Sam Ramji: GPL is challenging for Microsoft

By David Worthington

January 29, 2009 — (Page 1 of 2)
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.

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

Pages 1 2

Share this link: http://sdt.bz/33224

Technorati

Digg

Slashdot

Facebook

Friendfeed

Twitter

del.icio.us

SD Times Blog: Microsoft Open Tech turns one Subsidiary advances Microsoft's cooperative stance toward open source

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

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