Microsoft Was Distributing Ubuntu Linux

ausage writes "Groklaw has noted that for the last few days, Microsoft has been distributing Unbuntu Desktop Linux from the Windows Marketplace Website. The page is gone now, but can still — as of this morning — be seen using Google cache. 'Heaven only knows that's true, simply perfect for laptops, desktops and servers. The part Microsoft got wrong is it says the license is "Free" and "No limitations". Actually, the GPL does set some limitations, like what you are responsible to do if you redistribute.'"

Am I wrong?

[moderatorrater (1095745)]

Or do I see that Microsoft was merely putting a link to a place where you can download Ubuntu? Wouldn't this free Microsoft from any obligations under the GPL?

Re:Am I wrong?

[pembo13 (770295)]

Who said they were violating the GPL?

Re:Am I wrong?

[Lockejaw (955650)]

Well, it wouldn't be a violation of the GPL, but it would be hard for them to make a serious lawsuit threat for using software they gave you.

you are correct

[number6x (626555)]

Windows Marketplace had a link to CNET's Download.com site. So MS was not distributing.

Still humorous though!

BWHAHAH

[jrwr00 (1035020)]

Arg! our Linux spy have bee found! he was going to make a windows update to reinstall windows as Ubuntu, Oh well i guess this works

Interesting to see what comes out of this

[pembo13 (770295)]

I've been trying to get an Ubuntu laptop myself, maybe Microsoft can give me a laptop too.

Re:Interesting to see what comes out of this

[Rude Turnip (49495)]

There's probably a shitload of free chairs in their parking lot today, too.

First Post! or maybe not

[by Anonymous Coward]

I think my first post is missing because:

1) It was on a blackberry confiscated by the communist French govt.
2) I was ready to post, but the lake I was fishing on suddenly disappeared
3) I was 4th born in my family and I'm too stupid to post
4) ???
5) Profit!

MS distributing a Linux distro?

[jshriverWVU (810740)]

... thought it was a bit cold outside, did hell REALLY freeze over?

Re:MS distributing a Linux distro?

[MMC Monster (602931)]

Australia?

Distributing?

[AKAImBatman (238306)]

There's a difference between "distributing" and "referencing". According to TFA, Microsoft was doing the latter by sending users to CNET for the product.

This is amusing, but it will not have any of the legal implications that many would expect from Microsoft distributing Linux.

Re:

[Knuckles (8964)]

Looks to me as if they'd have a hard time suing you over patents though.

Re:

[drinkypoo (153816)]

It *would* have some rather serious implications under the terms of the GPL license. Specifically, Microsoft would be agreeing to give patent rights with the code.

Only if they distributed it under the GPLv3, and it's not under the GPLv3 yet as the GPLv3 doesn't actually exist (still in draft, not approved or ratified or whatever, just a final draft.)

Under GPLv2 they would however be granting license to use any Microsoft code that had been copied into Linux. Hopefully there is none of that and so it would

"Unbuntu"?

[sczimme (603413)]

From the summary:

"Groklaw has noted that for the last few days, Microsoft has been distributing Unbuntu Desktop Linux from the Windows Marketplace Website.

However, according to the cached page Microsoft spelled 'Ubuntu' correctly.

Re:

[GMFTatsujin (239569)]

Microsoft *is* the Un-Ubuntu.

They've been distributing that for years. I say we call the article a 'dupe' and move on to real news.

Rebuntu link?

[by Anonymous Coward]

I downloaded and installed Unbuntu from the Microsoft page. Does anyone know where I can find a link to Rebuntu?

Re:Rebuntu link?

[Valdrax (32670)]

I thought one of Linux's advantages was that you didn't really need to Rebuntu so often.
Also -- obligatory xkcd. [xkcd.com]

How much do you want to bet

[antifoidulus (807088)]

that a security breach was responsible for this? Someone breaks into the microsoft distribution area and silently puts Ubuntu there and leaves, knowing that Microsoft probably would not notice for days.

Re:How much do you want to bet

[jeevesbond (1066726)]

That makes a lot of sense, either that or a Microsoft grunt was playing a practical joke (whoever is responsible: they're playing with chairs IMO).

The breadcrumbs for that page backup your theory:

Downloads > Utility Downloads > System Downloads > Driver Downloads > BIOS & System Update Downloads > Ubuntu Desktop

Pretty weird place to put the download if they meant to be distributing it. :)

System Requirements

[Odin_Tiger (585113)]

Supported OS
Windows 3.x
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows Me
Windows NT
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows MCE
Windows 2003 Server

WTF?
Also...

Number of Downloads 10,923

Like...Damn.

Re:System Requirements

[IWannaBeAnAC (653701)]

Does it use a Windows-based installer?

Re:System Requirements

[Jugalator (259273)]

You can run all those operating systems virtualized from within Ubuntu, so I guess technically they're supported. ;-)

Screenshot

[Known Nutter (988758)]

in case the google cache goes away...

http://mrose.org/images/slashdot/microsoft_ubuntu. jpg [mrose.org]

pretty funny.

System requirements

[Nimey (114278)]

From the cached page:

Windows 3.x
Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows Me
Windows NT
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows Vista
Windows MCE
Windows 2003 Server

*snerk* The Windows 3.1 requirement really makes this post.

SP1

[MadUndergrad (950779)]

They only took it down because they forgot to replace all instances of "Ubuntu" with "Vista SP1". It'll be back fairly shortly, I'm sure.

Not Quite

[lprechan (9859)]

The part Microsoft got wrong is it says the license is "Free" and "No limitations".

The page Google cache is showing me does not say that. What the page I'm seeing says is...

1. Ubuntu is and always will be free of charge. - (True according to the Ubuntu web site.)

2. You do not pay any licensing fees. - (True.)

3. You can download, use and share Ubuntu with your friends, family, school or business for absolutely nothing. - (True, again.)

Perhaps an previous version of the file may have said the license is "Free" and "No limitations", but I'm not finding any evidence of it now. Even Groklaw is saying that "The part Microsoft got wrong is it says the license is "Free" and "No limitations"."

My home and office have been Microsoft-free since 1995 so I'm certainly no Microsoft fanboy, but I think I'm smelling a bit of "knee-jerk" here.

Re:

[swg101 (571879)]

If you expand the "Detailed Product Specifications" sections, you will see:
License Type - Free
Limitations - No Limitations

Where can I

[Wooky_linuxer (685371)]

get the code? I downloaded this funky utility called Ubuntu from Microsoft, and it says in a funny EULA called GPL or something that I should be able to get the source code from whoever distributes it. Since my Windows system has been rock stable and much quicker after I installed this utility, I guess it's a keeper, and I think it is a pretty good marketing idea from Redmond to let us see how do they actually program these things. Course, this Ubuntu stuff is only a utilty or a driver according to that page, but even then this is pretty slick. Can you imagine if someone would let us see the source code for, say, a a WHOLE OPERATING SYSTEM? wow! Perhaps that is MS next step and this whole Ubuntu downloads are a marketing test. So spread the word guys...

Re:Where can I

[otacon (445694)]

I had modpoints but there was no -1 Dense

It's a CNET thing

[KarmaMB84 (743001)]

You can get listed in the Windows Marketplace by signing up with a Microsoft partner or by signing up with CNET.com. Items in the Windows category end up in the same or equivalent category as they are on Download.com.

From the how to get listed page at the Windows Marketplace:
"Packaged Software, Hardware, & Devices: If your product is available in packaged format, you can offer it at Windows Marketplace by signing up with CNET.com."

The category for Ubuntu form Download.com:
Windows > Utilities & Drivers > Device Drivers > BIOS & System Updates

Eerily familiar, no?

This is a total non-story. Microsoft isn't distributing anything and CNET needs to fix their categories.

Which version was it?

[fishthegeek (943099)]

Ubuntu Home Basic
Ubuntu Home Premium
Ubuntu Ultimate
Ubuntu Business
or
Ubuntu Home Server?

Looks like they took down "Driver Downloads"

[assassinator42 (844848)]

Compare the current page [windowsmarketplace.com] with the cache [72.14.209.104].
Looks like they took the entire "Driver Downloads" category, the one that Ubuntu was in, down.
Also, Notice what category Download.com has Ubuntu under [download.com]. BIOS & System Updates, same as the Microsoft page. So I'd wager that Microsoft was using a script to aggregate download links rather than do them by hand.
So, no joke by a Microsoft employee or anything like that.

I've tried it

[AlgorithMan (937244)]

I've downloaded and installed it
looks nice, feels nice... only one thing disturbs me... every once in a while a paperclip appears and saies

It looks like you are trying to switch to linux.
How can I help you to stay honest?
- show me bogus statistics about how much better and more secure windows is
- threat me with patent lawsuits
- offer me more DRM

Re:confusing

[Jugalator (259273)]

At least it got 11000 downloads -- not too shabby! :-)

Re:

[kebes (861706)]

Let's assume for the moment it was an employee joke.

Microsoft can certainly fire the employee, but they nevertheless distributed Ubuntu, which includes alot of GPL-software. This means that they are bound by the terms of the GPL. Among other things, this means that:
1. Anyone can ask for source code from Microsoft. If Microsoft doesn't give out source, then they are violating the GPL and hence copyright law. If they do give out the source code, then they better hope it doesn't infringe on other companie's pa

Re:

[jbrader (697703)]

I don't know about "2" but as to "1" if somebody asks them for the source couldn't they just point them to the relevant Ubuntu web page?

Re:confusing

[kebes (861706)]

Ah... apparently the download link was redirecting to CNET. So I guess Microsoft can claim, as they do with the Novel coupons, that they are not the ones actually distributing the binaries hence not bound by the GPL.

Re:confusing

[Smidge204 (605297)]

Too bad that argument doesn't work for torrent trackers. Yay double standard!

=Smidge=

Re:confusing

[maztuhblastah (745586)]

That actually might make this a good case for the EFF. If they sue Microsoft, Microsoft's defense will be:

We didn't distribute it -- we just pointed people to a place that was.

At which point, the we'll have legal precedent for the defense of BitTorrent trackers. If the EFF loses, we get precedent, if they win, the MS patent threat is neutralized. Sounds like a good idea to me! (But IANAL).

Re:confusing

[mhall119 (1035984)]

They did not distribute it, their site merely promoted it. Therefore they are not bound by the GPL distribution requirements, they didn't even have to accept the GPL as a license.

Now, if your BitTorrent tracker points to a source of illegal music distribution, you can still be held liable for copyright infringement because you are promoting violation of copyright. Microsoft was in no way promoting violation of the GPL.

So basically this doesn't hurt Microsoft (other than we all get a good laugh at their expense), and it doesn't help illegal file sharing. And since Microsoft was diligent about removing the page after it was brought to their attention, they can't even be accused of actively promoting the use of Ubuntu, so it wouldn't even be patent entrapment.

So the long and short of it is this: It was funny, but doesn't change anything.

Re:confusing

[Random832 (694525)]

WTF, no-one's saying they'd have to turn over the windows source code - but, regardless of if they modified it or not, if they didn't distribute the Ubuntu source code WITH the Ubuntu binary download, they have to make the Ubuntu source code available for three years.

Re:confusing

[MrNiceguy_KS (800771)]

I think that the parent posters aren't speculating on Microsoft having to open up any of their code. I read them as speculating on how it affects their nebulous claims of patent infringement in Linux. Basically, one can argue that they no longer can pursue patent infringement cases regarding code that they have distributed. IANAL and have no idea of the validity of this argument, but it certainly is intriguing. Anyone qualified to comment on this?

Re:confusing

[by Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft can claim what they want, they entered into voucher distribution willfully and with full knowledge that GPL2 covered indirect distribution. They weren't distributing via their marketplace, it's a simple link to a product available elsewhere.

There's a world of difference between telling someone where to download something and selling them a voucher directly redeemable against a product and commercial support package. If I tell you there's a guy down the road selling crack then I'm not supplying it. If I sell you a voucher redeemable for crack from the dealer down the block, I am indirectly supplying it.

Disclaimer: IANACD (I Am Not A Crack Dealer).

Re:confusing

[WrongSizeGlass (838941)]

Disclaimer: IANACD (I Am Not A Crack Dealer).

DYKOWTV? (Do you know one who takes vouchers?)

Re:confusing

[_Hiro_ (151911)]

You also have the debate as to whether they were a distributor or merely a Vendor. If Staples carries a boxed copy of RHEL, they're not bound by the GPL anymore than they're bound by the EULA for Windows for carrying Vista.

Since it wasn't a Microsoft-Branded product, and was in their "Marketplace" area, not their downloads, they probably haven't incurred any liabilities at all.

Re:

[Erioll (229536)]

You also have the debate as to whether they were a distributor or merely a Vendor. If Staples carries a boxed copy of RHEL, they're not bound by the GPL anymore than they're bound by the EULA for Windows for carrying Vista.

Since it wasn't a Microsoft-Branded product, and was in their "Marketplace" area, not their downloads, they probably haven't incurred any liabilities at all.

Beyond that, if somebody put it up without approval then they aren't liable to be bound by it. It's like if some random guy at MS signed a contract saying that his company gives up all patent rights now and in the future. It wouldn't hold water because it wasn't authorized by anyone with the authority to authorize that. This falls under the same sort of thing.

Re:confusing

[_Sprocket_ (42527)]

Microsoft can certainly fire the employee, but they nevertheless distributed Ubuntu, which includes alot of GPL-software. This means that they are bound by the terms of the GPL. Among other things, this means that:

Microsoft has distributed GPL software in the past (Services for Unix). Just not Linux per se.

Re:confusing

[_Sprocket_ (42527)]

Services for UNIX is derived from OpenBSD 3.0 sources.

Services for Unix also includes various GNU utilities licensed under the GPL. Just for giggles:

ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/developr/interix/interix22 /GPL.TXT [microsoft.com]

Re:

[Intron (870560)]

No wonder companies are afraid of the GPL when stuff like the above is posted.
1) You are only required to distribute source if you made modifications.
2) If MS makes patent claims against Linux users, they just lose the right to distribute Linux, they don't magically lose (or give up) rights to their own patents.

Performance Review

[norminator (784674)]

I can't even imagine why they would do this [...] Hacked off employee that got a bad performance review?

Well, I'm pretty sure his next review is going to be even worse.