All About Microsoft

Mary-Jo Foley

Pigs are flying low: Why Microsoft open-sourced its Linux drivers

By Mary Jo Foley | July 22, 2009, 4:27am PDT

Summary

The pigs are still in the air. Microsoft really did release not one, but two, pieces of code under the formerly Microsoft-hated GNU General Public License (GPL) this week. But one of the key reasons Microsoft agreed to do this was left out of the original tale told by the Softies.

Topics

GPL, Microsoft Corp., Linux, Open Source, UNIX, Operating Systems, Software, Mary Jo Foley

Blogger Info

Vendor HotSpot

Here to help you with your Document Management Needs

Read the DocuMentor blog now

Learn More »

The pigs are still in the air. Microsoft really did release not one, but two, pieces of code under the formerly Microsoft-hated GNU General Public License (GPL) this week. And it still seems the Linux drivers it put under the GPL on July 20 are on their way to becoming incorporated into the next version of the Linux kernel.

But as my ZDNet blogging colleague Paula Rooney and TechFlash’s Todd Bishop both noted yesterday, one of the key reasons Microsoft agreed to do this was left out of the original tale told by the Softies.

Microsoft originally was licensing the Linux drivers, also known as the Linux Integration Components (LIC), in a way that was in violation of the GPL. It was offering them under a combination of the GPL and a closed source license.

Greg Kroah-Hartman, a Novell fellow with SuSE Labs and Linux Driver Project lead, said on Monday he was approached by a “community member” about the drivers months ago and that he thought it would be a good idea for Microsoft to submit them. What Kroah-Hartman didn’t mention (until he later added an update to his blog post) was the community member who approached him was the “Linux Network Plumber,” a k a Stephen Hemminger, a well-known Linux contributor who is a principal engineer with the open-source networking vendor Vyatta.

Hemminger made it clear in his own blog post that he didn’t approach Kroah-Hartman because he liked Microsoft’s drivers; he approached him because the way Microsoft was licensing them — by mixing open- and closed source components — was in violation of the GPL.

I re-contacted Kroah-Hartman last night to verify this new piece of information. Here’s what he said, via e-mail:

MJF: Hemminger is claiming Microsoft put the LIC code under the GPL because it was in violation of the GPL. Is this true? Did you have to suggest to (Microsoft Platform Strategy Chief Sam) Ramji & Co. that they were in violation in order to get them to agree to release the code under GPLv2?

GKH: I didn’t have to “suggest” anything, I only had to merely point out the obviousness of the situation :)

MJF: If this isn’t accurate, could you let me know how to interpret (Hemminger’s) comments on his blog.

GKH: No, that sounds accurate.

This isn’t the first time Microsoft has run afoul of the open-source licensing police. The company has pulled code from its CodePlex site when it was discovered that it was not adhering to OSI licensing terms but advertising that the code was under an open-source license.

I’ve asked Microsoft officials if they’d like to comment on this new piece of information. If I get a response, I will add it to this post.

Update (July 24): It took a few days, but Microsoft has issued an official response, via a posting to the Port 25 blog. Microsoft is sticking to its original story, in spite of Kroah-Hartman and Hemminger’s updates. From Ramji’s post:

“Microsoft chose the GPLv2 license for the mutual benefit of our customers, partners, the community, and Microsoft.

“Microsoft’s decision was not based on any perceived obligations tied to the GPLv2 license.”

Ramji didn’t come right out and deny the GPL violations claim, but I guess that’s as much as we’re going to get.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 25 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

More from “All About Microsoft”

Who will get the Windows 7 bits and when?

Will the 'real' Windows 7 testers please stand up?

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?

Ask a Question Start a Discussion

Talkback Most Recent of 40 Talkback(s)

Follow via:: RSS; Email Alert

gpl2 forced them to free the source code

In my opinion they need to kill virtualbox, vmware or kvm
(redhat/ubuntu) so it's doesn't matter to throw some lines of
code to the linux kernel via the novell proxy programmers

Here is why again they were forced to free (liberate) the code
http://passthesource.org.nz/2009/07/22/donating-code/
also some boycott novell remarks
http://boycottnovell.com/2009/07/21/microsoft-linux-v-patch/
mariuz

07/22/2009 05:10 AM
- Reply to
- Flag
At one person has very low expectations here

At least one person, Randal C. Kennedy, has a very low opinion of this. He seems to think this is part of the usual embrace, extend, extinguish campaign that Microsoft is sure to follow.

Although I'm willing to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt, I'm not willing to give them that much benefit. With revenues tanking, and competitors all around encroaching on their once exclusive territory, it'd be hard not to see them try again to beat Linux with patents.
epitax

07/22/2009 05:42 AM
- Reply to
- Flag
So typical...

The softies couldn't even comprehend and follow the rules in the GPL license!
SpikeyMike

07/22/2009 07:44 AM
- Reply to
- Flag
Just a small part of "The Microsoft Creep"

(Embrace, Extend, Assimilate or Exterminate)

http://boycottnovell.com/2009/07/20/microsoft-fcc-steven-vanroekel/
Microsoft ?Takes Over? the FCC

MANY FOSS PEOPLE ARE no friends of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) because the FCC is no friend of Free software. They went as far as public humiliation. Some recent FCC scandals aside (Professor Lessig wants them thrown out), the FCC repeatedly fails to carry out its job; business interests are sometimes blamed for bias, apathy, or sympathy towards offending companies which the FCC is there to regulate and punlish. So, it may as well be stated that the new Managing Director of the FCC is a Microsoft executive, who is changing hats.
Ole Man

(Edited: 07/22/2009 08:29 AM)
- Reply to
- Flag
And the link proves what?

That anything can be reported on with a slant or bias in a particular direction.

The FCC is against FOSS because [place slant here]

Microsoft controls the FCC because an EX Microsoft director was picked for the job?

So if a Google executive leaves for a new company, that means that Google now controls that new company? Just applying your logic.

Sometimes many people involved in FOSS tend to think that they are entitled to more then their fair share as they are "working for free", and cry when they are forced to stand in line with he rest of the world.
GuidingLight

07/22/2009 09:13 AM
- Reply to
- Flag
Just goes to show

That anybody can see beauty or ugly in anything they look at, and if their sight is predetermined to see only beautiful things in every ugly thing they behold, it won't make any difference what they see.
Ole Man

07/22/2009 12:08 PM
- Flag
And you are exempt..

from doing the same for your imaginary ugly things?

Seems pretty obvious that you spread more propaganda and hate then anyone else here.

Interesting how your own logic never applies to you.

You are now dismissed from your position of Microsoft hater until you can at least be more crediable in that role. Take a vacation and come back when you are thinking more clearly.
ShadowGIATL

07/22/2009 07:19 PM
- Flag
Um, right

You've given us reason to give you a tech license: "crediable".

I'm not a Micro$oft hater. They've paid a lot of bills since '85 or '86. And I own stock.

But I am granted my observations and the right to point out their flaws and my observations, regardless of how critical (they might be).

It's been asserted Micro$oft was going to try to dip a toe into the open source world, but only with particular pieces exposed. I'd liken that to the exits IBM has had in their world of boat anchors.

I believe they were trying to make their first attempt in an area which would be immune from making their own ca$h cows branded. If they failed, they could say it explains why Linux is so complicated and Windows is so easy.

Their problem was trying (or giving the impression ) to think they could outsmart anyone outside of the scope of their influence.

Micro$oft is a goldfish bowl and needs to remember there is a world outside of it which works without their efforts.

They aren't going to go away, but they must learn to be more agile. In the IBM world, the phrases were, "beware the dancing elephant" and the reference to a battleship which has to put on the skids for many miles before it can be in a position of turning back.
Mihi Nomen Est

07/22/2009 07:39 PM
- Flag
Interesting.

But I am granted my observations and the right to point out their flaws and my observations, regardless of how critical (they might be).

Yes you are entitled to your opinions, however, sighting propaganda websites and purely fictional theories of how Microsoft got so big the way Ole_Man does simply destroys any point they try to make.

They would be better suited to tone down their over the top accusations and join the real world where Microsoft isn't perfect, but they also aren't hell bent on destroying the world with every decidion they make.

It's been asserted Micro$oft was going to try to dip a toe into the open source world, but only with particular pieces exposed. I'd liken that to the exits IBM has had in their world of boat anchors

Why does this matter so much? There is no law stating that a company must open source their software, or otherwise there are hundreds of companies in violation of that law. Apple being one of the biggest violators, being their OS is based largely on FreeBSD and other open source technology, yet the Mac OS itself is not open source.

To base your whole argument on Microsofts decidion to do something they didn't actually have to do seems rather... nit picky.

Be happy they are beginning to work with the OSS community finally, even if they do have to pull teeth to get them to. It's a start. What are you doing to help?
ShadowGIATL

07/23/2009 12:08 AM
- Flag
Apologists are a dime a dozen

While those who mine for the truth are rare.

I am proud to be a member of the minority. You are welcome to run with the herd. Good luck!
Ole Man

07/23/2009 07:16 AM
- Flag
@Old Man

Apologists are a dime a dozen
While those who mine for the truth are rare.

I have apologized for nothing. And it is the fact that I mine for truth that I find your post in total falsehood. You are nothing more then a petty propagandist.

I am proud to be a member of the minority. You are welcome to run with the herd. Good luck!

Actually... I state my own opinions rather then siting dodgy anti-MS sites known for bias. You however, follow the rest of the MS hate groups with your endless, uninformed barrage of unfounded insults, and offer no real eviedence.

Who is the sheep here? Baaaa.
ShadowGIATL

07/23/2009 02:30 PM
- Flagged
MS caught in an error, corrects it, tried to give it a positive PR spin.

Really...... What propaganda site....MS PR department?
Dose not MJF's blog in a off-hand way confirms it?

I am sure they (MS) are unhappy about it (using the GPL) and in some future time will probably correct it with code from BSD/LGPL or other open source license. I mean how would it look if they did not respect the licensing terms of others.......

Anyway Open source is a somewhat vague superset, encompassing many different licenses, rather than just the Free Software's GNU GPL. Some companies, organisations actually try to find some middle ground to meet their needs, (BSD, Mozilla, MIT) some others just use Open source as a market buzzword.

By the way MS had use BSD network stack for awhile, and the only requirement is basically, they(MS) list it in their Copyright notice.
LazLong

07/23/2009 07:21 PM
- Flag
Asinine argumentation

"There is no law stating that a company must open source their software, or otherwise there are hundreds of companies in violation of that law. Apple being one of the biggest violators, being their OS is based largely on FreeBSD and other open source technology, yet the Mac OS itself is not open source."

Ok, you're saying that there is no law that mandates using Open Source.

Then you claim that Apple is one the big violators (of what?) because they use BSD (which does NOT require that changes are published) for OS X.

So where are you going with this "argumentation"?

Nowhere, abso-*******-lutely nowhere, as usual with your pathetic MS apologist arguments...
EarFix

07/24/2009 05:17 AM
- Flag
RE: Pigs are flying low: Why Microsoft open-sourced its Linux drivers

could be worse
Shelendrea

07/22/2009 09:16 AM
- Reply to
- Flag
RE: Pigs are flying low: Why Microsoft open-sourced its Linux drivers

And Microsoft not playing fair is news?
dheady@...

07/22/2009 09:48 AM
- Reply to
- Flag