Updated: Microsoft's announcement that it had contributed drivers to Linux caused a kerfuffle with the open-source community earlier this week after it was alleged that Microsoft only did so after being informed that it was in violation of the General Public License (GPL). Today, Microsoft's Sam Ramji, senior director of platform strategy, told SD Times that the company had preexisting plans to use GPL for the drivers, and he stated that the question of whether Microsoft had violated the GPL was a decision best left to the community.

His counterpart in the Linux community tells a different tale. Linux kernel driver team leader Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote in his blog that he approached Microsoft after a community member contacted him about Microsoft shipping its Linux Integrated Component for Hyper-V in a way that was not GPL-compliant. GPLv2 does not permit mixing of closed- and open-source components, and that is what Microsoft had done.

"Linux does not have a device API like Windows does," Ramji said in a followup conversation, adding, "Many Linux drivers include binaries, and there is no action or outrage. Nor should there be."

Stephen Hemminger, a Linux contributor who is a principal engineer with the open-source networking software maker Vyatta, was the community member that tipped Kroah-Hartman off. "Rather than creating noise, my goal was to resolve the problem, so I turned to Greg Kroah-Hartman. Since Novell has a (too) close association with Microsoft, my expectation was that Greg could prod the right people to get the issue resolved," Hemminger wrote in his blog. Kroah-Hartman has since stated that Hemminger's comments sound accurate.

Earlier this week, in an interview with SD Times, Kroah-Hartman did not mention the licensing issue. Rather, he stated that work on the Hyper-V Linux Integration Components began after he contacted Microsoft to create drivers that would allow Linux to run well on top of Hyper-V.

Yesterday, the plot thickened. A spokesperson for Kroah-Hartman said that the licensing issue played a role in his collaboration with Microsoft. "Once the licensing issue was indicated to Microsoft, they moved forward with the process of releasing the code," the spokesperson said. "Greg and Sam Ramji ushered that process along, and that's where we are today."

Ramji's account differs. "Hank Janssen [a Microsoft engineer] came up with the idea of submitting the code to the kernel months before Greg contacted us," he said. "We built a plan based on the value of supporting as many Linux distros as possible. Hank proposed the GPLv2 as the vehicle."

Microsoft did not make its decision based upon any perceived obligation, he said. "We considered a range of options, and GPLv2 was the best because it is the license the community used.

"Greg's coaching on how to get it contributed was invaluable, but it was not the original driver of our plan or decision," Ramji added. "That's the beauty of the real world. Different people have different perspectives, and that is what causes them to act. We appreciate Greg's coaching regardless of his motivation."

Further, Jim Zemlin, the executive director of the Linux Foundation, contacted Microsoft and said that there is no problem, Ramji claimed. None of the engineers who are accepting code or anyone involved in the leadership of the Linux community share the view that Microsoft has done anything outside of the process, he claimed. "I encourage you not to take my word for it," Ramji said.

Ramji's account could very well be accurate. He contacted me in late December about an upcoming announcement in regards to Microsoft and the GPL that he now says was in reference to the LIC drivers. At the time, we discussed his belief that GPL was "difficult" to work with. I intend to ask Kroah-Hartman exactly when he contacted Microsoft after he returns from vacation.

In a followup conversation, Ramji told me that the project began October 2008. "We heard from Greg in March," he said. "We thought we would be done by the end of March."

Regardless of what Microsoft's motivations actually were, analysts regard Microsoft's decision to contribute the code as a targeted move by Microsoft to further its virtualization strategy in response to competition from VMware, and as acknowledgment that Hyper-V must support Linux well to be competitive.

The unfortunate aspect of this mess is that Microsoft could have owned up to having violated the GPL, and highlighted how it did the right thing by donating code to the Linux community instead of yanking the product. It is the lack of disclosure that makes it appear unscrupulous.