Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Jul 2009 09:43 UTC
Microsoft Sometimes, some things are just too good to be true. Earlier this week, Microsoft made a relatively stunning announcement that it would contribute some 20000 lines of code to the Linux kernel, licensed under the GPL. Microsoft isn't particularly fond of either Linux or the GPL, so this was pretty big news. As it turns out, the code drop was brought on by... A GPL violation.
Permalink for comment 374891
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Didn't require release
by TemporalBeing on Thu 23rd Jul 2009 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Didn't require release"
Member since:

Thank you for pointing out that the GPL code in question is owned by Microsoft.
You see the 'viral' effect of the GPL here. MS is not allowed to breach the GPL on their own code just because it is linked to GPL code owned by others.

Or if they truly owned it all, then they could have just dual-licensed it. The problem is only if they did not own it all themselves.

Therefore it is not 'viral' as:

1) If they owned the could they could dual license and make everyone happy.
2) If they did not own the code, then they have to follow the license, and can (at best) dual license what they brought to the table.

Neither of those are 'viral' effects.

Following the license is following the license.

A viral effect would only happen if using the license caused totally unrelated stuff to have to be under the same license, and the GPL does not do that.

Reply Parent Score: 2