To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
When you make a virtualization product, you can't really afford to ignore linux. There are other competitors in the market, some of which are virtually free. Not supporting the most popular server OS, would limit them to Microsoft only servers (sorry Free BSD isn't as popular as it used to be in the server arena).
I must have missed the part where everyone said HyperV itself was going to be released under the GPL, as opposed to, you know, the offending pieces of code mentioned. You're right, the GPL is pretty viral in this particular instance. I sure can't wait until I get to download all the source and compile it myself, and I have RMS to thank for his effective and cancerous license!
Lay on a little more FUD there, bud.
The problem with that frase is that GPL doesn't creep by itself .... it is crept by developers (in this case, Microsoft's developers, shall we say?) in their code. Nobody forces people to use GPL code. If you don't like the GPL, then take a hike and write your own code and place whatever license you want on it, dude.




Member since:
2006-05-14
I remember reading ages ago that microsoft felt the GPL was some kind of cancer, that will creap into your code and force commercial companies to give out code they otherwise would not have, like some kind of code vampire....I guess ballmer was right, sorry to doubt you buddy!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/
The irony is Microsoft could have just used crappy linux drivers. or ignored linux all together, only supporting BSDs instead.