[clug] Thoughts on Microsoft's Linux patch?

[Chris Smart]

2009/7/24 Daniel Pittman <daniel at rimspace.net>:
> Your article doesn't seem to touch, one way or another, on the apparent news
> that this was done because the code in question violated the GPL by using a
> number of third-party GPL projects.
>
> Was that deliberate, accidental, or did I just miss it somewhere in the text?
>

That news came out after I'd already written the article, hence why
it's not mentioned. It's an interesting twist, but I think the crux of
it all still stays the same. Microsoft released the code because they
had to, whether because they were violating the GPL or because they
need Linux support in Hyper-V.

Either way I already discussed in the article about how it's purely
selfishly motivated.

I might be able to amend it or do a follow up down the track.

-c