

Microsoft Contributes Linux Drivers to Linux Community - rglullis
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2009/Jul09/07-20LinuxQA.mspx

======
rbanffy
Well... Now we know what Linux code is covered by Microsoft's patents ;-)

Seriously: this is something that should be expected. This is the only license
they would use to license Linux kernel drivers that allow Linux to run better
under Hyper-V. It's not out of kindness but of forcedly enlightened self-
interest.

It's likely a response to some heavyweight clients saying: "Look... We use
Windows here, but those Linux servers won't go away and they run like crap
under your Hyper-V thing. Fix it or we will run VMWare, Xen or something else"

~~~
j_baker
I think this is more of an indicator that Microsoft finally has the business
sense to realize that GPL'ed software isn't just some fad for tree-hugging
hippies. That also means that they _may_ be starting to realize that they
can't control the market just based on the fact that Windows is on 90% of all
desktops.

------
therevgroup
Tentative Opinion: If Microsoft would just completely loosen up and willfully
co-exist that they could increase their popularity and sales.

Idealistic fantasy? I have no sense of what % of the market are dual-
booters/VM users. Businesses that use MS – they won’t, IMO, switch to Linux
any time soon. From the trial of windows 7, it seems like a promising OS. With
me, avoiding MS is more a matter of not wanting to support their controlling
business practices.

This seems viable to me. Anyone agree?

------
whughes
They didn't mention the word "GNU" once. Is it a deliberate snub? They said
"General Public License" and "GPL," leaving out any mention of Stallman, GNU
or the FSF. Seems like they're targeting this release more toward corporate IT
that view "Linux" as another platform like "Windows" rather than the free
crowd.

~~~
wmf
There are a lot of people in the ESR/open source crowd who never mention GNU,
FSF, or RMS. MS is hardly unusual in that respect.

------
chanux
Microsoft? GPL? wow! I never imagined I'd live to hear this.

~~~
notphilatall
The drivers allow Linux to run atop Microsoft's new virtualization platform,
and don't do anything if you're running Linux any other way.

They're giving themselves a lot of credit for releasing drivers that only
support their product.

~~~
iigs
As a former MS employee (with quite a few friends who still work there) it
definitely surprises me to see them releasing GPL code at all. MS is terrified
of the GPL -- I don't mean as an enemy in the marketplace (although there too)
-- but mortally afraid of GPL code tainting any of their proprietary code
bases causing them to need to give up the source to Windows or Office.

I can imagine a team within LCA (the MSFT legal department) worked long and
hard on this project -- quite possibly more work as a legal exercise than as a
development one.

~~~
callahad
The GPL cannot force you to open your source:
<http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851>

~~~
lutorm
That was interesting, thanks for posting that. But (going slightly off-topic),
it left me with a question:

"Because there are no further agreed-upon promises, no reciprocal obligations.
It would be a contract if I said to the owner of a pond: if you give me a
license to fish in this pond, I'll give you half of all the fish I catch. In
that scenario, each of us has voluntarily entered into a kind of promise. We
each give the other something of value, so if I get the license and then I
don't give over half of all my catch of the day, the pond owner can sue me for
not living up to the terms of the contract."

This makes no sense to me. Why is it "It would be a contract if I said to the
owner of a pond: if you give me a license to fish in this pond, I'll give you
half of all the fish I catch." and not "It would be a contract if I said to
the owner of a pond: if you give me a license to fish in this pond, I'll give
you ten bucks." ??

~~~
anigbrowl
What you're doing there is not a contract, it's an _invitation to bargain_
(aka invitation to treat). You make an offer, the counterparty can accept,
reject, or negotiate, and once you have reached mutually agreeable terms you
conduct an exchange and your business is over. There may be an implied
contract (eg that the pond has not since dried up) but not necessarily.

A contract, on the other hand, is a forward looking document. It's based on
the idea that you'll reach an agreement and something of value will be
exchanged to seal the deal (which is why you hear of contracts for $1), but
that the exchange will be incomplete until some time later.

For example, if you buy a concert ticket, your transaction with the vendor
ends as soon as you receive the ticket, but the ticket itself is (typically) a
kind of contract between the holder and the promoter, who promises to stage
the event and provide admission to all ticket holders or refund the face
value.

------
sgoraya
Slightly off topic, but I just read an article regarding how Nissan Plants
used MS's Hyper V visualization to consolidate 159 servers down to 28 via
combining apps & stacking multiple VM's per rack server (avg of 8 VM's per
server).

Tangentially related to the release of the drivers I suppose, but the article
was fresh in my mind.

------
lg
Here's the job ad, though the site is extremely slow right now:
<https://careers.microsoft.com/JobDetails.aspx?jid=5072>

------
scscsc
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=714668>

------
metatronscube
Its a trap!

