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 374940
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Didn't require release
by lemur2 on Thu 23rd Jul 2009 23:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Didn't require release"
Member since:

Apparently you did not read my post thoroughly. They did own 100% of the code. However, as soon as they link it to the kernel, it is "derived work" of the kernel. There is where they loose the right to dual-license: They are not allowed to link Non-GPL licensed code to the kernel. That is, effectively, what they call the 'viral' effect. I don't mean it negatively. I use GPL for my software myself.

They might call it viral, but that is just an attempt to smear. The GPL is not viral ... Microsoft's HyperV product was being distributed with parts of it's code being GPL code.

Microsoft did that. It was Microsoft who mixed the GPL code and their own code together in the one product.

So Microsoft had some choices ... either excise the GPL code from HyperV and replace it with their own code to perform the same function, or make the entire HyperV product GPL, or drop the whole thing and not distribute it.

They chose to make the whole HyperV product GPL. Microsoft's choice. No doubt, this choice was made because it was the least effort for Microsoft.

That observation in turn leads us to the conclusion that the MAJORITY of the HyperV product must have been GPL code, otherwise it would have been easier for Microsoft to just re-write and replace the GPL bits.

That observation in turn leads to the further observation that the GPL wasn't viral at all in the HyperV product, but rather that Microsoft had tried to close GPL code by adding a bit of their own to it, and had not managed to get away with it.

Edited 2009-07-23 23:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1