Within Windows

Mate, I’d be prepared to accept that this is the case, but seriously: a ReadBytes method? There are only so many ways you can skin that particular cat.

Are there other, more damning pieces of evidence there?

@Gleason: If that was all, it would implyMicrosoft copied a simple ReadBytes method from ImageMaster instead of making one themselves. Yeah right.

I think the screenshot is just a sample of what he found. Reflector is easy enough to use if you want to take a look yourself.

So now you’re suggesting the use of GPL on ImageMaster might be invalid, and THEY might have stolen code from Microsoft? Umm… *snirk* ok. I don’t find that very likely, myself.

Dan: Asking about more compelling evidence than the ReadBytes method, which I’m saying looks generic enough that it’s practically a canonical implementation of it.
And yes, perhaps it’s an MDSN example. To wit: If someone’s MSDN-copy-paste ends up protected under GPL, what’s the legality there?
But I’m also noting that the rights explicitly disallowed by Microsoft’s license agreement appear to have been ignored by disassembling the program as well.
If they did indeed violate terms of the GPL, then it’s arguable they can prevent that right, but if not, then not. And at the moment, if ReadBytes is the most damning evidence available, storm meets teacup.

@Gleason: Note the exact language of Microsoft’s posted license snippet: “You may not … reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation”. Applicable law, in the US at least, protects reverse engineering pretty broadly. I’m almost sure decompilation counts. Microsoft includes language like that in their licenses (a) to scare people (b) in case they can catch someone operating in a place with different laws (c) in case the laws change.

Many parts of EULAs are like this, even if you take for granted that their terms are binding at all, and that the standard, “This software is licensed, not sold,” line actually carries weight.

Here’s the image link if the left end gets cut off (it does for me):

http://www.withinwindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/example.png

Email Microsoft and ask for the source code.

(this quote was stripped from the comment above: “but someone dropped the ball during code review/licensing”)

BTW, ImageMaster did get the UDF parsing code from the 7-zip .CPP mentioned above.

http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/windowsopticalplatform/thread/421f3137-c9aa-45fb-8c5a-ec5dd6860036

Element109 wrote on: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/windowsopticalplatform/thread/421f3137-c9aa-45fb-8c5a-ec5dd6860036

The iso and udf parsing portions were ported from the 7-zip project. The credits.txt file contains all the sources used in creating my project.

7z
by Igor Pavlov
7-Zip is a file archiver with a high compression ratio.
http://www.7-zip.org

There are links to his source on his homepage. 7-zip is hosted on the SourceForge website.

If you checkout my initial upload there is a file in the reader directory that is a very early stage of the initial udf port. I had excluded it from the VS environment and forgot about it. It is the file I deleted in the latest changeset.

I suggest someone just approach microsoft and ask for the source code, remember to download the binary first. Be polite.

You guys are not realizing, Rafael isn’t just pointing out that the function is lifted. If you look closely, they use the same exact class names for objects used in those methods. I’m willing to bet the code to those objects is identical too. This is clearly a cut and paste and Microsoft needs to release their tool under the GPL, imo.

Tom O. – looks like this diff is presenting exactly the same code, just one “if” is placed differently due to optimalization and constants are changed into values in disassembled code. Even names discovered by Reflector are the same – others probably couldn’t be discovered and were replaced to item* and num*.

What tool where you using to disassemble the Microsoft code?

Microsoft appear to have modified their code from the other stuff, so I think that they should release it under GPL at least. Assuming it was originally GPL, though.

OK let me make this clear, since a lot of people aren’t getting it:

1) The code in ImageMaster is licensed under the GPL.
2) The code in Microsoft’s tool is not.
3) If any code licensed under the GPL used in another project, all code needed to compile the project must be licensed under the GPL (AFAIK, IANAL, etc).

So this means one of two things:

1) Microsoft is violating the GPL, as described, whether themselves or through contractors who violated the GPL.
or
2) ImageMaster incorrectly used non-GPL code, either from Microsoft or a third party, in their project, and attempted to relicense it under the GPL which they are legally unable to do since they don’t own the rights to it. Using that code in a GPL’d app is likely a violation of whatever license the code was really under (although whatever license or total lack-of-license may permit it). Microsoft may be able to use the original code as they are using it if it was originally not licensed under the GPL by whoever first made it, and they got the code from them.

Assuming the #1 did not occur as some people seem to be doing… for #2, unless it was perfectly alright that the code be GPL’d by ImageMaster devs, and that the original code itself was not GPL, and that Microsoft were within their rights to use it… if just one of those three aren’t true, there’s still a problem.

even if it was, microsoft is (assuming it IS GPL) legally on the hook for it. makes no difference whether it was an employee or contractor.

In spite of Ballmer’s suggestion that FOSS is like a cancer, it is not. Just because something is published somewhere under the GPL doesn’t mean that something using the same code is tainted. As pointed out, the code referenced was likely obtained from some published sample, probably by MSDN itself. Anything that is to be protected by a copyright, as the GPL relies on at its core, has to be a “unique expression, fixed in a media”. That generally covers binary copying, but using source is quite another thing.

The idea behind the source is not protected by copyright. So if there is a small section of code that has been at least paraphrased and made into another form, such as porting from C to C# or java, it is easy to defend on the basis that the copier merely took the pains to first understand the source and then used that understanding to create a clone. That is not any violation of the GPL or copyright in general.

Stop the fucking fuck arguing. You just need an insight on compilers to know that code is ripped. If you can find it in the MSDN, then post it (but in that case I’d be sure M$ ripped it also).

Asking the poster for proof of his point when you’re unable to give one defending your own is lame.

There’s a proverb: “Think the worse and you’ll be right”

OMG!!11!!1!11 Mirosoft killed jews!!11!11!!11ONE111!!1!ELEVEN!!1!1!!!!11!!!!

The object identifiers(!) are the same. I call it a carbon copy. It’s been slightly altered, perhaps to optimise it, or perhaps because the author felt it had to be original in some way.

If it does turn out a GPL violation, good call. The evidence looks good, and I agree it is important to call out the ‘mega-corps’ in situations like this, and especially in situations like this. OTOH, as many others have suggested, any violation here likely has more to do with a rogue 3rd party operator or an innocent mistake than of any wilful wrongdoing on the part of MS Corp. It may get the anti-M$ crowd riled up, but in the grand scheme of things it amounts to… not much.

Business matters aside, it seems evident that MS Corp. makes a great effort to hire the most intelligent and morally sound people they can get. They pay a great deal to so, and their existence is arguably a strong positive to the cause of ‘science’. In my mind, the most interesting part of the story (if it so plays out), would be the fact that one (or another) of their hires lifted GPL code… it seems incongruous when you are talking about the best and the brightest. But then again. MS Corp. employs nearly 100k people. Something like this occurring is well within the realm of all probability.

Perhaps, but it’s not very plausible. Occam’s Razor suggests they’re just talking about something they know nothing about, and/or idiotic.

Again, what tool where you using to disassemble the Microsoft code?

Of course you all realize how stupid it is to discuss copyright infringement on a blog? Its a really nice open-source thing that all discussion is open, but a copyright infringement is no longer in the fiefdom of open-source but that of the lawyers, and different communities have different rules. By discussing copyright infringement on a publicly archived blog you’re giving the opponents lawyers all the arguments or grounds to counter sue you

D.

All people here are just trashtalking. D. is right, there’s no reason to argue about this here.

Did any of you actually email microsoft and ask for the source code?

The GPL and LGPL is invoked upon distribution. Ask for the source.

It seems pretty straight copy to me. Functions with same names, very similar variable names,
same code block structure, i’d say someone cheated on this.

I’d bet this wasn’t written by MS itself but by a third party employing copy-paste gurus!
Nevertheless you should trust who you employ, and if indeed there was a copy, Microsoft could blame the third party, ask public excuses and re-write the code in “good will” and i bet some judge would dismiss claims.

PS: It would be funny if there’s someone developing an automated tool to check function names in decompiled code (for a list of files) against a DB of open source software. And then maybe some logical checks to see if their logic is too similar and submit for human review…
I bet there are a LOT of interesting things to be found out there!!! =)

I have probably spent more hours doing GPL enforcement than anyone on the planet. If I were to proceed with this case, I’d want to gather more evidence, and talk directly with the copyright holder about what they think. Remember that only the copyright holders themselves have the power to enforce the GPL. I appreciate Rafael’s effort to expose a potential GPL violation, but we should gather more details and open an enforcement action in a friendly way before damning anyone. (As a side note, I generally find that public condemnation of a would-be violator while still gathering the facts only serves to make enforcement more difficult.)

Anyway, if the copyright holders want my help and expertise in GPL enforcement, I presume they know or can quickly figure out how to reach me.

This situation led me to write a blog post with some suggestions on how to deal with GPL violations when you find them.

Sandeep: It’s because of compiling. You always replace constants with their value when compiling, and it’s impossible to reverse this process because the constants aren’t in the compiled code, just the numbers. So the code sample fits with the reflected code.

Sure Maxam, I’ve got nothing better to do for the next month than write some code that doesn’t need writing, and that I have no need for, in order to prove a point that should be entirely obvious from inspection. I’ll volunteer* (*for $10,000).

If you’re wondering what happened to the tool…..
After reading this, I went and emailed the DoJ, FSF, and Microsoft.
Microsoft and I have been dialogging back and forth. More like shuffling me to another department, then oops, the link doesn’t work.

So basically you’ve caused a useful piece of software to be removed for a pretty poor reason.

Well done

@Richard: it would be so easy for Microsoft as publishing his tool under the same GPL License. Soooo easy!

I haven’t read the lgpl but I linked to it so I obviously know what it means.

stupidscript, read the license before you post.

If you are saying that the code in question is NOT the 7-Zip example, and that the code has always existed in some more restrictive form under a more restrictive license, then I agree with you. But if this is all about some 7-Zip code, it’s LGPL, and I maintain my position.

Remember, when Microsoft CEO Ballmer claims open source software like Linux is infringing by using Microsoft hidden source code! Only when everyone asked, show me the evidence, since open source code is “open for review” Microsoft NEVER came forward. Now, it’s been found Microsoft is taking the work of open source intellectual property and then pushing it out their doors as their own software!

So the big question, just how much more is Microsoft infringing upon since their source code is hidden for the public to review?

Just how much more of “Windows” 95/98/2000/ME/XP/Vista/Vista 2 had been “borrowing” without permission open source intellectual property?

Microsoft has already been found guilty of intellectual property theft before, and certainly here by copy and paste the works of other open source developers, so why shouldn’t there be an investigation going on regarding the source code in Microsoft Windows operating systems?

In fact, why is public software sold as hidden source code, especially in an open society, the land of liberty and freedom, right?
Why does Microsoft get the right to hide it’s source code, blame FOSS (Free Open Source Software) as infringes of intellectual property?

For anyone not familiar with FOSS, visit http://www.groklaw.net and see how much Microsoft actually restricts innovation by limiting everyone in society to contribute! But, wait, there are other additional reasons, posted here: http://en.windows7sins.org (The case against Microsoft and proprietary software) and here as well: http://www.free-culture.cc (How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Creativity).

@convivialdingo

That’s a common myth actually. The LGPL does not forbid static linking by a closed source work, HOWEVER, it does require that a distribution provide means for an end user to relink against a modified version of the LGPL library. This is obviously most easily achieved by dynamic linking, however it can also be done by providing the object files for the program.

[begone, demon imposter!]

OMG I just realized I am soooo cool for finding out this tool utilized something open source for the benefit of the IT community. I can’t wait to get famous all over the web by posting how smart I am and getting this tool taken down!! Holy cow, I may actually get a girlfriend from this!!!

(in reality – I have no security on my comments section and anyone can appear to be someone else – I am in fact pretty stupid for setting this up like this)

bah, i don’t freaking care if they’re using gpl code or about the licenses, but now ‘coz of that i can’t install windows 7 in my netbook, thanks sir.

dont listen to the haters. its responsible what you did.

Look everyone, Microsoft obviously took the source code of ImageMaster and made a CARBON COPY of its routines and classes. It doesnt take much of a programmer to work out that the two are more or less the same. I guess they didnt expect people to open it up with red tools reflector.

If I was Microsoft I would have:

1- Made sure that code was obviously not used from somewhere else, and if it was, that it was released under the same license
2- If i was evil, I would have continued with this and protected the EXE from being decomplied in tools such as Reflector. Very sloppy work Microsoft.

Either way Microsoft used GPLd code and did not notify the origanal developer of the project, and WOW its like cheating on your own client base??? CodePlex??? They could have at least ripped off from Google Code instead!?!

If i was the ImageMaster creator I would have filed a lawsuit already haha!

Not to stir up more trouble here, but if you look deep into the internals using reflector of Windows Media Center DLLS and EXEs, there is some similar code to a project I saw a year back (if anyone knows the name of this media program jog my memory of it please)

and more importantly, the bigger issue here is such blatant violation of the GPL undermines ALL available open source software. if you want to have authors continue to create open source software, you need to prevent stealing it and charging for it. the original author could have charged for it in the first place, but chose not to. … @thanks jackass — you’d repay him by …. stealing his software? sounds like a great idea …

microsoft can do what everyone else does. either use open source code and leave the code open, or create proprietary code, and leave it closed. they can’t have their cake and eat it too.

I wonder if all the doubters who insulted Rafael will apologize now.

Microsoft has stepped up to the plate. I’m sure there are people here who would be dissappointed with anything less than an execution. I’m sure that Microsoft will do better next time, but that mistakes like this will continue to happen in the future at a reduced rate.

It’s clear that many of the people posting here need to leave their parents basement and live in the real world for a while. If you worked at Microsoft (cue the 5-year-olds to say they would never work at M$) and it was your responsibility to keep this from happening, how would you do it. Really, how. There are probably hundreds of millions of lines of open source code, if not billions. I’m certain that Microsoft’s legal department requires a complete code review, but no business process is perfect. The legal system does not expect perfection from people or companies. The legal system discourages actions on trivial matters, and generally seeks to make someone whole again after a wrong is done to them. If this were based on closed source code, and the developers lost money because of Microsoft’s actions, then Microsoft would be expected to replace their lost income (Of course lawyers so pervert the course of justice, that it matters only a little who is right and who is wrong, but that’s another subject). So sorry to dissappoint those looking for an excution.

Anyone who really thinks that Microsoft would intentionally steal GPL code should go jump off a cliff now to help improve the average intelligence in the world. The only asset that Microsoft has is Intellectual Property. That’s it. They would like to make IP laws even stronger, not weaken them.

Thanks to Rafael for his service in uncovering this. I read about this at another blog and came here. On the other blog it made it seem that he was subjected to terrible harassment and scorn for even suggesting this, but that’s not the case. I think that most comments questioning this were restrained and reasonable. On the other hand, some of the anti-Microsoft comments are truly outlandish.

I don’t know how to break this to a lot of you, but computers are a tool. They are like a hammer or a screwdriver or an extension cord. They are not a religion. They are not objects that are shrines, nor are they alters at which you should worship.

I personally use both Linux and Windows, and I use open source software daily and I really enjoy using it, but I don’t pray to it every day. It’s just a tool.

There are a lot of really smart people who use Linux, and a lot of really smart people who use Windows. And there are social misfits who use each one as well. For some reason the social misfits seem to be drawn in one direction. I’ll allow each of you to pick whichever side you want as the one that draws the social misfits. But you do know that it’s true.

If I was microsoft, I’d sue the hell out of the programmer who included open source code in one of the company’s programs without disclosing it. He has tarnished Microsoft’s image, there is no excuse and no possible redemption for this.

Sue him to death, make sure his life is hell from now until the day he dies ! And, then, throw him to the dogs !

ROFL

license crap ;] what dumbs still cares about it

Microsoft also claimed “As you’ve likely read” from PC Magazine! Huh? Why is Microsoft posting a link to PC Magazine, when in FACT, the discover was made by Rafeal who posted it on his Within Windows website!

The PC Magazine article claims “several concerns” instead of reporting the truth, that Microsoft stole GPL code, and then PUSH it out their doors in the Microsoft Store as their own tool!

WinToFlash Turns Your Windows Installation DVD into a USB-Based Installer

WinToFlash (wintoflash.com) starts a wizard that will help pull over the contents of a windows installation CD or DVD and prep the USB drive to become a bootable replacement for the optical drive. It can also do this with your LiveCD.

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/08/27/make-a-bootable-usb-installer-for-windows-xp-vista-7-with-wint/

It’s amazing, how Windows 7 end users need to be rescued, and by open source software tools! No wonder Linux works better, because Linux is built and used by geeks with knowledge, who can figure things out, and resolve issues without waiting for Microsoft to get around to providing a solution stolen from free software tools.

Yes, Microsoft stole the work of other developers, but claimed it as their own, totally breaking the law to grant everyone using the free software the same free rights! Instead, Microsoft change the free rights into their own limited and restricted rights denying everyone else what you can do with th stolen free software.

How else to put it, but Microsoft still hasn’t shown remorse, where is the justice for those developers working to make free software for all? If we don’t support them (free software developers, if only by insuring these rights remain the same legal rights for everyone else), then don’t come crying here later complaining about how you are extorted our of money to afford software tool solutions, since you didn’t care or concern yourself to help when needed now!

Stand up for justice, stand up for Rafeal and stand up for GPL legal laws, which help you have the legal rights, that Microsoft DENIES you!!!

I’m NOT surprised!!

Often I commented about the old and good PCTolls 4.0 Deluxe, Norton Disk Doctor, Word Star, and others and people said I was crazy!!!

No, I am NOT!!!

If we really dig on deeper in the redmond company, we’ll find much more!!!

I have something else to comment, I found in the web that they registered the “sudo” command, that doesn’t even work on win systems. Can you believe that???

Regards,

StopenCould this be why Microsoft products are closed sourced? As most of us know, Window’s 7 is just a repackaged Window’s XP. Raphael, what other things are you working pertaining MS that may reveal more the little dirty source secrets.

Great job!

M Saun

Microsoft is a Pirate, for having pirated open source code software, and by pushing stolen code on their Microsoft Store as if it was their own! That clearly shows after all these years you still cannot trust Microsoft who clearly knows better for having told everyone else, NOT to steal their software!

I’m sure we all know the reasons behind Windows activation, Windows Update validation, Windows Genuine Advantage, DMI, TPM, WAT and of course HDCP all built into windows, and yet Microsoft went ahead and ripped off open source developer code, claimed it as their own, repackaged by adding their own Microsoft branding and criticizes GPL as “Cancer” when in FACT, it’s been Microsoft itself doing the harm all along!

Harming developers everyone, by locking them into Windows only, pre-load and pre-installed without refunds, even when you don’t agree to the EULA end user license agreement) having pre-paid for the Microsoft license if you wanted it or not. But wait, to insure open source cannot work with Windows, Microsoft forces it’s own digital signatures, knowing full well the cost of applying for the right to incude FREE open source code solutions to the public would prohibit developers working for free, to afford the huge high cost code signing certificates only Microsoft allows, as it holds the root keys, which come pre-installed and pre-loaded on Windows.

That makes FREE software anti-competitive, as it is forced by Microsoft to pay the Microsoft tax, and it’s more than you think, costing hundreds to thousands of dollars, yearly!

It’s also the same issues with patents, as the cost are greater than the public can afford, insuring Microsoft with it’s vast fortunes has claimed more than 6000 patents. What other software developer is going to be able to innovate knowing 6000 reasons why you cannot use those benefits, and yet is required to use Microsoft’s tools like .Net Framework, to build upon, instead only by Microsoft’s methods?

Microsoft couldn’t be worse, it has killed off developers and it’s gotten so bad, even Rafeal had noticed Microsoft isn’t developing it’s own solutions anymore, it’s stealing them from other developers. Why should open source developers produce free software for Microsoft to profit and gain only having stolen their work?

Just how many other open source software programs did Microsoft pirated into it’s hidden source code?

I’m a PC, pirated computer from Microsoft!

Cool down folks. If people sued over a minor infraction such as this, when the other side has made clear intentions to fix their error, that just looks petty. I’d sure like a good reason to see them fail too, but not like this.

On the other hand, they are taking their time with the source release.

its funny they cant even release in the week time frame they claimed now its going to be weeks which means they are recoding the whole project.

fucking lame microsoft!!!!

Microsoft has had a long, a very long history of litigation, court orders, patent infringements and antitrust lawsuits against it since the very beginning of its history.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1048246/microsoft-lawsuit-payouts-usd9-billion (Thursday, 14 July 2005)

Should Microsoft be rewarded for breaking the law, stealing the works of others, repackaging the code as their own, claiming the software tool as their own solution, failing to catch the stolen code in their own review process, and failing to follow through on time to release under the GPL license the source code as promised?

This is justice?