Microsoft’s hand forced on open-source driver release
Microsoft has unleashed a deluge of comments earlier this week when he published three drivers under GPL v2, as part of Linux. The main purpose of which seemed to have Windows Server Hyper-V and more effective than the virtualization foundation for guest operating systems Linux.
I was less shocked by the news than others. It looked like a business move to smart from Microsoft to continue to refute the reality and appearance did not play well with other operating systems and tools. From a practical point of view provides the technology for Linux, with which it had been better with Windows pretty much made in the form of open source. Meanwhile, Microsoft today much to accept the fact that, like it or not, Linux is going to mount on many of his clients and they have to live with.
Thus, making the driver seemed to make much sense, and then it was certainly a big step on the part of Microsoft, it certainly was not in contradiction with the recent attitude of the company on open source, especially since that Sam Ramji boarded to be senior director of strategy platform.
But it is, there is another layer of history.
On Monday, Stephen Macht Hemminger an announcement on his blog, Network Journal plumber. Stephen is a senior engineer with Vyatta, an open source manufacturers of network infrastructure. Vyatta ago, he was with the Open Source Development Labs (and then the Linux Foundation) and was one of the biggest contributors to Linux kernel code (PDF).
This myth started when a user asked on the forum Vyatta on Hyper-V network driver in the kernel Vyatta. A little Googling found the necessary drivers, but on closer inspection, there was a problem. The driver has two components open-source have been under the GPL and are statically linked to several binary components.
The GPL does not allow mixing of closed and open source components, so this was a flagrant violation of the license. Instead of noise, my goal was to solve the problem; I turned to Greg Kroah-Hartman. Since Novell is a (too) has a close cooperation with Microsoft, has been my hope that Greg was able to prod to get the right people to solve the problem.
It took longer than expected, but Microsoft has finally decided to do the right thing and release the driver.
Despite a brief historical background, which is under GPL believes Linux static linking – the combination of components of a software developer – a work of “derivatives” of components. There are a variety of complex nuances and ambiguities, but for our purposes, the bottom line, if you statically link GPL libraries or other GPL code in your program, the entire program must be released under license LPG.
What Microsoft did not.
I had a conversation with Stephen Hemminger, who reported the first potential problem with the drivers from Microsoft, and he gave me some additional technical features. According to Stephen, called the issue revolves around a Linux kernel feature that EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL May interfaces for modules with a GPL compatible license must be marked. From the perspective of Stephen had proprietary code from Microsoft for some of these interfaces, which was “the kernel does not use non-GPL [code]."
Most likely a violation of the GPL, but hardly one that is just blatantly flouted the law. And the point of view, Hemminger, when Microsoft was aware they were eager to solve ". He said he discovered the first of March, four months is really quick fix things as in large enterprises.
Greg Kroah-Hartman, who is a colleague at Novell and is very supportive of open source to Hyper-V drivers are involved, certainly seems to think that the problem with the license has played a role in the decision by Microsoft. In an email exchange with Mary Jo Foley of ZDNet, he wrote:
MJF [Mary-Jo Foley]: Hemminger said that Microsoft has LIC code under GPL, because they violated the GPL. Is this true? Do you (Microsoft Platform Strategy Chief Sam) Ramji & Co., they bring the violation to do so, you agree to release the code under GPL 2?
GKH [Greg Kroah-Hartman]: I do not beat, "" Nothing, I just had to just point out the obvious situation)
MJF: Is it wrong, you could let me know how to comment (Hemminger's) on his blog to interpret.
GKH: No, it sounds fair.
Microsoft itself has not ruled on the issue.
From what we know at this point, I draw several conclusions. The first is that if Microsoft was that Microsoft five years ago, she found a way, the problem did not cause its code to Linux under the GPL are mitigated.
In some respects, it is now philosophically adapted to work with Linux in a way that was not on when Sam Ramji predecessor, Martin Taylor, could be described as a "top Microsoft anti-Linux in general."
That said, it seems more likely that their little license problem, where at least one function by forcing them to pass their contributions under the GPL.
