Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Code Contribution Due To GPL Violation
ozmanjusri writes "While Microsoft presented its recent embrace of the GPL as 'a break from the ordinary,' and the press spoke of them as going to great lengths to engage the open source community,' as is often the case with Microsoft, it turns out they had an ulterior motive. According to Stephen Hemminger, an engineer with Vyatta, Microsoft's Hyper-V used open-source components in a network driver and the company released the code to avoid legal action over a GPL violation. Microsoft's decision to embrace the GPL was welcomed by many in the open source community, but their failure to honestly explain the reason behind the release will have squandered this opportunity to build trust, something which is sadly lacking in most people's dealings with Microsoft."
It's hilarious.
oh noez, I has teh GPL/AIDS.
I'm shocked, I tell you! Shocked!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Mark my words. Expect a flood of "independent studies" dissecting this story with the intent of making Free Software look like hidden poison.
Right. This is simply another case of slamming the corporate dick in the dresser drawer. It's common enough we should expect it.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
Don't give up hope — I hear they are working on a GNU vaccine.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
As a contributor to many GPL projects I would welcome any open source patches by Microsoft. They're a big company that could contribute a lot to Linux or its applications. Unfortunately there are many linux users who contribute nothing but hate which is why the public image of open source and free software has been ruined.
It doesn't matter if you're white, black, rich, poor or even Microsoft. All that matters is the code and the fact that Microsoft is using the GNU GPL license. Since they have contributed a plugin to moodle and this patch to the linux kernel they can no longer claim some of the things they previously did about the GNU GPL. It's also a selling point to anyone trying to convince higher ups to use open source software "even Microsoft contributes code to GPL software".
The doom and gloom in not only this article, but in the other two about when Microsoft first made the contributions are imaginary. I can't understand why people would want Microsoft to stop making open source contributions. The reasons for those contributions are unimportant as EVERYONE has a motive for contributing code to a GPL project.
An adhesion contract? Sounds like a sticky situation.
For Microsoft, complying with the law *is* going to extraordinary lengths to engage with the open source community.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Exactly. The only ones putting a spin on things are the counterculture media sites like Slashdot and the Register. They are so desperate to make out anything Microsoft does as evil that they have to invent this "ulterior motive".
Microsoft is a huge company with a lot of money. They create entire operating systems, productivity suites and video games. They could have easily written a damned network driver.
I'm pretty sure we're talking about MS (www.getthefacts.com) and not about sex education (www.getthefacts.org).
I can imagine how that would go:
GPL nut: "Your honor, I'd like you to impose a $1 million fine on Microsoft"
Judge: "Can you show your reasoning for such a fine?"
GPL nut: "Yes, it's for lost sales/opportunity that Microsoft has caused"
Judge: "But wait, you give your code away for free. How is it you can claim lost sales?"
GPL nut: [foaming at the mouth now] "But Micro$oft is teh evil! They're my sworn mortal enemy and must pay!!11!1!!1!one!"
Judge: "Oooookay there. I set the fine for Microsoft at three times lost revenue, or zero dollars which for the sake of this case I'll around up to one dollar. Case dismissed."
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
To sum up most EULAs:
- Any rights you think you have, forget them
- We own your product and by using it own you
- I our product happens to kill you, you probably deserved it
- The Lube is free so please assume the position
At that point the Linux people are free to ignore Microsoft, and roll their own Digital cameras, MP3 players, etc. which are compatible with Linux and which do not infringe on Microsoft's (or anybody else's) patents.
"I want / need to use the FAT filesystem," is not sufficient reason in the eyes of current law to allow you to violate patents. I agree that the patent system needs to be reformed, but as soon as you say, "IF the patent system worked the way I wanted it to," you have invalidated your legal argument.
Using a different filesystem format internally may make it difficult for these devices to interoperate with other operating systems, but there's no reason that FAT *must* be used on these devices. The choice of patent-encumbered FAT was a trade-off between perceived risk of lawsuit and benefits of interoperability with many other devices. Choosing to assume that risk means that you have to be prepared for the consequences if someone decides to make a stink.
I'm pretty sure we're talking about MS (www.getthefacts.com) and not about sex education (www.getthefacts.org).
It depends, are we talking about MS Exchange or MSexChange?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
You misspelled iPhone.
"In order to use this software, you must dance like a chicken for 30 seconds," is an example of a EULA. Please explain how it is viral.
Simple.
Avian flu.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......