Sam Ramji: GPL is challenging for Microsoft

By David Worthington

January 29, 2009 —

Microsoft acknowledges that the GNU General Public License is an important license, but the company believes that it is challenging to work with. That’s the view of Sam Ramji, Microsoft’s senior director of platform strategy.

Nearly eight years have passed since Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer infamously declared Linux to be a "cancer," and that the GNU General Public License would have required Microsoft to make its entire software portfolio open source. It has since enabled GPL-based technologies through partnerships and has softened its viewpoint.

GPL is a so-called copyleft license, a scheme that requires subsequent authors who use GPL-based code in their applications to surrender some of their intellectual property rights in order for contributions to be distributed back to the open-source community.

Ramji has taken a much more pragmatic view of the license than Ballmer once did. He doesn’t call it a cancer, but he maintains that while the GPL is important due to the volume of code licensed under it, it only represents two out of the 54 Open Source Initiative-approved open-source licenses.

However, that assertion overlooks the quantity and importance given to GPL-licensed software, says Bradley Kuhn, a policy analyst and tech director at the Software Freedom Law Center. The SFLC is not a disinterested party: It is a partner with the Free Software Foundation, which wrote the GPL, and sues companies that are believed to be violating its copyleft requirements.

"That statement is akin to saying that 'India and China are merely two of the 192 (or more) countries in the world'. Microsoft doesn't refuse to operate in India and China simply because those are only two countries among so many," Kuhn said as a direct response to Ramji’s comments.

Kuhn estimated that at least 60% of open-source software uses a version of the GPL license. "Microsoft is happy to take lots and give back a tiny fraction. This 'new message' from Microsoft is the same as the old one, with some cosmetic changes," he said.

Explaining why Microsoft believes that the GPL presents challenges, Ramji said, "I am personally fairly pragmatic, so I value things working well together—heterogeneous systems, hybrid licensing, multiple development models. I think the GPL is designed toward exclusivity rather than heterogeneity. That produces challenges in how we approach it."

While Microsoft can support GPL-based code through its partners, as it does with Novell, the company can’t contribute directly to projects due to the GPL’s license terms and requirements, he explained. Ramji added that Microsoft drafted its Open Specification Promise to apply to software licensed under the GPL. The OSP is a promise by Microsoft to not assert its patent rights for specific Microsoft technologies.

"The GPL is designed to put big corporations like Microsoft and individual contributors on equal footing," said Kuhn. "Microsoft perceives this as ’exclusivity’ because it doesn't give them the level of incredible control over the software to which they are accustomed." He added that Microsoft has exclusively favored non-copyleft licenses that do not create the same "equal footing" situation.

Despite its present reluctance to work with the license, Microsoft has contributed to GPL-licensed software to their substantial benefit, said Kuhn. He noted that Microsoft acquired Softway Systems, a company that produced Unix bridging tools that use the GPL.

"For a number of years in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Microsoft was a compliant distributor (and sometimes contributor!) of GPL'd software. [As far as I know], they have discontinued the [Unix bridging tool] in recent years," said Kuhn. He went on to criticize Microsoft for publicizing its non-GPL contributions to free and open-source software while opting not to draw attention to this example.

"I suppose that's because it will draw attention to the fact that Microsoft now refuses to contribute to gcc [the GNU Compiler Collection] and other GPL'd software. Obviously, if they were to tout that they were a previous contributor to gcc, they'd have to explain why they are not currently, which leaves them with tough questions to answer," he stated.

Ramji did not respond to Kuhn's remarks by press time.

Related Search Term(s): GPL, Microsoft, open source

Share this link: http://www.sdtimes.com/link/33224

Microsoft releases .NET Micro framework as open source The new version of the framework packages source code for distribution, but cryptography libraries are not included

From the Editors: Microsoft and open-source software We are skeptical of Microsoft's intentions behind the CodePlex Foundation. Also, project managers must be good communicators

SFLC: Microsoft violated the GPL Microsoft violated the GPL when it distributed its Linux Integration Components for Hyper-V without releasing the source.

Comments

01/30/2009 12:05:32 AM EST

The problem is not GPL. Lots of entities in the world are using GPL because it fits with their business model. In case of Microsoft, GPL doesn't fit with their business. The problem is making sure the GPL doesn't creep, unintentionally, into their code base. There are solutions out there (we use Protecode, but there are others) that make sure code base is kept clean and the company's IP policy is not inadvertently violated, avoiding a Linksys/Cisco/GPL type scenario.

United StatesAnthony Chambers

Add comment

Name*
Email*
Country

Comment
Preview

News on Monday
more>>
SharePoint Tech Report
more>>

Download Current Issue
ISSUE 3/15/2010 PDF

Need Back Issues?
DOWNLOAD HERE

Receive the print Edition?

Google Code turns 5
Google Code Turns 5, and adds a Paxos Algorithm to make the system more stable and reliable.
03/17/2010 11:16 AM EST

Test your Visual Studio 2010 know-how
Microsoft is offering free beta certification exams for Visual Studio 2010.
03/17/2010 11:08 AM EST

Microsoft lifts the hood on IE9
Microsoft is previewing IE9.
03/16/2010 01:10 PM EST