Comments about Microsoft and the GPL

[Yaakov Nemoy]

Hey All,

While this isn't 100% Fedora related, being such fans of upstream that
we are, we can definitely go somewhere with this. You've probably seen
in the news by now that Microsoft is making a pretty substantial
contribution to the Linux kernel.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2009/Jul09/07-20LinuxQA.mspx
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10290686-16.html
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/072009-microsoft-linux-source-code....

And if you need a good laugh:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/07/20/1643251/Microsoft-Releases-Linux-...

The way i see it, is that we can do one or more of several things
based on this. Of course we can continue talking about upstream as a
path to success, but i'm wondering, being no marketing expert myself,
what else can we do with such a message? Is this a message we can try
to take around to various different people and push extensively as
proof that the system works? Is this even something we can take to
mainstream media even though we're so fond of staying out of it for
the very minimal real effect we have? Or do we ignore it because it's
not Fedora?

Cheers,
Yaakov

[Keiran Smith]

Well looks like us linux users can look forward to some of the instabilities
of windows in our Own Operating Systems. What are microsoft thinking

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Yaakov Nemoy <loupgaroublond(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote:

>  Hey All,
>
>  While this isn't 100% Fedora related, being such fans of upstream that
>  we are, we can definitely go somewhere with this. You've probably seen
>  in the news by now that Microsoft is making a pretty substantial
>  contribution to the Linux kernel.
>
>  http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2009/Jul09/07-20LinuxQA.mspx
>  http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10290686-16.html
>
>  http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/072009-microsoft-linux-source-code....
>
>  And if you need a good laugh:
>
>
>
> http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/07/20/1643251/Microsoft-Releases-Linux-...
>
>  The way i see it, is that we can do one or more of several things
>  based on this. Of course we can continue talking about upstream as a
>  path to success, but i'm wondering, being no marketing expert myself,
>  what else can we do with such a message? Is this a message we can try
>  to take around to various different people and push extensively as
>  proof that the system works? Is this even something we can take to
>  mainstream media even though we're so fond of staying out of it for
>  the very minimal real effect we have? Or do we ignore it because it's
>  not Fedora?
>
>  Cheers,
>  Yaakov
>
>  --
>  Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
>  Fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
>  


-- 
Keiran Smith
- Fedora Ambassador / BugZapper - <affix(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
- Free Software Foundation Associate - <keiran.smith(a)member.fsf.org&gt;
- http://keiran-smith.net
- Call me on [phone]

[Frank Murphy]

On 21/07/09 10:04, Keiran Smith wrote:
>  Well looks like us linux users can look forward to some of the
>  instabilities of windows in our Own Operating Systems. What are
>  microsoft thinking
>  
It gives them an excuse to blame OSS, for their A1 code,
not to function :D

Regards,

Frank

[Yaakov Nemoy]

2009/7/21 Keiran Smith <affix(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;:
>  Well looks like us linux users can look forward to some of the
> instabilities
>  of windows in our Own Operating Systems. What are microsoft thinking 
Yes, and they are going to replace the 'halt' command with 'start', so
when you type

$ sudo start

your system shuts down.

Seriously, this is not how the GPL works. As long as it remains GPL,
then the Linux devs can do their own fine job bringing instabilities
to the kernel, like they've been doing for years. Somehow, i don't
think that's really going to happen though.

-Yaakov

>  On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Yaakov Nemoy <loupgaroublond(a)gmail.com&gt;
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hey All,
> >
> > While this isn't 100% Fedora related, being such fans of upstream that
> > we are, we can definitely go somewhere with this. You've probably seen
> > in the news by now that Microsoft is making a pretty substantial
> > contribution to the Linux kernel.
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2009/Jul09/07-20LinuxQA.mspx
> > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10290686-16.html
> >
> > http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/072009-microsoft-linux-source-code....
> >
> > And if you need a good laugh:
> >
> >
> >
> http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/07/20/1643251/Microsoft-Releases-Linux-...
> >
> > The way i see it, is that we can do one or more of several things
> > based on this. Of course we can continue talking about upstream as a
> > path to success, but i'm wondering, being no marketing expert myself,
> > what else can we do with such a message? Is this a message we can try
> > to take around to various different people and push extensively as
> > proof that the system works? Is this even something we can take to
> > mainstream media even though we're so fond of staying out of it for
> > the very minimal real effect we have? Or do we ignore it because it's
> > not Fedora?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Yaakov
> >
> > --
> > Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
> > Fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
>
>
>
>  --
>  Keiran Smith
>  - Fedora Ambassador / BugZapper - <affix(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  - Free Software Foundation Associate - <keiran.smith(a)member.fsf.org&gt;
>  - http://keiran-smith.net
>  - Call me on [phone]
>
>  --
>  Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
>  Fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
>

[Nicu Buculei]

On 07/21/2009 12:04 PM, Keiran Smith wrote:
>  Well looks like us linux users can look forward to some of the
>  instabilities of windows in our Own Operating Systems. What are
>  microsoft thinking 
I don't think you will be affected by this code unless you run a 
virtualized Linux guest on a Windows host and if you do that... well, 
probably you already have bigger problems :p

I am quite pleased by the Microsoft announcement, from now on when an MS 
astroturfer will try to throw FUD at me about Linux being inferior 
security and quality wise compared with Microsoft solutions I can smile 
and point Microsoft *is* a contributor to the Linux kernel.

The same about GPL: after releasing code under GPL, it would be really 
embarrassing for Microsoft to call again it as being "communist", 
"cancer" or "Pac-Man".


>  On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
>
>      While this isn't 100% Fedora related, being such fans of upstream that
>      we are, we can definitely go somewhere with this. You've probably seen
>      in the news by now that Microsoft is making a pretty substantial
>      contribution to the Linux kernel.
>
>      http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2009/Jul09/07-20LinuxQA.mspx 

-- 
nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com/
photography: http://photoblog.nicubunu.ro/
my Fedora stuff: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro/

[Kamin Horvath]

I think this is a great contribution by Microsoft, and shows that maybe they
are willing to cooperate with the open source community.

But I am a little worried, as there is always the chance that this could be
the groundwork of their infamous "embrace, extend, extinguish" policy. But
hopefully, it will be a genuine contribution and in the future we can look
foward to further contributions and cooperation with Microsoft.


On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:25 AM, Nicu Buculei <nicu_fedora(a)nicubunu.ro&gt;wrote:

>  On 07/21/2009 12:04 PM, Keiran Smith wrote:
>
> > Well looks like us linux users can look forward to some of the
> > instabilities of windows in our Own Operating Systems. What are
> > microsoft thinking
> >
>
>  I don't think you will be affected by this code unless you run a
>  virtualized Linux guest on a Windows host and if you do that... well,
>  probably you already have bigger problems :p
>
>  I am quite pleased by the Microsoft announcement, from now on when an MS
>  astroturfer will try to throw FUD at me about Linux being inferior security
>  and quality wise compared with Microsoft solutions I can smile and point
>  Microsoft *is* a contributor to the Linux kernel.
>
>  The same about GPL: after releasing code under GPL, it would be really
>  embarrassing for Microsoft to call again it as being "communist",
> "cancer"
>  or "Pac-Man".
>
>
>   On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
> >
> >    While this isn't 100% Fedora related, being such fans of upstream that
> >    we are, we can definitely go somewhere with this. You've probably seen
> >    in the news by now that Microsoft is making a pretty substantial
> >    contribution to the Linux kernel.
> >
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2009/Jul09/07-20LinuxQA.mspx
> >
>
>
>  --
>  nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com/
>  photography: http://photoblog.nicubunu.ro/
>  my Fedora stuff: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro/
>
>  --
>  Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
>  Fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
>  


-- 
Kamin Horvath
Fedora Ambassadors USA
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mohaas05

[Paul W. Frields]

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:25:14PM +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote:
>  On 07/21/2009 12:04 PM, Keiran Smith wrote:
> > Well looks like us linux users can look forward to some of the
> > instabilities of windows in our Own Operating Systems. What are
> > microsoft thinking
>
>  I don't think you will be affected by this code unless you run a  
>  virtualized Linux guest on a Windows host and if you do that... well,  
>  probably you already have bigger problems :p
>
>  I am quite pleased by the Microsoft announcement, from now on when an MS  
>  astroturfer will try to throw FUD at me about Linux being inferior  
>  security and quality wise compared with Microsoft solutions I can smile  
>  and point Microsoft *is* a contributor to the Linux kernel.
>
>  The same about GPL: after releasing code under GPL, it would be really  
>  embarrassing for Microsoft to call again it as being "communist",  
>  "cancer" or "Pac-Man". 
I think it's quite simple for Microsoft to say, "We still don't like
the GPL, but because these drivers will help our customers, and
because this license is required to get them in the kernel, we've done
it."  Certainly there are places in Microsoft that are open to
thinking constructively about open source and how it fits into their
business and customer engagements.  But I think trying to cast it as a
philosophical sea change is wishful thinking.

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug

[Nicolas Chauvet]

2009/7/21 Nicu Buculei <nicu_fedora(a)nicubunu.ro&gt;:
>  On 07/21/2009 12:04 PM, Keiran Smith wrote:
> >
> > Well looks like us linux users can look forward to some of the
> > instabilities of windows in our Own Operating Systems. What are
> > microsoft thinking
>
>  I don't think you will be affected by this code unless you run a virtualized
>  Linux guest on a Windows host and if you do that... well, probably you
>  already have bigger problems :p 
And that could be a problem for us, since the
opposite (Windows on top
of linux) isn't that equivalent.
That's  because of the hardware coverrage isn't the same. (3D graphics
/ raid drivers / others).

One could say, it will be easier for Linux to live on top of windows.
That way drivers could remains closed sources and linux not a real OS
anymore, just providing few services on top of the real OS.

While the European Union is presuring to remove out IE from the next
windows bundle, /me think it would have been more valuable to only
keep the very basic hardware support layers from the OS, so everything
else could have been optional.

At least I can see one way to have the announcement turn into our
favour. It would be to have it compared with other opensourcing
announcement such the AMD/ATI one. Even if the reasons behind have
nothing to be compared, it could present theses as a success story for
the free software development scheme.
That should have be directed to end-users asking them to keep
presuring on hardware vendosr for free software solutions over
proprietary ones.

Nicolas (kwizart)

[Affix]

With microsoft contributing to the kernel does this mean we may see a
unix based windows version. Personally I think windows should be unix
based as with mac OSX it will greatly increase stability and security.


On Tuesday, July 21, 2009, Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  2009/7/21 Nicu Buculei <nicu_fedora(a)nicubunu.ro&gt;:
> > On 07/21/2009 12:04 PM, Keiran Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> Well looks like us linux users can look forward to some of the
> >> instabilities of windows in our Own Operating Systems. What are
> >> microsoft thinking
> >
> > I don't think you will be affected by this code unless you run a virtualized
> > Linux guest on a Windows host and if you do that... well, probably you
> > already have bigger problems :p
>  And that could be a problem for us, since the opposite (Windows on top
>  of linux) isn't that equivalent.
>  That's  because of the hardware coverrage isn't the same. (3D graphics
>  / raid drivers / others).
>
>  One could say, it will be easier for Linux to live on top of windows.
>  That way drivers could remains closed sources and linux not a real OS
>  anymore, just providing few services on top of the real OS.
>
>  While the European Union is presuring to remove out IE from the next
>  windows bundle, /me think it would have been more valuable to only
>  keep the very basic hardware support layers from the OS, so everything
>  else could have been optional.
>
>  At least I can see one way to have the announcement turn into our
>  favour. It would be to have it compared with other opensourcing
>  announcement such the AMD/ATI one. Even if the reasons behind have
>  nothing to be compared, it could present theses as a success story for
>  the free software development scheme.
>  That should have be directed to end-users asking them to keep
>  presuring on hardware vendosr for free software solutions over
>  proprietary ones.
>
>  Nicolas (kwizart)
>
>  --
>  Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
>  Fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
>  
-- 
Keiran Smith
- Fedora Ambassador / BugZapper - <affix(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
- Free Software Foundation Associate - <keiran.smith(a)member.fsf.org&gt;
- http://keiran-smith.net
- Call me on [phone]

[Paul W. Frields]

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 04:22:13PM +0100, Affix wrote:
>  With microsoft contributing to the kernel does this mean we may see
> a
>  unix based windows version. Personally I think windows should be unix
>  based as with mac OSX it will greatly increase stability and security. 
I don't think it means that at all.

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug

[Christopher Fikes]

I agree. Microsoft has too much invested with the current kernel, besides, they dropped
their own alternative kernel "midori".


Christopher Fikes
cfikes(a)fikesmedia.com
409.291.4225 (VoiceMail)
Sent from my BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Paul W. Frields" <stickster(a)gmail.com&gt;

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:00:13 
To: <fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com&gt;
Subject: Re: Comments about Microsoft and the GPL


On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 04:22:13PM +0100, Affix wrote:
>  With microsoft contributing to the kernel does this mean we may see
> a
>  unix based windows version. Personally I think windows should be unix
>  based as with mac OSX it will greatly increase stability and security. 
I don't think it means that at all.

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug

-- 
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list

[Heherson Pagcaliwagan]

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Yaakov Nemoy <loupgaroublond(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote:

>  Hey All,
>
>  While this isn't 100% Fedora related, being such fans of upstream that
>  we are, we can definitely go somewhere with this. You've probably seen
>  in the news by now that Microsoft is making a pretty substantial
>  contribution to the Linux kernel.
>
>  http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2009/Jul09/07-20LinuxQA.mspx
>  http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10290686-16.html
>
>  http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/072009-microsoft-linux-source-code....
>
>  And if you need a good laugh:
>
>
>
> http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/07/20/1643251/Microsoft-Releases-Linux-...
>
>  The way i see it, is that we can do one or more of several things
>  based on this. Of course we can continue talking about upstream as a
>  path to success, but i'm wondering, being no marketing expert myself,
>  what else can we do with such a message? Is this a message we can try
>  to take around to various different people and push extensively as
>  proof that the system works? 

I'm personally happy that Microsoft contributed code to the kernel. This
just goes on to show that Open Source is worth the effort even for
proprietary shops.


>  Is this even something we can take to
>  mainstream media even though we're so fond of staying out of it for
>  the very minimal real effect we have? 




>  Or do we ignore it because it's not Fedora?
>
>  Cheers,
>  Yaakov
>
>  --
>  Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
>  Fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
>  


-- 
Heherson Pagcaliwagan
http://www.azneita.org

[Russell Harrison]

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Paul W. Frields<stickster(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>  I think it's quite simple for Microsoft to say, "We still
> don't like
>  the GPL, but because these drivers will help our customers, and
>  because this license is required to get them in the kernel, we've done
>  it."  Certainly there are places in Microsoft that are open to
>  thinking constructively about open source and how it fits into their
>  business and customer engagements.  But I think trying to cast it as a
>  philosophical sea change is wishful thinking. 
That's my thinking as well.  Virtualization is the big buzzword these
days and MS obviously wants a piece of that pie.  They've correctly
realized that people will want to run Linux guests on their hypervisor
and probably found that they didn't get the same performance from
Linux VMs that other hypervisors do.  Solution, write some drivers to
fix the performance issues with emulated hardware and get them into
Linux.  I honestly think its as simple as that.  No evil master plan,
or benevolent change of heart.  Just plain pragmatism.

What I do find interesting is that they seem to be going about things
properly.  By getting their drivers accepted into the upstream kernel
they've avoided the huge maintenance burden incurred by maintaining
closed source kernel modules for every platform they need to support.
This way they'll know that every distro coming out after the drivers
are merged upstream should work properly.  nVidia, Broadcom etc.
should probably take some notes.

Would this be a message we could work with from this announcement?

Russell

[Kamin Horvath]

I don't see that happening. Switching from the NT kernel to a *nix kernel
would break compatibility with all existing windows applications. That's why
the goal here is in virtualization.

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Affix <affix(a)ihack.co.uk&gt; wrote:

>  With microsoft contributing to the kernel does this mean we may see
> a
>  unix based windows version. Personally I think windows should be unix
>  based as with mac OSX it will greatly increase stability and security.
>
>
>  On Tuesday, July 21, 2009, Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  > 2009/7/21 Nicu Buculei <nicu_fedora(a)nicubunu.ro&gt;:
>  >> On 07/21/2009 12:04 PM, Keiran Smith wrote:
>  >>>
>  >>> Well looks like us linux users can look forward to some of the
>  >>> instabilities of windows in our Own Operating Systems. What are
>  >>> microsoft thinking
>  >>
>  >> I don't think you will be affected by this code unless you run a
>  virtualized
>  >> Linux guest on a Windows host and if you do that... well, probably you
>  >> already have bigger problems :p
>  > And that could be a problem for us, since the opposite (Windows on top
>  > of linux) isn't that equivalent.
>  > That's  because of the hardware coverrage isn't the same. (3D graphics
>  > / raid drivers / others).
>  >
>  > One could say, it will be easier for Linux to live on top of windows.
>  > That way drivers could remains closed sources and linux not a real OS
>  > anymore, just providing few services on top of the real OS.
>  >
>  > While the European Union is presuring to remove out IE from the next
>  > windows bundle, /me think it would have been more valuable to only
>  > keep the very basic hardware support layers from the OS, so everything
>  > else could have been optional.
>  >
>  > At least I can see one way to have the announcement turn into our
>  > favour. It would be to have it compared with other opensourcing
>  > announcement such the AMD/ATI one. Even if the reasons behind have
>  > nothing to be compared, it could present theses as a success story for
>  > the free software development scheme.
>  > That should have be directed to end-users asking them to keep
>  > presuring on hardware vendosr for free software solutions over
>  > proprietary ones.
>  >
>  > Nicolas (kwizart)
>  >
>  > --
>  > Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
>  > Fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com
>  > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
>  >
>
>  --
>  Keiran Smith
>  - Fedora Ambassador / BugZapper - <affix(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  - Free Software Foundation Associate - <keiran.smith(a)member.fsf.org&gt;
>  - http://keiran-smith.net
>  - Call me on [phone]
>
>  --
>  Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
>  Fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
>  


-- 
Kamin Horvath
Fedora Ambassadors USA
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mohaas05

[Andrea Modesto Rossi]

On Mar, 21 Luglio 2009 11:04 am, Keiran Smith wrote:
>  Well looks like us linux users can look forward to some of the
>  instabilities
>  of windows in our Own Operating Systems. What are microsoft thinking
>  
This is Microsoft:

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


-- 
Andrea Modesto Rossi
Fedora Ambassador

[Rashadul Islam]

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Paul W. Frields <stickster(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote:

>  On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:25:14PM +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote:
>  > On 07/21/2009 12:04 PM, Keiran Smith wrote:
>  >> Well looks like us linux users can look forward to some of the
>  >> instabilities of windows in our Own Operating Systems. What are
>  >> microsoft thinking
>  >
>  > I don't think you will be affected by this code unless you run a
>  > virtualized Linux guest on a Windows host and if you do that... well,
>  > probably you already have bigger problems :p
>  >
>  > I am quite pleased by the Microsoft announcement, from now on when an MS
>  > astroturfer will try to throw FUD at me about Linux being inferior
>  > security and quality wise compared with Microsoft solutions I can smile
>  > and point Microsoft *is* a contributor to the Linux kernel.
>  >
>  > The same about GPL: after releasing code under GPL, it would be really
>  > embarrassing for Microsoft to call again it as being "communist",
>  > "cancer" or "Pac-Man".
>
>  I think it's quite simple for Microsoft to say, "We still don't like
>  the GPL, but because these drivers will help our customers, and
>  because this license is required to get them in the kernel, we've done
>  it."  Certainly there are places in Microsoft that are open to
>  thinking constructively about open source and how it fits into their
>  business and customer engagements.  But I think trying to cast it as a
>  philosophical sea change is wishful thinking.
>
>  --
>  Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
>   gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
>   http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
>   irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
>
>  --
>  Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
>  Fedora-marketing-list(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
>  
Hi all:

-what is the best side of this with Fedora and are we supporting this, if
yes then why?
-More than, does anyone can violate the GPL license rules for their own
business?
-Why we saying Microsoft as a contributor to the linux kernel while it is
already developed by Linux contributor?

Rashadul Islam
GPG 5557BFAC
irashadul(a)gmail.com

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 07/23/2009 06:06 PM, Rashadul Islam wrote:

>  
>  -what is the best side of this with Fedora and are we supporting this,
>  if yes then why? 
It is only in the staging tree of the upstream Linux kernel. It will
take time to vet the code, fix the issues and merge it properly. When
that happens, Fedora will inherit the new kernel and therefore support
this feature. It will help users who choose to run Linux as a guest
operating system.

>  -More than, does anyone can violate the GPL license rules for their
> own
>  business? 
The code being submitted is itself under the GPL and hence there is no
violation

>  -Why we saying Microsoft as a contributor to the linux kernel while
> it
>  is already developed by Linux contributor? 
The code was written entirely by Microsoft.

Rahul