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."
Don't forget Microsoft's strategy: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish
I heard reasonable arguments about that being true for the Ms-PL but I thought the GPL (v2 and v3) were supposed to be embraceable and extensible but nearly non-extinguishable ... once the code is out there, just fork it. Care to explain to me how this plan can follow after releasing something under the GPL? I'd be shocked that no one's tried it yet if it's possible.
My work here is dung.
Some drivers to make Linux work better inside MS's Windows Server Hyper-V virtualization platform? How altruistic...
I'll be more impressed when MS, for example, helps with the SAMBA project. Or at least, doesn't actively screw up with such interop projects from the FOSS community. No GPL code required, just give people decent, up-to-date, open specs; and no patents bullshit.
Or at very least, when MS stops enforcing such patents (see TomTom / FAT32, or again SMB in MS/Novell "agreement").
I think Microsoft gets upset if any other company talks to the BIOS besides them. Here's a page from VMWare that compares their own product to Microsoft's Hyper-V. Hyper-V only debuted as a beta a year ago and they're already compromising company policy to release Linux kernel level code.
Wikipedia page for Hyper-V
Again I ask:
How does this protect against the Hyper-V product being changed to be incompatible with the GPL drivers in the future. What guarentee do we have that compatibility will be maintained or the drivers updated?
GPL drivers don't do much good if they aren't compatible with the hypervisor. Otherwise we'd be using Xen drivers on Hyper-V wouldn't we?
I know I'm jumping to conclusions a bit, but this is a company with a very long history of this kind of behavior. Even after several court cases and many promises.
(Hope I get answers, instead of just getting modded up, then suddenly down into oblivion again)
Sam, does this mean that this GPLv2 release was actually negotiated and coordinated with Linux kernel developers? If so, it would be interesting to hear more about that side of it. So far I have found this:
Q: Why release the code?
A: Because we have utilized Linux code, Microsoft has an obligation to open source the device drivers. This is the process outlined by the Linux community.
Q: Why open source the code?
A: Because this is a requirement of the community, and critical in ensuring that as the Linux Kernel evolves, and as Hyper-V evolves, that the Hyper-V Linux Device Drivers evolve as well.
But this is rather vague - it's not clear where the "requirement of the community" comes from; is it implied, or was it specifically talked about?
Bingo. As much as I hate MS, I would absolutely make an about face on my opinions if they started joining in on putting things in under GPLv3 (without skirting it's intent). That's all I ask. I don't get why they don't, the whole marketplace would support them if they did so. I guess they don't like expanding marketshare in ways that benefits everyone as opposed to themselves (PS microsoft: this is how you make friends instead of enemies).
Sam, I mean this sincerely:
Microsoft has a long, long history of letting its mid-level managers and employees believe one thing, when the top managers intend something else, something very unfriendly and sneaky.
For example, Microsoft employees believed that they would be allowed to finish their work. But, in spite of strong opposition inside Microsoft, Windows Vista was released.
Other products released before they were finished:
Windows XP (Okay after SP2, a lot of grief before)
Windows ME
DOS 3.0
Since Microsoft has acted against the best interests of its customers in many ways in the past, people think that will happen this time.
I listened to this interview of you: Sam Ramji of Microsoft Tells all. It's obvious that you are intelligent and well-meaning. I would tend to trust anything you say if you have control over it. However, I think it is likely that you have no control. I'm guessing that it is likely that some vicious Microsoft top manager has some plan to cause trouble.
Why do I think that? Because sneaky behavior by Microsoft has cost me tens of thousands of dollars over the years.