Except that's not what happened. MS didn't "get caught" for a GPL violation -- there was no license requiring them to submit the code.
They didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, correct, because MS is a corporation -- not a person. MS did this out of business sense -- increased interoperability with Linux just makes Windows/Microsoft all the more valuable.
Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like actual people. Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state
Yeager said Stanford's lawyers asked him to review a copy of Cisco's
software. He found his own work in it.
Stanford officials in charge of licensing debated what to do. ``Cisco
mess'' was the heading of one e-mail discussing the issue.
Earnest urged a lawsuit and even raised the idea of criminal charges
against Bosack. He e-mailed colleagues: ``The fundamental problem is: how
do you negotiate an equitable agreement with crooks?''
Your response in no way addresses what I said -- MS didn't act out of empathy, b/c corporations have none -- they don't have a "heart" b/c they are persons only by law.
As to the Cisco cite -- how is that relevant to MS? Moreover, copying software code is not a criminal offense -- it's a civil tort. Finally, equitable estoppel is not a matter of negotiation, it's a matter of one party's unilateral acts.
they don't have a "heart" b/c they are persons only by law.
This is a well-known phenomenon [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation ]. Organizations acting without moral, conscience, responsibility and ethically towards real humans/natural persons can certainly happen, but it goes without saying, that it also does have consequences. This is what I pointed out: You cannot blame people for hating dishonest legal persons.
Acting such and expecting loyalty and gratitude in the same time is hard to achieve.
History is littered with examples, and I am inclined to think the recurrence of such attitude is partially responsible for the self-inflicted trouble we face.
"We learn from history that we learn nothing from history." -- George Bernard Shaw
Cisco is relevant, because History is relevant, from my point of view.
"When Americans say "that is history", they often mean it is no longer relevant. When Europeans say "that is history", they usually mean the opposite." -- Javier Solana, 2006
Except that's not what happened. MS didn't "get caught" for a GPL violation
Just as a record in the Memory Hole, a paste from a separate thread, now buried:
-8<---------------------
MJF: Hemminger is claiming Microsoft put the LIC code under the GPL because it was in violation of the GPL. Is this true? Did you have to suggest to (Microsoft Platform Strategy Chief Sam) Ramji & Co. that they were in violation in order to get them to agree to release the code under GPLv2?
GKH: I didn’t have to “suggest” anything, I only had to merely point out the obviousness of the situation :)
MJF: If this isn’t accurate, could you let me know how to interpret (Hemminger’s) comments on his blog.
GKH: No, that sounds accurate.
[...]
Ramji didn’t come right out and deny the GPL violations claim, but I guess that’s as much as we’re going to get.
They didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, correct, because MS is a corporation -- not a person. MS did this out of business sense -- increased interoperability with Linux just makes Windows/Microsoft all the more valuable.