David M Williams
Tuesday, 28 July 2009 18:30
Opinion and Analysis
Page 2 of 3
Specifically,
Ramji says Microsoft “chose” to release source code under the GPLv2 license “for the mutual benefit of ... customers, partners, the community and Microsoft.”
”Microsoft’s decision was not based on any perceived obligations tied to the GPLv2 license,” Ramji states.
Rather, “for business reasons and for customers, we determined it was beneficial to release the drivers to the kernel community under the GPLv2 license,” he continues.
Mind you, Ramji adds, “through a process that involved working closely with Greg Kroah-Hartman, who helped us understand the community norms and licensing options surrounding the drivers.”
It doesn’t surprise me Microsoft required assistance in understanding the community norms and licensing options. It also doesn’t surprise me that “business reasons” influenced the decision to make source code public.
You will note Ramji denies that “perceived” licensing obligations played a part but he does not actually provide any information to refute this.
Instead, Ramji appeals to Vyatta – no doubt under some pressure after having blown the lid on the whole GPL issue – saying “Dave Roberts of Vyatta posted a blog entry rebutting recent claims that we were accused of a licensing violation.”
Ramji's definition of a rebuttal seems remarkably different to my own. I'd expect a rebuttal to raise arguments proving a claim to be false. That's not what we see in Vyatta's words.
