Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Releases Linux Device Drivers As GPL
mjasay writes "Microsoft used to call the GPL 'anti-American.' Now, as Microsoft releases Hyper-V Linux Integration Components (LinuxIC) under the GPL (version 2), apparently Microsoft calls the GPL 'ally.' Of course, there was little chance the device drivers would be accepted into the Linux kernel base unless open source, but the news suggests a shift for Microsoft. It also reflects Microsoft's continued interest in undermining its virtualization competition through low prices, and may suggests concern that it must open up if it wants to fend off insurgent virtualization strategies from Red Hat (KVM), Novell (XEN), and others in the open-source camp. Microsoft said the move demonstrates its interest in using open source in three key areas: 1) Make its software development processes more efficient, 2) product evangelism, and 3) using open source to reduce marketing and sales costs or to try out new features that highlight parts of the platform customers haven't seen before."
I think you have this precisely backwards. The GPL is about protecting the rights of users to modify the software they use and distribute those modifications. So it does, in fact, give control to the end user--the sort of control that Microsoft does not tend to give--while the author relinquishes some control.
Even the GPL v.2 has this to say about patents:
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
So basically, if MS holds patents on the code they are contributing, my reading of the GPL says they can't contribute it (or can't enforce said patents).
They could have.
No, they couldn't have, at least not if they wanted it to be distributable with Linux (which was kinda the point). The Linux kernel is GPL v.2 only, which is incompatible with the GPL v.3.
Furthermore, even the GPL 2 provides some protection against patents, as a couple people have pointed out.
In short, FUD.
Our use of the GPLv2 license, as requested by the Linux community, means we will not charge a royalty or assert any patents covering the driver code we are contributing.
Sam
sramji@microsoft.com
You are really funny! Actually, I'm the head of Open Source and Linux Strategy for Microsoft Corporation. I'm from Oakland, California.
Sam
sramji@microsoft.com
First, the Hyper-V high-level specification is available under the Open Specification Promise; this can be used by 3rd parties to implement Hyper-V compatibility.
Second, we have a roadmap for the drivers that includes improvements to performance and manageability, including features like SMP support. These have been requested by our customers and are part of the engineering plan for these drivers.
Third, our maintenance plan for the drivers includes submitting patches to the kernel maintainers; and the process that Greg K-H and the team follow is designed to ensure that drivers can continue to be compatible with the kernel even if the kernel's model for device drivers changes.
Ultimately it will be the market success of this technology that will ensure its ongoing development by Microsoft - as we do with any product. So far the signs are good.
Sam
sramji@microsoft.com
It was specifically talked about. We considered other licenses (like the Clear BSD) which is considered "GPL-compatible" but the best choice was clearly the GPLv2.
This was the gentle advice we got from Greg K-H and we took it seriously. The more we thought about it, the more it made sense to follow Rosen's first law of open source licenses - "use the license of the community that you want to contribute to."
Sam
sramji@microsoft.com