< Back to Blogs
Update on the Windows 7 USB/DVD Tool by Peter Galli on November 13, 2009 11:24AM

As you've likely read and as was originally reported here, we've been investigating a report that the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool, might contain GPLv2 code.  The WUDT is a free tool that was offered by the Microsoft Store and which 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.  

We apologize to our customers for any inconvenience this has caused.

This post was updated to include the link to the original article.

Comments RSS
  1. Microsoft just confirmed to me that it has completed an investigation of allegations made by my Windows

    posted at 03:30PM 11/13/2009
  2. thurrott said:

    So, thanks for confirming this. But why the heck does this post link to a PC Magazine article? Are you kidding me?

    How about linking to the guy that actually made the accusation in the first place? His name is Rafael Rivera, also not mentioned here for some reason.

    Microsoft lifts GPL code, uses in Microsoft Store tool

    www.withinwindows.com/.../microsoft-lifts-gpl-code-uses-in-microsoft-store-tool

    Paul Thurrott

    SuperSite for Windows

    (and Rafael's co-author on "Windows 7 Secrets")

    posted at 03:41PM 11/13/2009
  3. Bink.nu said:

    Microsoft just confirmed to me that it has completed an investigation of allegations made by my Windows

    posted at 03:43PM 11/13/2009
  4. I updated the post to add the link to the original article on this.

    posted at 06:11PM 11/13/2009
  5. rayson said:

    Great!

    And why reinvent the wheel when things can be downloaded and included for free??

    It is NOT shameful to use opensource. And when MS talks more and more about interoperability with other systems, then it is unavoidable to modify opensource code and ship it under the terms of the license.

    If the manpower used for reinventing the wheels can be put into improving windows, then it would be a win for everyone, including MS!!

    Rayson

    posted at 08:37PM 11/13/2009
  6. hotl said:

    Wow, Paul. Was it so hard to kindly inform Peter Galli instead of making him feel like an ass? Not everyone tracks every single blog on the planet, and not enough people track your site favorably for you to have even some manner of justification for your degrading behavior.

    "also not mentioned here for some reason" --right. I didn't even know who Rafael was before this came up on Slashdot, but you still handled it like a jackass with your tone of belittlement and general hawkishness.

    posted at 12:38AM 11/14/2009
  7. The Sent said:

    @rayson -

    The Open Source Community welcomes code reuse, so your point is moot.

    The problem with it is copyright violation.  There is no excuse for a company like Microsoft or one of its affiliates/third parties to violate copyright law and steal code, which is what happened.

    With GPL software, if you use their software in part or in whole, you *must* redistribute the source code and all copyright notices.

    Then, people can reuse the code again, which avoids reinventing the wheel a second time.

    So, to your moot point, if Microsoft and/or the third party software company released the source code, the Open Source community would have lauded them, since they would be obeying copyright law, helping the community, and helping this project improve (as you suggest).

    By not obeying the terms of the GPL, in the first place, Microsoft and this third party do exactly the opposite of what *you* suggest *they* do.

    This was never the fault of the Open Source community but of Microsoft and this third party.

    In fact, the Open Source community would welcome Microsoft and other companies with open arms, if they released the source to their operating systems and/or tools and/or applications, for the very reasons you suggest:  "If the manpower used for reinventing the wheels can be put into improving windows, then it would be a win for everyone, including MS!!"

    The Open Source community, on the other hand, demands respect of licensing terms every bit as much as closed-source companies.  The GPL demands that code used by others must be redistributed for the benefit of all.  However, the BSD license does not.

    Please read articles and the terms of the GPL, before you post, so that you can make an informed post, rather than something that makes no sense and is self-contradictory.

    posted at 01:34PM 11/14/2009
  8. fluke said:

    This is the second time this year that Port 25 has brought up that Microsoft has fixed a GPL violation.  The first time was the Hyper-V Integration Component Drivers.  I believe that it was not intentional to violate the GPL again, but I also believe it makes a statement to the amount of effort Microsoft makes to follow the stated rules of the community.  The code in question was already sitting in Microsoft Codeplex repository available for automated comparison.  Outside of treating this Microsoft Store incident as an isolated case, how is Microsoft taking responsibility?  Will the Microsoft Codeplex repository be used for automated comparison in code review the future?  Even more damning is how Microsoft throws around the "Open Source" label as if it is a generic term that can be redefined as Microsoft sees fit.  Does Microsoft really consider Codeplex to strictly be "Project Hosting for Open Source Software"?  Why does Microsoft's own Singularity RDK license still violate the OSI Open Source Definition (among several other Codeplex project that are under licenses not approved by the OSI)?  Since Microsoft is continuing to use the Codeplex hosting to contradict the community definition for Open Source, should we not expect that the Codeplex Foundation will also compete established community rules and definitions?

    posted at 11:36PM 11/14/2009
  9. Microsoft has confirmed that the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool from the online Microsoft Store indeed

    posted at 10:44AM 11/16/2009