Are we talking about the same Microsoft?

[Lazydog]

I trust nothing that MS does. They have a hidden agenda for sure, and they aren't about to give away anything that they can collect a fee for. For example release code that is under a patten then then after it is adpoted require a fee for using it. But hey, that just me thiniking.

[Bemk]

I trust nothing that MS does. They have a hidden agenda for sure, and they aren't about to give away anything that they can collect a fee for. For example release code that is under a patten then then after it is adpoted require a fee for using it. But hey, that just me thiniking.

They simply can't ask a fee for it, for they have released the source under GPL and the GPL states that when you distribute GPL software, the source must be freely(free of charge) available to everyone requesting it, and everyone is free (freedom) to change anything they wish.

So if they want to get money for it, they have to re licence it, which is too much work I think.

[hazel]

They simply can't ask a fee for it, for they have released the source under GPL and the GPL states that when you distribute GPL software, the source must be freely(free of charge) available to everyone requesting it, and everyone is free (freedom) to change anything they wish.

So if they want to get money for it, they have to re licence it, which is too much work I think.

That's not true. GPL does allow you to charge for software. Only you can't prevent those you sell it to from copying it and passing it on to their friends for nothing, so simple economics makes it impossible to charge a lot. In practice you can't charge more than the value you have added to the package by working on it.

[HROAdmin26]

It does appear that MSFT had another motive in releasing this code as GPL:

Microsoft's Linux Kernel Code Drop Result of GPL Violation

Microsoft opened Linux-driver code after 'violating' GPL

** Picked up from Slashdot

[Bemk]

That's not true. GPL does allow you to charge for software. Only you can't prevent those you sell it to from copying it and passing it on to their friends for nothing, so simple economics makes it impossible to charge a lot. In practice you can't charge more than the value you have added to the package by working on it.

Well, Microsoft cant since they don't distribute the software here. It is our good friend Linus that distributes the code, and because the code is GPL you will very likely find ways to get it free of charge, even if Linus decides he wants a fee.

Distributions using the code should make sure the recipient is always able to receive the code.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

Source GPL v.2
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt

I may not be a lawyer but I think this states that as long as there are distributors who present the software for free*, the code is free* as well.

*free of charge

[cousinlucky]

Yes this conversation is way over my computer illiterate head and I will never, ever, get over my distaste for Microsoft's business practices and I do not know if the link below is relevant: but the thought of Microsoft invading Linux does not make me feel good.

Microsoft Patches Linux; Linus Responds | Linux Magazine

[Bemk]

If you want to stay clear of MS, go to BSD...

I know Linux is here to stay, and unfortunately MS is too.

But what should we, as Linux community, do? Reject the code and stick with the old code until the code is removed?

The point of open source is that literally everyone can contribute, so also Microsoft, or any other company for that matter.
We should decide to accept the code on basis of what it does, and not by who made it.
I'm certainly no fan of Microsoft, even though I must say they did a good job with Windows 7 RC1, but they have the same rights as any other.

[techieMoe]

I know Linux is here to stay, and unfortunately MS is too.

But what should we, as Linux community, do? Reject the code and stick with the old code until the code is removed?

The point of open source is that literally everyone can contribute, so also Microsoft, or any other company for that matter.
We should decide to accept the code on basis of what it does, and not by who made it.
I'm certainly no fan of Microsoft, even though I must say they did a good job with Windows 7 RC1, but they have the same rights as any other.

I read the article cousinlucky posted, and that's essentially what Linus said. The idea of the open-source collaborative software model is that everyone can contribute. It seems awfully elitist to say that this or that company doesn't have the right to sully our OS because we disagree with their actions as a corporation. As long as the code is released under a license like the GPL, their underlying intentions are irrelevant. The code is out there and it's in a form they can't take back later. That's a win.

[Bemk]

I've read the article by now, and I must say, I couldn't have said it any better.