4 ms·
Not much of a hate but rather protecting their IPs by avoiding licenses like GNU. They are not alone in this, most of the big companies are avoiding it. Some co
by istvan__ 11y ago
Not much of a hate but rather protecting their IPs by avoiding licenses like GNU. They are not alone in this, most of the big companies are avoiding it. Some companies use it and hoping for not getting caught (VMWare). I still don't see hate here, MS is just smart enough to avoid these sort of situations.
- davidgerard 11y agoServices for Unix was full of GPL stuff. They're not protecting anything they have any sane threat model on. It's Microsoft being Microsoft.
- istvan__ 11y agoWere they in violation of GPL with anything? I can't find credible reference. I know that they identified the USB/DVD tool and re-released it under GPL. http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-admits-its-gpl-violation-will-reissue-windows-7-tool-under-open-source-license/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-admits-its-gpl-violat...
- davidgerard 11y agoNo, as far as I know they fulfilled all GPL obligations on the SFU stuff. And I know of no cases of Microsoft violating the GPL (and I would have heard if there were). Not wanting GPL is entirely "won't" rather than "can't".
- yarrel 11y agoMicrosoft is on record as hating the GPL. If that's changed it's not showing in their careful use of the (very fine) Apache license rather than the GPL.
- oldmanjay 11y agoMicrosoft haters are on record as attributing all manner of emotions to Microsoft decision-making, but from a detached perspective it all seems fairly dispassionate, if sometimes overly aggressive.