Re: Pigs do fly

jc wrote:

"Harold Stevens" wrote:
Microsoft was in violation of the GPL (General Public License) on the
Hyper-V code it released to open source this week.

After Redmond covered itself in glory by opening up the code, it now
looks like it may have acted simply to head off any potentially
embarrassing legal dispute over violation of the GPL. The rest was
theater.

More:

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


"The combining of open- and closed- code in the Hyper-V driver may well have been a case of individuals not really knowing what they were doing, not understanding the license, or hoping to get away with it."

Or, MS thought they could manipulate GPL to their advantage.


jc


I think this code has been seen by someone who did not signed the NDA (yet). They had no choice. They had to admit they used GPL-ed software in that chunk of code. Be sure this mistake will not be made again.

However... will it be the only GPL-ed code?

Is it too fare streched to think the kernel of Vista/Windows7 contains a some (maybe a lot) GPL-ed software?

Do not forget their original "Longhorn" was becoming a heavy weight crawling slow monster. They had to make a design turn - and fast! And all of the sudden they made a completely new design in a relatively short time. Do not forget Longhorn had a VERY long development time and they are getting nowhere. And then - out of the "blue" - they got a far more usable system.

People whom seen that code also have to sign an NDA before even glaring at it from a distance. Those NDA's are carefully designed. If someone should talk about something "touchy" his life and career will be ruined forever. Also those people are carefully selected from a group of trustworthy people, and will keep their mouth tightly shut.

Well - I cannot prove anything (and certainly not signed a NDA), but I have my suspicions..
.

Quantcast