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."
GPL is viral.
THL phish sticks
I for one welcome this news.
It shows that Microsoft actually respects the GPL and believes it to be a license that can be held up in court. Or at least, they don't want to try to test the validity of the GPL.
At any rate, it gives us some insight as to Microsoft's view on Linux, since they've been silent for quite some time about the topic.
Frankly, I'm pleased at this explanation. I'd very much rather MSFT accept the GPL and OpenSource as a sound business concept than merely out of some arbitrary corporate policy decision. Which could easily be reversed in the continuous "Change" ego-stroking.
Here, it appears that in spite of their best efforts and doubtless strong admonishments that GPL code found its' way into a key product. Good. They've learned they can't be completely leakproof. So will have to comply. Underforce is fine, because it is the most certain and sincere.
As for "trust", what a load of BS! Shareholders generally cannot even trust their Boards nor employees who by law and custom are supposed to look out for their interests. Why should the rest of us expect any better?
Trust is only a precursor to betrayal like Google. Trust is neither required nor desired in business. Much more reliable to trust persuit of self-interest. Business is not family life. There are no bonds of affection. Delusional to pretend there are. And stupid to lean on these bonds too hard anyways.
Trust must be earned. IBM, the Microsoft of an earlier era, has abandoned many of the anticompetitive and fraudulent actions of its past, and thereby helped to earn trust and respect. Microsoft could do the same, at very little cost or risk to itself, in various ways. For instance, it could agree not to sue reimplementers of .NET (Mono, etc.) and SMBFS/CIFS (Samba, etc.), or list the alleged "patent problems" with Linux that it has claimed in the past. But half-hearted measures such as releasing software under the GPL when it legally was required to do so, or the very limited promises it has made surrounding .NET, don't quite cut it for me.
Nonaggression works!
All the information about this story is in 3 pages, all of which seem to link to each other as a source. There's a very fuzzy picture about what went on. Big questions I have about the story:
The issue appears to be that there were drivers linked to open source code. Which exact binaries, which GPL'ed code?
What are the timescales? Was the discovery of GPL'ed code made before or after MS released the code? If before, how long before? It's not clear on any of the pages.
Was the GPL'ed code able to be licensed through other means? Is there a possibility they decided to make this GPL'ed code a while ago and decided to link to other GPL'ed code because of this?
I don't mind doing a bit of my own research to get the full facts of a story but having to read 3 vague blog posts and still coming out non the wiser is irritating.
If you read the story, it looks like they released the binaries to people, thus they distributed it, which means they broke the GPL.
"I was going to pay for the candy bars I was hiding in my jacket" is not a valid defense when caught shoplifting, this is the same thing.
The minute they linked in GPL only libraries, they needed to go GPL. Not later when they got caught.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
No real surprise here. Microsoft is in the business of making money, so if everyone remembers this in dealing with them or any other profit driven company, then we'll be well prepared for this behavior. Open Source is seen by MS and others as a threat to their profits, so many avoid it. But in the tech world, that is getting increasingly harder, and more foolish to do. So avoiding a profit sapping lawsuit is probably a good move. Yeah they could recode, but in this case it was probably easier (and cheaper) to just comply with the GPL.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Of all the companies I trust on my desktop less than Microsoft, Google is number one. Microsoft just wants me to give them money. Google wants to know everything about me.
That, and I bought a computer damnit, not a cloud-computing terminal. I haven't used a terminal since the 90's, and have no desire to return to that world. At least now when I use a terminal, it's into a machine I own.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
What's hilarious is how many times I've been called a "tin-foil hatter" because I openly expected ulterior motives and other treachery from this company.
I guess I'm not seeing this "treachery" of which you're going on about. Microsoft made use of GPL code, like hundreds of other companies before them, and in keeping with the law and the license, also released their code under the GPL. This really is a big move for them, the company that previously wouldn't want to be caught dead with their hand in the GPL cookie jar. Here they are not only using the code but releasing it back out for public use and scrutiny.
Nobody cares that Linksys/Cisco uses GPL code in their cheap routers. Nobody cares that Google uses GPL code in their various web apps. Nobody cares that FOSS-heavy companies like Novell and Red Hat use GPL code to make a profit. Why should any care that Microsoft is using GPL code as long as they are following the terms of the license?
I don't know about "treachery" but I do see distinct differences between Microsoft and some of the other companies you've listed. This is all about history.
First and foremost, Microsoft has bent their "marketing and PR machine" towards discrediting the GPL - going so far as to call it both a "cancer" and a "virus". At the very same time that they made these claims, Microsoft used GPL utilities in their Services for Unix bundles. At the very least, this raises the question of Microsoft's honesty when it comes to their marketing (a question that's often raised). And there's something to be said that folks like yourself believe this is the first foray for Microsoft in GPL territory (no offense to you personally).
People do care when Linksys/Cisco, Google, Novell, and Red Hat use GPL code to make a profit. They take notice that the rules are followed and whether such attempts are successful - and tend to be supportive of success. Nobody is going to stop Microsoft from making money with GPL software. But when Microsoft enters those same waters, one has to wonder what happened to all the marketing they did that would imply that doing so gives away all one's "IP". Maybe we're not going to see a big press release. But we ARE going to remember previous PR hatchet-work.
Stuck between a rock and a hard place, they were.
Option 1: fight the GPL to court, probably lose, and give the GPL an even greater legal standing via the test case.
Option 2: Release the code as GPL, and nullify any previous (or future) arguments they have made about it being a 'viral' license, bad for capitalism etc etc.
Option 1 would have given them the moral high ground in terms of their philosophy - "We were against the GPL and fought it and lost", but at the cost of hardening the GPL legally.
Option 2 is spineless, but I'd be betting they are planning some 'comeback' about how the code evolution of the GPL version is less secure/buggier/slower than some alternative closed version they develop in-house.
"I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
While that might be seen as 'expected', I cannot condone it as moral - neither should the rest of society. What I find particularly annoying is that people seem to think that if its their raison d'ter then that excuses them from wrongdoing.