Rafael is Vindicated: Microsoft Did Steal Open Source Code for USB/DVD Tool

Microsoft just confirmed to me that it has completed an investigation of allegations made by my Windows 7 Secrets co-author, Rafael Rivera, concerning the unauthorized and illegal use of open source code in its Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool. The software giant has found that it did, indeed, use the code in question. Here's their official statement about this issue:

As you've likely read, we've been investigating a report that the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool might contain GPLv2 code.  The WUDT is a free tool which was offered by the Microsoft Store that enabled customers to create bootable USB drives or DVD backup media from the electronic software (ESD) edition of Windows 7 that comes in an ISO format.

After looking at the code in question, we are now able to confirm this was indeed the case, although it was not intentional on our part. While we had contracted with a third party to create the tool, we share responsibility as we did not catch it as part of our code review process. We have furthermore conducted a review of other code provided through the Microsoft Store and this was the only incident of this sort we could find.

When it comes to our attention that a Microsoft component contains third party code, our aim is to be respectful of the terms under which that code is being shared. As a result, we will be making the source code as well as binaries for this tool available next week under the terms of the General Public License v2 as described here, and are also taking measures to apply what we have learned from this experience for future code reviews we perform.

Bravo, both to Microsoft for owning up to this and to Rafael for doing what he does. It astonished both Rafael and I over the past week that so many weirdos came out of the woodwork to misrepresent his claim and complain that, somehow, one example of source code theft wasn't enough. One instance of theft is still theft, people. Now that Microsoft has admitted to what it did, I hope the rest of the doubters see the light as well.

Discuss this Article 30

Keleko
on Nov 13, 2009
Kudos to MS for doing the right thing - twice! They admitted the wrong and are releasing the source as they should under the GPL.
anonymous
on Nov 13, 2009
Microsoft just confirmed to me that it has completed an investigation of allegations made by my Windows
anonymous
on Nov 13, 2009
This post was mentioned on Twitter by EverythingMS: Rafael is Vindicated: Microsoft Did Steal Open Source Code for USB/DVD Tool http://bit.ly/7CxqF
redunion1940
on Nov 13, 2009
OT: About COD: MW2, I being a PC gamer have no feeling to buy a game that has a single player campeign of less then 5 hours, and console like multiplayer.Plus it is $10 more than it should be.
beaker
on Nov 13, 2009
Wait a minute.. Kudos to Microsoft? Shouldn't they be SMART enough to not do this in the first place? WTH? Oh, ok... admit the crime afterwards and then everything is OK... someone tell O.J....
beaker
on Nov 13, 2009
oh... and before anyone says that I'm extreme.. a crime is a crime.. WTF
beaker
on Nov 13, 2009
.. and yes.. I'm a MCSE 2003 and I buy all of Paul's and Rafael's books..
DRWAM
on Nov 13, 2009
If it's Open Source, then isn't it free anyway? ;) Sometimes the officials should use the 'no blood, no foul" rule. Something else to consider is that when a write a lot of stuff, and add some things in top 'test', you can easily forget all the stuff that you've added, hence accidentally keeping in the open source code. It could easily happen.
DRWAM
on Nov 13, 2009
That was add some things in 'to' test, not 'top' test.
robertsjoe
on Nov 13, 2009
Don't take away from the fact that Microsoft are thieves. Not just this time, but many, many times over the years. They are, and always have been, Evil.
de Silentio
on Nov 13, 2009
"WTH? Oh, ok... admit the crime afterwards and then everything is OK... " You're right, violating a user agreement is wrong. At least they admitted to their mistake.
de Silentio
on Nov 13, 2009
Microsoft had no choice but to admit to it. The question is whether or not someone in Microsoft actually knew about the license violation.
de Silentio
on Nov 13, 2009
"someone tell O.J...." Comparing Microsoft's license violation with OJ is like Comparing your license violations with Microsoft's license violations. (alleged, that is)
de Silentio
on Nov 13, 2009
"Don't take away from the fact that Microsoft are [sic] thieves" Does anyone remember the "lotsa sic hammer"? Waethorn?
Evox
on Nov 13, 2009
I'm baffled at how this could possibly constitute theft... It's a FREE product! It's posted for others to use! Yes, there was a failure to properly follow the guidelines of the GPLv2 license... but in no way is this theft.
roteague
on Nov 13, 2009
Come off it Paul. This is not theft. I'm a programmer, it's common practice to use other people's code, especially when it's published on sites like CodePlex. Where Microsoft erred, was in not making sure the contractor that developed the program didn't put it in the position, it found itself in.
panache1023
on Nov 13, 2009
Good for them for doing the right thing. Mistakes, and shit, happen. It's what you do after the mistake that someone, or something, should be judged by. In this case, MS made a mistake, and are now going to abide by the license they accidentally violated. Good for them.
gfryesc1
on Nov 13, 2009
hey paul, listened to windows weekly. sorry you don't like rupert murdoch but seriously by saying pretty please for him to remove his content from Google results, letting your own political bias shine through is way outta line. you have a long way to go before going pro. being politically neutral, especially in technology, is key.
g6672D
on Nov 13, 2009
This outcome is good. Good for you Microsoft. And that was before I noticed they were also releasing the full source.
redunion1940
on Nov 13, 2009
This also might mean a code reviewer just got a sharp reprimand, as I am sure Microsoft would have preferred to have kept that code secret, even if it doesn't affect much.
sttevo
on Nov 13, 2009
Beaker I think you are being a little harsh. What would you suggest the punishment for such a "crime" would be anyway? I think Microsoft are doing the right thing here. Admitting the problem, and fixing it. That's all you can in do a situation like this.
gadfly10
on Nov 14, 2009
Microsoft has been stealing code for years. They're unimaginative marketeers who chiefly sell profiteering junk. Dig deep and you'll find out the REAL reason they gave Apple $150 mil (hint: Quicktime).
roteague
on Nov 14, 2009
"gadfly10 said: Microsoft has been stealing code for years. They're unimaginative marketeers who chiefly sell profiteering junk. Dig deep and you'll find out the REAL reason they gave Apple $150 mil (hint: Quicktime)." I'm continually amazed how often you make idiotic statements, based upon no knowledge of the facts. If you knew anything about the software development world, you would realize that Microsoft provides thousands of code snippets, that others use in their products (without requiring any license), you would also realize they started sites like CodePlex to be a home for open-source code. Of course, there is that isn't surprising, since your only rationale seems to be to slam Microsoft, in which case, the facts don't really matter.
gadfly10
on Nov 14, 2009
@roteague I guess I'm equally amazed at how willfully ignorant apologists like yourself choose to be whenever you're reminded of Microsoft's true colors. Did you even look into the connection between Quicktime and Microsoft's $150 to Apple? And CodePlex? ...Really? -- You mean Microsoft's facade for open source, run by an unbalanced board and regulated by typical MS-confusing licensing structures. **Rolls eyes**
Waethorn
on Nov 14, 2009
"If it's Open Source, then isn't it free anyway? ;) Sometimes the officials should use the 'no blood, no foul" rule." Is there any law that states that you can steal something that is free? It isn't called theft. It's called breach of license (or "contract" in lawyer-speak). The only thing they are guilty of is not releasing the source code under the terms of GPLv2. Now if the source code was covered under the Apache or BSD licenses, no such terms would be required. I wonder how a proprietary product can be checked for breach of license of the GPL if it were released fraudulently under one of the other licenses and the source code was closed....
Waethorn
on Nov 14, 2009
Just FYI: I still have the old software installed because I find it handy for dumping ISO's to Stick. Does that mean I can be litigated because of breach of contract? According to Stallman, the FSF doesn't like litigation. I wouldn't put it beneath them though, and I still feel better that Microsoft protects customers against litigation for use of their products - something that the FSF doesn't do.
DRWAM
on Nov 14, 2009
Personally, I cannot condemn MS if this was an honest mistake. I create the call schedule for my group. Sometimes I may have 4 different copies and forget the composition of some of it. This could easily be an accident, one the MS confessed and promised to make good.
redunion1940
on Nov 14, 2009
OT: Again, regarding your OEM article, so what you are saying is if I make a computer, then lets say I buy the disc, have someone else install it, and pay them $1 to do it I would have avoided the nasty EULA, so once again it doesn't matter I'll buy OEM because it is cheaper than Retail because it doesn't include x32 and x64 disc, and it has a non transferable license which I am okay with.
redunion1940
on Nov 14, 2009
OT: On the OEM thing, I guess the EULA doesn't really matter I just popped over to newegg, and no one is complaining other than the normal OS haters this goes for all OS's, and the traditionlist who like really old interfaces like Win 95 interfaces. So this doesn't really effect "system builders"
whiplash55
on Nov 14, 2009
Much ado about very little, the real losers here are people who don't have an external drive to install 7 on their netbook or one of the many new thin and light PC's out there without a DVD drive. Sure it can still be done by anyone technically savvy, but using a USB for install media is a great idea.

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use