Microsoft contributes to Linux kernel: a CAOS Theory Q&A

Microsoft has announced that it is to contribute code to the Linux kernel development effort under the GNU General Public License (GPL) v2. What on earth does it all mean? Here’s our take on the situation. With thanks to Jay Lyman for his contribution to the following:

Flying Pig

Q. This is a joke, right?

A. Not at all, although if any announcement is better suited to the image above, we can’t think of one. Microsoft has announced that it is going to contribute code to Linux under the GPLv2.

Q. What code is Microsoft contributing?

A. Microsoft is offering 20,000 lines of its own device drivers to the Linux kernel that will enable Linux to run as a guest on its Hyper-V virtualization technology. Specifically, the contributed loadable kernel modules enable Linux to run in ‘enlightened mode’, giving it efficiencies equivalent to a Windows virtual machine running on Hyper-V.

Q. Why is Microsoft doing this?

A. Red Hat and Novell’s Linux distributions already support enlightened mode, thanks to the development work done by both in partnership with Microsoft. One benefit for Microsoft of contributing to the kernel is that it reduces duplication of effort and the cost of supporting multiple, unique implementations of Linux. Once the code has been accepted into the kernel, Microsoft will use the kernel tree code as the basis for future virtualization integration development.

It also means that community Linux distributions will be able to use the code, which opens up more opportunities for Microsoft in the hosting market, where adoption of community Linux distributions such as Ubuntu, Debian and CentOS is significant. It also therefore slightly strengthens the challenge those community operating systems can make to Red Hat and Novell, which are more direct commercial challengers to Windows.

Make no mistake about it, Microsoft’s contribution is driven by its own interests. While it must serve and respond to enterprise customers that continue to drive the use of multiple operating systems and mixed environments, Microsoft also benefits by differentiating its Hyper-V virtualization technology from virtualization leader VMware. We believe Microsoft sees an opportunity to make virtualization with Windows more Linux-friendly than VMware.

Q. What’s in it for Linux?

A. The interoperability benefits previously reserved for ‘approved’ Microsoft partners will now be available licensed under the GPLv2, and available for all Linux distributions – commercial or community – without the need for a formal partnership.

The contribution of device drivers to the Linux kernel as been a sticking point for the Linux development community in the past as developers have struggled to encourage vendors to contribute driver code to the kernel. Microsoft is therefore setting something of a precedent and could encourage other vendors that have been reticent to contribute their drivers to do so.

The seal of approval Microsoft has given to the GPLv2 is also not to be overlooked. If Microsoft can find a way to contribute to Linux projects, many other organisations may also be encouraged to do so.

Q. I guess Linux is no longer “a cancer” then?

A. Exactly. Back in 2001 Steve Ballmer told the Chicago Sun-Times* “Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That’s the way that the license works.”

Reviewing the statement in the context of today’s announcement demonstrates how much progress Microsoft has made in the intervening years to understand open source licenses. Contribution to Linux, or to any other project under the GPL, would have been unthinkable at the time, and is still barely believable today. The announcement is likely to challenge perceptions of Microsoft’s strategy when it comes to open source, Linux and the most popular open source license.

*The original article is no longer available online. Plenty of references are still available, however.

Q. What does this say about Microsoft’s overall strategy towards open source?

A. The contribution is a significant sign that Microsoft is now prepared to participate with open source projects on their own terms by using the chosen license of that project and making contributions directly to the chosen development forge of that project. Microsoft continues to use its own CodePlex project hosting site for code releases, but if an existing open source project uses SourceForge then Microsoft has acknowledged that the best way to engage with that community is on SourceForge. Don’t expect this to be the last contribution Microsoft does under the GPL.

Microsoft is now becoming more proactive in how it engages with open source under a strategy it describes as ‘Open Edge’ (which we have previously mentioned here and here. Whereas Open Core is used by commercial open source vendors to offer proprietary extensions to open source code, Open Edge is Microsoft’s strategy to encourage open source development and application deployment on top of its suite of commercial software: Windows, Office, Exchange, Sharepoint, SQL Server etc.

The Open Edge strategy is rooted in attempting to ensure Microsoft’s commercial products continue to be relevant to the ecosystem of developers and partners that the company has attracted to its software platform. It is also a continuation of the realization that if customers and developers are going to use open source software, Microsoft is more likely to retain those customers if it helps them use open source on Windows et al.

For more details on Microsoft’s strategy towards open source, its partnerships with open source vendors, and its contributions to open source projects, see The 451 Group’s formal report on the contribution to Linux (the report will shortly be available via this link ).

Q. How is the contribution to the Linux kernel being handled?

A. The contribution is being made via an alliance with the Linux Kernel Driver Project and its maintainer, Greg Kroah-Hartman, who will steward the contribution into the Linux kernel code base. (Greg has a post up about it here).

Q. What are the intellectual property issues?

A. The copyright for the code will remain with Microsoft, with the contributor credit going to its engineering lead, Hank Janssen, group program manager at Microsoft’s Open Source Technology Center.

Q. And patents?

A. If we were putting money on the most likely conspiracy theory to emerge in response to this news it would be that this is a Trojan horse and Microsoft is contributing code to Linux that it will later claim patent rights over. Whether that is even theoretically possible depends on your understanding of the GPLv2.

The GPLv2 contains an implicit patent promise that some would say makes a Trojan horse impossible. However, the FSF obviously thought it necessary to introduce a more explicit patent promise with the GPLv3 to remove any doubt.

Ultimately this is a question for a lawyer, or an eloquence of lawyers (yes it is ironic, apparently). In the meantime, it is our understanding that Microsoft’s understanding is that contributing code using the GPLv2 includes a promise not to charge a royalty for, or assert any patents covering, the code being contributed.

Q. What about Microsoft’s prior claim that Linux infringes its patents?

A. Microsoft really dropped the ball on its communication of the suggestion that free software infringes over 200 of its patents, and tensions with free and open source software advocates are likely to continue to be tested by Linux-related patent agreements, such as the one struck with Melco Holdings last week, which have driven scepticism and mistrust of Microsoft among some key open source supporters.

Absent the company giving up on software patents altogether, we believe that in order to convince those FOSS advocates that it is serious about co-existence, Microsoft needs to find a way to publicly communicate details about those 200+ patents in such a way that is not seen as a threat and would enable open source developers to license, work around, or challenge them. We also believe that the company is aware of this, although finding a solution to the problem will not be easy. But then neither was contributing code to Linux under the GPLv2.

UPDATE – It has subsequently become clear that there were two important questions that were not answered by our Q&A. Those have been covered by an addendum – UPDATE.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

23 comments ↓

#1 451 CAOS Links (caostheory) 's status on Monday, 20-Jul-09 16:02:02 UTC - Identi.ca on 07.20.09 at 11:02 am

[…] http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2009/07/20/microsoft-contributes-to-linux-kernel-a-caos-the… […]

#2 GPLv2 » Current News Trends on 07.20.09 at 12:30 pm

[…] 451 CAOS Theory » Microsoft contributes to Linux kernel: a CAOS … […]

#3 » 451 CAOS Theory » Microsoft contributes to Linux kernel: a CAOS … » Free Software on 07.20.09 at 12:58 pm

[…] news by Matthew Aslett Firefox 3 Hug Day (for Ubuntu) […]

#4 451 CAOS Theory » Microsoft contributes to Linux kernel: a CAOS … « Computer Internet and Technology Articles. on 07.20.09 at 1:15 pm

[…] original here: 451 CAOS Theory » Microsoft contributes to Linux kernel: a CAOS … July 20th, 2009 | Tags: business-models, code, conferences, contribution, gplv2, licensing, […]

#5 451 CAOS Theory » Microsoft contributes to Linux kernel: a CAOS … « Computer Internet and Technology Articles. on 07.20.09 at 1:15 pm

[…] original here: 451 CAOS Theory » Microsoft contributes to Linux kernel: a CAOS … July 20th, 2009 | Tags: business-models, code, conferences, contribution, gplv2, licensing, […]

#6 All about Microsoft mobile edition on 07.20.09 at 3:22 pm

[…] issues, Microsoft officials say they plan to keep the drivers free and, as guaranteed by the GPLv2, won’t sue for patent infringement those who license the Microsoft driver code. posted by Mary Jo Foley July 20, 2009 @ 12:19 […]

#7 Twitted by h_ingo on 07.20.09 at 11:39 pm

[…] This post was Twitted by h_ingo […]

#8 Nicolas Trangez: Microsoft to release Linux HyperV drivers as GPLv2 | Full-Linux.com on 07.21.09 at 1:06 am

[…] Blog of the 451 Group […]

#9 Glyn Moody (glynmoody) 's status on Tuesday, 21-Jul-09 07:39:57 UTC - Identi.ca on 07.21.09 at 2:40 am

[…] http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2009/07/20/microsoft-contributes-to-linux-kernel-a-caos-the… […]

#10 Bob Mottram (motters) 's status on Tuesday, 21-Jul-09 08:21:31 UTC - Identi.ca on 07.21.09 at 3:21 am

[…] http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2009/07/20/microsoft-contributes-to-linux-kernel-a-caos-the… […]

#11 links for 2009-7-21: Microsoft and Linux kernel; Dumb Americans?; Social Media a Cure All? - Technology on 07.21.09 at 10:00 am

[…] Microsoft contributes to Linux kernel: a CAOS Theory Q&A – Times are a changin’ in Redmond.  They are going on the offensive more and now are contributing to existing open-source projects with the "cancerous" GPL even! […]

#12 Christian Einfeldt (einfeldt) 's status on Tuesday, 21-Jul-09 23:26:51 UTC - Identi.ca on 07.21.09 at 6:26 pm

[…] http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2009/07/20/microsoft-contributes-to-linux-kernel-a-caos-the… […]

#13 Christian Einfeldt (einfeldt) 's status on Tuesday, 21-Jul-09 23:28:16 UTC - Identi.ca on 07.21.09 at 6:28 pm

[…] http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2009/07/20/microsoft-contributes-to-linux-kernel-a-caos-the… […]

#14 tecosystems on 07.22.09 at 9:58 am

[…] question? A: The 451 Group’s Matthew Aslett – in a format that looks familiar – answers this question well, I think: If we were putting money on the most likely conspiracy theory to […]

#15 | Tech-monkey.info Blogs on 07.22.09 at 10:13 am

[…] question? A: The 451 Group’s Matthew Aslett – in a format that looks familiar – answers this question well, I think: If we were putting money on the most likely conspiracy theory to […]

#16 Microsoft, the GPL and Linux: The Q&A | Tech-monkey.info Blogs on 07.22.09 at 10:45 am

[…] question? A: The 451 Group’s Matthew Aslett – in a format that looks familiar – answers this question well, I think: If we were putting money on the most likely conspiracy theory to […]

#17 Why Linux Did Not Need Microsoft’s Code Injection | Boycott Novell on 07.23.09 at 6:31 am

[…] Aslett and Jay Lyman from the 451 Group write this Q&A, which concludes with: Absent the company giving up on software patents altogether, we believe […]

#18 451 CAOS Theory » Microsoft’s GPLv2 code - donation or obligation? on 07.24.09 at 6:35 am

[…] announced that it was contributing driver code to the Linux kernel under the GPLv2, and we published a CAOS Theory Q&A to discuss the implications. It has subsequently become clear that there […]

#19 451 CAOS Theory » Microsoft contributes to Linux kernel: a CAOS … | Linux Affinity on 07.27.09 at 2:05 pm

[…] here to see the original: 451 CAOS Theory » Microsoft contributes to Linux kernel: a CAOS … Posted in: […]

#20 Microsoft Open Source Strategy: a chat with Hank Janssen on 09.11.09 at 5:58 am

[…] would say that Microsoft contributing to the Linux kernel showed new capacities to be flexible, a promising adaptive […]

#21 451 CAOS Theory » New approaches to going open highlighted in 2009 on 12.02.09 at 10:28 am

[…] and application deployment on top of its suite of commercial software, much like Microsoft is doing with its “Open Edge” […]

#22 451 CAOS Theory » Community Linux love from Microsoft on 05.17.11 at 3:50 pm

[…] is not the first time MS has displayed love for unpaid, community Linux, given its 2009 contribution of GPL-licensed code to the Linux kernel. This was significant in that it was contribution and […]

#23 451 CAOS Theory » Microsoft, broadest supporter of Linux on 09.14.11 at 6:36 pm

[…] Microsoft has consistently displayed some respect for Linux in general, including its contribution of code to the Linux kernel under the […]