Microsoft stealing code from Linux: Absurd or Plasuable. Hear me out!

[Kintaro]

I have the theory of a few of the reasons why Microsoft would be stealing code from Linux. Also I have a theory of the actions Microsoft have taken which would indicate that they are up to something involving the theft of code from Linux and parhaps other projects.

The good thing about Linux is it develops fast, it evolves fast. Every day Linux is improved and every day it gets better with performance. Linux 2.6 premption easily makes Linux faster on the desktop than most other Operating Systems, along with other constant improvements in memory, disk, IO, hardware, TCP/IP, and nearly everything else. It is the constantly evolving nature of Open Source that gives it a major advantage over closed source software.

The constant modification by a not-so-closely-knit team of developers with the Linux kernel has its major downfall as well: The code is not as well organised or neat as closed source or simply more closely-knit development of software. This is where Microsoft have an advantage, and it is the reason why Microsoft probably would not use the Linux Kernel or even their own fork of it for their Operating Systems.

Microsoft would probably like to borrow code and innovations from Linux to keep their Operating Systems secure. In fact if you read about Service Pack 2 you will find many of its security enhancements have been in Operating Systems such as OpenBSD and Trustix Secure Linux for many years now.

Microsoft want to remain closely knit and have superior quality of code compared to Linux with their kernel and other operating system features. However their is no reason at all they would not desire the proformance and constant improvments of Linux. If you think Open Source doesn't innovate you should look at the type of changes to Linux that are made once in a while that bring new fundamental differentiation from the stardard way of doing things that give it the edge is has in proformace.

Linux is not the only Operating System that has this edge, I could mention FreeBSD and OpenBSD. However FreeBSD and OpenBSD are under the BSD licence so Microsoft can use their ideas and even direct snippets of source code without breaching the licence.

The signs that Microsoft are quite possibly using Linux code is quite clear. They have been hiring many Linux developers and other Open Source related people. Some would say this is simpily their way of keeping a close eye on competition, they are not wrong. They want to keep a really fucking close eye on Linux.

Here are some facts:
* Microsoft brought a source Licence for UNIX from SCO.
* Bill Gates funded SCO's FUD claims against Linux.

Bill Gates probably wanted the court to deem Linux being a deriative of UNIX so that SCO owns it, so that Microsoft can freely use Linux code without fear of conviction because they own the UNIX licence from SCO which allows them to use the code that SCO own. Hence, it would allow Microsoft to legally violate the GPL which protects the Linux code in the United States.

Microsoft are not only well known for "borrowing code" but Bill Gates in fact once said in an interview that his best resource for learning about programming was "taking code written by computer science students from University and College trash cans".

Who can see my point here?

It looks bloody obvious at what they are trying to do here. I don't think Microsoft will crush Linux like they could for as long as they can keep taking ideas from it. I think what would be needed to protect Linux is if the United States Government ammend the constitution to protect Open Source software from patents, and many other claims.

What do you think?

[H_TeXMeX_H]

As long as the code has a copyleft license, wouldn't this prevent M$ from using it in Window$, unless they make it free ? Or is it that most Linux code is not copyleft ?

I know the Kernel is copyleft, but everything other than the Kernel might not be ?

[piratePenguin]

As long as the code has a copyleft license, wouldn't this prevent M$ from using it in Window$, unless they make it free ? Or is it that most Linux code is not copyleft ?

Yes, but how do you prove that they're actually using the code and infringing the licence?

I know the Kernel is copyleft, but everything other than the Kernel might not be ?

Most (possibly all) of the GNU stuff is too (that includes bash, gcc, glibc, emacs, gnome, gimp, etc.). Some bits of some programs/libraries mightn't be. But if they're not, the developers chose the licence they used, so there's no problem with Microsoft using it.

What about the leaked Windows 2000 source code Kintaro? Surely there wasn't any GPL-licenced code in that?

http://gpl-violations.org/

[noob]

easy way. if some big government agency needed to investigate it, they can ask microsoft to give them a copy of the source code and they refuse, or delay, they have somthing to hide.

[H_TeXMeX_H]

Yes, but how do you prove that they're actually using the code and infringing the licence?

They'd have to seize a copy of the suspected code from M$ and look for similarities ... in some cases, if they used the exact same code there is a chance that programmers may have included functionless code for identification purposes (what are these called again, they have a specific name, I forgot it). Of course, if M$ is careful they can easily employ a bit of reverse engineering and make it far more difficult to proove their guilt. (they could write the code from scratch, having the inspiration of looking at the stolen code)

[muzzy]

they could write the code from scratch, having the inspiration of looking at the stolen code

Oh dear, boys, this would not be a copyright infringement! What's up with this intellectual property crap here? I thought the pro-linux front was pretty much against software patents and legal protection of "mere ideas", and now we're talking about copying of ideas, by *gasp* looking at someone else's work! If Microsoft wanted to do that, they could easily do it cleanly, one group reading linux sources and writing a spec, another group implementing it. Where's the problem?

[Aloone_Jonez]

The GNU/Linux community are also against proprietary licenses so they invented the GPL to prevent companies from taking their code and relicensing it under their proprietary licence. I'm agree with them, I'm not against proprietary software but I agree with the GPL and see it as a good thing.

In some respects interlectual property is rubbish anyway, if you wrote a program for Redhat then went to work for Microsoft and wrote a program for them to accomplish the same task, my guess is the source would look pretty similar so how could they prove they hadn't stolen the Linux code?

I think the WINE community should've taken advantage of the Windows 2000 source leaks more because they could've made WINE 99% Windows compatable. Microsoft couldn't have sued because the GNU community wouldn't have coppied the code directly (if the Winblow$ code is as crap as the say, they wouldn't have wanted to anyway) they would've just just reverse engineered the operation of all the APIs and data structures which is legal in the EU anyway.

[Pathos]

using the win2000 code would have been cheating.

Microsoft would never use GPL code cause it would destroy them if they got caught. I bet there are plenty of hackers analysing windows components for some evidence of it and they haven't found any yet.

Imagine if gpl code was found and a judge ruled that windows software must conform with the standard?

I work for a software company at the moment and the rules are as strict as they get. no internet or transferable media everything must go throught the legal department. I can't even get the ms virtual desktop manager.

[Aloone_Jonez]

using the win2000 code would have been cheating.

I didn't say they should directly use it - there's a big differance between looking at some code to gain an understanding of how it works and directly ripping it. Here in the EU you can reverse engineer software leagally if it's just for compatability purposes so reading the Win 2k source then writing a Linux implemention of all the APIs wouldn't violate this law.

[Pathos]

I never said it was illegal I said it was cheating. Only a cheat would look at the source

[muzzy]

It could be illegal to use leaked w2k sources as well since the sources weren't published legally. Also, from what I know of reversing the windows stuff and from hearing about the leaked sources, it's VERY GOOD quality.

[WMD]

Also, from what I know of reversing the windows stuff and from hearing about the leaked sources, it's VERY GOOD quality.

If it was so good, then why has MS had so many problems fixing/improving it?  I mean, every time they fix something, it ends up breaking something else eventually; there was lots of this during the NT4 service pack cycles.  Blaster was created by a service pack.  Et cetera.

If the answer is complexity, rather than brokenness, then I still question why they would create such a system.  I wonder if Singularity is simpler in design than Windows.  I'm sure you could comment on that, muzzy?

[mobrien_12]

If it was so good, then why has MS had so many problems fixing/improving it?  I mean, every time they fix something, it ends up breaking something else eventually; there was lots of this during the NT4 service pack cycles.  Blaster was created by a service pack.  Et cetera.

If the answer is complexity, rather than brokenness, then I still question why they would create such a system.  I wonder if Singularity is simpler in design than Windows.  I'm sure you could comment on that, muzzy?

I also would like to know if the Singularity kernel is simpler than the NT kernel.

[Pathos]

It could be illegal to use leaked w2k sources as well since the sources weren't published legally. Also, from what I know of reversing the windows stuff and from hearing about the leaked sources, it's VERY GOOD quality.

quality? In most highly professional software outfits the code is at the utmost quality. The comes a point in any language where you are writing it at as high quality as possible. And considering its microsoft itself I'm sure they would be all upto date with the current technologies.

The problem with windows is not the quality of the code but design flaws and unpatched holes in the model.

[Kintaro]

The problem with windows is not the quality of the code but design flaws and unpatched holes in the model.

Actually its not really design flaws, it simple programming mistakes that have plauged everything, Linux, BSD, etc for all time.

Microsoft would never use GPL code cause it would destroy them if they got caught. I bet there are plenty of hackers analysing windows components for some evidence of it and they haven't found any yet.

Bullshit, if they got caught they would get away with it by paying out the developers in question. Microsoft are very powerful, they get away with lots of things like ANTITRUST TRIALS and other things. The government does nothing. More people would be pissed off over job losses and economic problems if they shut down MS than there would be people happy that the government made an ethical decision.

People LIKE Bill Gates and it gives him a really good political standpoint. People like employers and LINUX is not an employer in all practical purposes. You can get a job involving Linux but it is still mainly a hobbiests hack.