David M Williams
Tuesday, 28 July 2009 18:30
Opinion and Analysis
Page 1 of 3
Seattle software giant, Microsoft, has asserted despite press saying otherwise last week's 22,000 line submission to the Linux kernel was not motivated by any perceived GPL violation. Yet, do the facts bare out? Does the argument really stand to scrutiny?
Just last week
Microsoft shocked the world by contributing some 22,000 lines of source code to the Linux kernel.
While this was never purely altruistic – the code helps position Windows Server 2008 as a suitable hypervisor platform for virtual Linux installations – allegations soon rose that Microsoft actually donated the source code because, it transpired, they had violated the GNU Public License.
Specifically, as colleague
Sam Varghese reported, Stephen Hemminger, an engineer with open source company Vyatta, discovered Microsoft’s closed source Hyper-V network drivers linked to software that had been produced by others and that was licensed under the GPL.
The GPL specifically prohibits mixing closed and open source parts. In short, Microsoft had violated the license that the GPL-licensed open source software elements were covered by.
Consequently, Microsoft opted to release the source code. Thus, it would seem, the donation was not motivated by genuine desire to contribute to the Linux kernel but because the company had purely and simply acted conversely to the GPL and had to rectify the situation.
History records companies – some prominent, others not so – that have been made to respect the GPL through courts. For instance, TomTom, maker of popular satellite navigation wizardry, had built devices on top of Linux with proprietary drivers and extensions.
TomTom was pursued by the
gpl-violations.org project and were proven to be wanting. This action resulted in the company releasing the source code for many versions of the TomTom GO system as well as a significant financial donation to the Chaos Computer Club.
Had Microsoft not acted swiftly to correct the violation, once uncovered, it is likely headlines would instead be describing Microsoft’s loss in court.
Yet, Microsoft has hit back at these claims with Sam Ramji, Senior Director of Platform Strategy, asserting the source code contribution was not in any way motivated by GPL concerns.
