Free software lawyers say Microsoft violated the GPL
MICROSOFT DID VIOLATE the GNU General Public License (GPLv2) through the way it distributed its Hyper-V device drivers for Linux, the Software Freedom Law Center has claimed.
According to SD Times, the Vole cured its 'oversight' when it gave more than 20,000 lines of source code to the Linux kernel project last week. The software supposedly enables Linux to perform better when it's run under Microsoft's Hyper-V virtualisation.
Stephen Hemminger, a lead engineer for the networking software maker Vyatta and a Linux kernel contributor, apparently discovered Microsoft's licencing violation.
He noted that the Vole wasn't releasing its source code, even though its Hyper-V synthetic device driver software incorporated Linux kernel source code that was licenced under the GPL. The GPL explicitly prohibits interweaving proprietary, closed source software with free, or open source, software code that's freely available to all users.
Hemminger contacted Greg Kroah-Hartmann, an engineer working for Novell, to help the Vole get right with Linux.
Conforming to the Linux kernel's strict licencing requirements meant that Microsoft had to release its Hyper-V device driver source code under the GPLv2, which it promptly did.
Microsoft has since tried to claim that it had always intended to contribute that source code to the Linux community and conform to the GPLv2 licencing requirements of the Linux kernel, and that it had actually been working to do that "for months".
[ crickets ]
Excuse us, we were far too busy for moment there rolling about on the floor, laughing at that transparently ridiculous assertion by Microsoft. Yeah sure, whatever you say, Steve. µ
Share this:
ShareBusiness Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
What interests me is not the fact that Microsoft violated the GPL, but the fact that they probably consulted a few in-house lawyer-types, who advised them that the danger of getting sued was very real - hence the release of the source code to comply with the licence.
You can bet there will be a massive internal audit going on, at this moment, in case somebody carelessly integrated GPL'ed code with the Windows or Office codebase. That would cause a bit of chair-smashing, and would probably make OpenOffice redundant overnight.
In a nutshell, for those who doubt the legality of the GPL, this episode is a stout endorsement of the licence - from none other than one of its most bitter adversaries.
Excellent points, Oliver. Wouldn't it be a hoot if Microsoft DID find some GPL'ed code in Windoze and Orifice? Of course, one has to look for something to find it, so their best bet is to keep quiet and make sure NOBODY ever sees the codebases.
No doubt the keepers of the GPL are laughing at Microsoft over this one; as you point out, now that Microsoft recognizes the legal validity of the GPL.
I tend to believe Microsoft on this one. They have taken on huge lawsuits before without any concern, they are not afraid of lawsuits. They could have kept this thing in court for years while they backed out any GPL code had they wanted to. Microsoft is not intimidated by lawsuits from anyone smaller than a billion dollar company or major government. I believe the GPL code was allowed in there in the first place because Microsoft was heading in this direction already and knew it would be a non-issue, if not you would have seen a bunch of developers fired for this.
I 'sort of' agree with Tavi, M$'s prompt (after the fact) compliance suggests they knew this day would come.
On the other hand, if they *planned* to release the code all along, I suspect they would have made some announcement of the pending release. Or just released it right away.
I suspect the reality is in the middle - M$ knowingly used open sauce code, they were prepared to release their code, and then shut their mouth and waited as long as possible until someone noticed.
I say we wait 2 months and see if there is a 'layoff' or 'reorg' at MS.
@Tavi
It's not a matter of believing. Microsoft was in talks with the FSF for some time and only after pressure did they release it. The FSF has so stated unequivocally. Microsoft's failure to acknowledge the talks with a yes or no is all that is at question here. They may not comment and deny any other reason, but the fact remains they did talk and were forced to release it.
M$, now that you have been forced to officially acknowledge a *real* GPL violation, could we possibly lay off the FUDD about Linux violating M$ patents?
Perhaps some disgruntled Microsoft employee -- while applying bandages to bruised ribs from flying chairs -- is following this development. OOPS, there goes more GPL-derived Microsoft code, delivered to the media and/or leaked online (where it can be compiled and compared with the binary distributions}.
What fun!
IMO it seems like just a whole lot of anti-MS GPL zealots making a whole lot of noise over nothing. Having looked at the previous "GPL violating" code, it appears to be using exactly the same method as the NVidia and ATI Linux drivers. At worst, it's a grey area that's become de-facto acceptable from the lack of resistance to other binary drivers.
MS has far more legal resources than both ATI and NVidia combined, so if push came to shove, dragging this one to the courts would be a terrible idea from the GPL camp point of view.
My guess is that it simply made commercial sense to GPL it, regardless of any possible license violations. Because the internal structures of the kernel change so often, keeping non-mainline drivers current takes a fair bit of effort. If the code gets accepted into mainline, it's the responsibility of whoever is breaking the structures to fix things up. 20KLoC is really stuff all from a cost point of view, compared to the ongoing effort required to keep it in sync with the kernel. On top of that, those 20KLoC aren't of much value to competitors anyhow.