GNOME & Mono Made Love At Microsoft Last Week

[directhex]

You are talkin about HyperV driver that is written by Microsoft so they can use Linux with their own HyperV?

So, this is the driver by Microsoft & for Microsoft?

Should I care?

You should. It demonstrates the very purpose of Free Software - selfish work, released under a license which benefits everyone. Microsoft wrote drivers for the kernel which benefited them - and that's fine. Realtek write drivers for Realtek hardware, Adaptec write drivers for Adaptec hardware, and so on.

The point is, Microsoft played by the rules. They're playing in our sandbox.

And if you freak out like a little child at the thought of Microsoft having any involvement, no matter how tangential, with Free code under a Free license, then, well, start freaking out over the kernel too.

GNOME is a reasonable example - freaking out because there's one app on the recommended list built with Mono? Grow up - or dump the kernel. Decrying all of GNOME, but not decrying the kernel, is childish hypocrisy of the highest order.

[DavidNielsen]

We had a really great time at the GNOME & Mono Festival of Love 2012

Just to be clear though, Microsoft had no influence what so ever on what we did nor what license we released things under. They did however kindly lend us a really nice room with smoking fast wifi and free soda, coffee e.g.. All without asking any questions or making any demands (aside a request for a polite thank you which frankly is the least any well raised human being would do in this situation).

Regardless we got a lot of really awesome work done, all of which you will see as it hits applications such as Banshee, Tasque, Tomboy and friends. We are on track to deliver more great stuff on more platforms, including GNOME3 and we had a fantastic time in the progress. We even had a little bit of fun in between sessions of hacking, such as taking silly pictures like me "worshipping" the Microsoft sign.

I post a report to the Foundation and our other sponsors here for those interested:
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foun.../msg00002.html

[XorEaxEax]

The point is, Microsoft played by the rules. They're playing in our sandbox.

Microsoft had no intention of contributing the hyper-v drivers to Linux as they wanted to just provide the functionality through it's cloud service, however they made the mistake of distributing a network driver statically linked to GPL licenced code in their hyper-v and thus in violation of the licence. After realizing they had to open source this driver code Microsoft put on the big theatrics of doing this in some community spirit.

http://linux-network-plumber.blogspo...microsoft.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-V#Linux_support

It's the same old Microsoft.

[directhex]

Microsoft had no intention of contributing the hyper-v drivers to Linux as they wanted to just provide the functionality through it's cloud service, however they made the mistake of distributing a network driver statically linked to GPL licenced code in their hyper-v and thus in violation of the licence. After realizing they had to open source this driver code Microsoft put on the big theatrics of doing this in some community spirit.

http://linux-network-plumber.blogspo...microsoft.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-V#Linux_support

It's the same old Microsoft.

Shipping .o files with header glue. Never seen that before. Except with NVIDIA or ATI or Highpoint. Of course, nobody shits their pants over those because they aren't OMGMICROSOFT.

[XorEaxEax]

Shipping .o files with header glue.

How about you look up the term static linking?

Except with NVIDIA or ATI or Highpoint.

If they shipped proprietary drivers statically linked to GPL code they would be in licence violation. What is your point?

[directhex]

How about you look up the term static linking?


If they shipped proprietary drivers statically linked to GPL code they would be in licence violation. What is your point?

The linux-network-plumber analysis was wrong. I did the checking myself.

[XorEaxEax]

The linux-network-plumber analysis was wrong. I did the checking myself.

LOL wut? Please point me to your findings!

[directhex]

LOL wut? Please point me to your findings!

... the comments of the post you linked to?

[XorEaxEax]

... the comments of the post you linked to?

Yes, someone does mention in the comment section that Stephen and Greg K H finds this Microsoft driver to be an obvious GPL violation, but also that Greg KH has gone on record saying 'nvidia-glx' is illegal aswell, which actually supports your notion that NVidia is (atleast in Greg K H's view) just as much in violation of GPL as Microsoft was. Of course unlike what you were trying to insinuate, it's not as if the kernel devs have any kind of love for NVidia and save their spite for Microsoft, I'd say they've been alot more outspoken regarding their negative fellings towards NVidia.

I'd love to have the source qoute where Greg says he thinks 'nvidia-glx' is illegal as it's good to have that as a reference, do you know where he said it?

[DavidNielsen]

Yes, someone does mention in the comment section that Stephen and Greg K H finds this Microsoft driver to be an obvious GPL violation, but also that Greg KH has gone on record saying 'nvidia-glx' is illegal aswell, which actually supports your notion that NVidia is (atleast in Greg K H's view) just as much in violation of GPL as Microsoft was. Of course unlike what you were trying to insinuate, it's not as if the kernel devs have any kind of love for NVidia and save their spite for Microsoft, I'd say they've been alot more outspoken regarding their negative fellings towards NVidia.

I'd love to have the source qoute where Greg says he thinks 'nvidia-glx' is illegal as it's good to have that as a reference, do you know where he said it?

Greg has repeated that contention a number of times, however I don't think he has ever actually consulted a lawyer on the matter. I can point you to a number of other developers, including, Linus who claims that the copyright in question is not infringed upon, largely Greg is on his own in terms of the high profile kernel developers claiming it is downright illegal (plenty of developers will, rightly, claim that it is crap and the cause of issues but completely within the limits of the GPLv2)

http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html