating GPL code into their proprietary software. Of course it's perfectly legal to do so, as long as they declare it by, releasing the source code along with any modifications for the GPL code. They obviously don't have to release any of their code if they don't want to.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
I think he means don't have a go at Red Hat, SuSE, or Sun, for incorporating GPL code into their proprietary software. Of course it's perfectly legal to do so, as long as they declare it by, releasing the source code along with any modifications for the GPL code. They obviously don't have to release any of their code if they don't want to.
Nope.
SCO does claim this "code parts" are included in the
Linux kernel(version 2.4/5) and not just in 'IBM distros'.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Aloone:
I think he means don't have a go at Red Hat, SuSE, or Sun, for incorporating GPL code into their proprietary software. Of course it's perfectly legal to do so, as long as they declare it by, releasing the source code along with any modifications for the GPL code.
Well if they release the source code (under the GPL) then it's not proprietary anymore. If you incorporate GPL code into your software you have to release the whole thing under the GPL.
[ July 17, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]
-
yeah, but SCO is full of shit and have plaque-stained teeth
-
oh, and they eat raw mustard seeds and burn kittens for fun
-
if Microsoft were to use GPL code in Windows and they were found out they would be forced to release all source code for Windows, they may be stupid but i don't think they are that stupid!