Comments on: “Donating” Code

By: Yuhong Bao

Yuhong Bao — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 05:09:58 +0000

“Microsoft has shaken money out of at least 500 organisations including Linux distributors, claiming IP rights over code they have not written because of patents they refuse to identify in public.”
In fact, only hours after MS’s Hyper-V Linux patch, tridge posted a revised version of the MS FAT LFN patent workaround patch:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/20/425

By: Why Linux Did Not Need Microsoft’s Code Injection | Boycott Novell

Why Linux Did Not Need Microsoft’s Code Injection | Boycott Novell — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:31:52 +0000

[...] explains why Microsoft did not choose the GPL; it was obliged to have it chosen, so it was no donation. So, if my reasoning is correct, and I am very happy to be corrected, this is what seems to be the [...]

By: Don

Don — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:51:40 +0000

The Register ads more details on Microsoft’s violations.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/23/microsoft_hyperv_gpl_violation/

Anon, so MS should have said, we violated the GPL, we got caught by a 3rd party, now after admittedly a long time and lots of tooing and froing, we comply.

By: Anon

Anon — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:42:14 +0000

@Don
Forced sounds impressive, perhaps it is just your journalists licence, but it’s really a bit strong, unless you mean pressured or strongarmed. GPL non-compliance would mean they are are not licensed, not that they are forced to do anything except stop using the GPL bits.

If that’s so then Microsoft was not forced in any way to do this and it’s a prositive move by them.

That Linux Hacker claims he didn’t want to create noise. If that’s so his timing is amazingly bad because he has created quite a bit of noise! :-)

By: Don

Don — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:35:42 +0000

Francois, I noticed the GPLv2/3 thing WRT the Moodle release. Presumably a mistake as MS clearly state that they want to use the same licence as the project.

James, the sense or otherwise is immaterial. It so happens the GPL makes rather more sense than most EULAs I have ever seen but if you are going to use GPL code then you have to abide by the terms of that licence.

By: Random Links #15 | YASDW - yet another software developer weblog

Random Links #15 | YASDW - yet another software developer weblog — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:14:49 +0000

[...] “Donating” Code So schaut die MS-GPL Sache schon wieder ganz anders aus. Wars etwa doch nicht so gewollt? [...]

By: Francois

Francois — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:56:27 +0000

Microsoft also did another code contribution today under the GPLv2:

http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/21/the-live-services-plug-in-for-moodle-debuts.aspx

One thing to note here is that they chose to release their code under the GPLv2 only whereas Moodle is now licensed under GPLv3 or later.

By: Francois

Francois — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:54:16 +0000

Here’s another perspective as to why Microsoft might be contributing this code:

http://alumnit.ca/~apenwarr/log/?m=200907#20

By: James

James — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:33:07 +0000

use some GPL code and link to static GPL binaries.

This makes no sense, GPL code allows linking to GPL code, but not non-GPL code.(well, only if the non-GPL code is GPL compatible, like BSD code)

Also, yes Microsoft was ‘forced’ to release it as GPL, just as everyone who submits code to the kernel is ‘forced’ to release it as GPL.

By: Don Christie (normnz) 's status on Wednesday, 22-Jul-09 10:41:34 UTC - Identi.ca

Don Christie (normnz) 's status on Wednesday, 22-Jul-09 10:41:34 UTC - Identi.ca — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:41:43 +0000

[...] http://passthesource.org.nz/2009/07/22/donating-code/ [...]