Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/07/29/microsoft-gpl.html
Microsoft has received much undeserved press about their recent release
of Linux drivers for their virtualization technology under GPLv2. I say
“undeserved” because I don’t particularly see why Microsoft
should be lauded merely for doing something that is in their own
interest that they’ve done before.
Most people have forgotten that Microsoft once had a GPL-based product
available for Windows NT. It was called Windows Services for
UNIX, and AFAICT, remains available today (although perhaps
they’ve transitioned in recent years to no longer include GPL’d
software).
This product
was acquired
by Microsoft when they purchased Softway Systems. The product was
based on GCC, and included a variety of GNU system utilities ported to
Windows. Microsoft was a compliant distributor of this software for
years, right during the time when they were calling the GPL an unAmerican
cancerous virus that eats up software like PacMan. The GPL is not a new
license to Microsoft; they only pretend that it is to give bad press to
the GPL or to give good press to themselves.
Another thing that’s not new to Microsoft is that they have no
interesting in contributing to Free Software unless it makes their
proprietary software more desirable. In my old example above, they
hoped to entice developers who preferred a Unix development environment to
switch to Windows NT. In the recent Linux driver release, they seek to
convince developers to switch from Xen and KVM to their proprietary
virtualization technology.
In fact, the only difference in this particular release is that, unlike
in the case of Softway’s
software, Microsoft
was apparently (according to Steve Hemminger) out of compliance
briefly. According to Steve, Microsoft distributed binaries linked
to various GPL parts.
Meanwhile, Sam Ramji claimed that Microsoft were already planning to
release the software before Hemminger and Greg K-H contacted them. I do
believe Sam when he says that there was already talk inside Microsoft
about releasing the source underway before the Linux developers
began their enforcement effort. However, that internal Microsoft talk
doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a problem. As soon as one distributes
the binaries of a GPL’d work, one must provide the source (or an offer therefor) alongside
those binaries. Thus, if Microsoft released binaries and delayed in
releasing source, there was a GPL violation.
Like all GPL violations (and potential GPL violations), it’s left to
the copyright holders of the software to engage in enforcement. I think
it’s great
that, according
to Steve and related press coverage, the Linux developers used the most common enforcement
strategy in the GPL community — quietly contact the company,
inform them of their obligations, and help them in a friendly way into
compliance. That process almost always works, and the fact that
Microsoft came into compliance shows the value of our community’s
standard enforcement practice.
Still, there is a more important item of note from a perspective of
software freedom. This Linux driver — whether it is released properly
under the GPL or kept proprietary in violation of the GPL — is designed to convince users to give up Free
virtualization platforms like Xen and KVM and use Microsoft’s
virtualization technology instead. From that perspective, it matters
little that it was released as Free Software: people should avoid the
software and use platforms for virtualization that respect their
freedom.
Someday, perhaps, Microsoft will take a proper place among other large
companies that actually contribute code that improves the general
infrastructure of Free Software. Many companies give generally useful
improvements back to Linux, GCC, and various other parts of the
GNU/Linux system. Microsoft has never done this: they only contribute
code when it improves Free Software interoperability with their
proprietary technology. The day that Microsoft actually changes its
attitude toward Free Software did not occur last week. Microsoft’s old
strategy stays the
same: try
to kill Free Software with patents, and in the meantime, convince as
many Free Software users as possible to begin relying on Microsoft
proprietary technology.