Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view

Posted Aug 2, 2023 13:52 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
In reply to: Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view by mb
Parent article: Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view

> That's the same as saying "package xyz does not come with RHEL, because you have to click install".

No. It's not important where package comes from. But it's important who exercises the right to create copies. And that, fundamental, question is different when we are discussing RHEL and WSL2.

> Microsoft doesn't terminate EULAs or refuse to make future license agreements with you, if you exercise your GPL rights.

Sure, but it could. It's not bound by GPL because it never makes new copies. Canonical or Debian Project are making them, not Microsoft.

If anything it's easier for the Microsoft to add such clause.

It doesn't make business sense thus it's not used, but Microsoft can add it easily.

Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view

Posted Aug 2, 2023 14:00 UTC (Wed) by mb (subscriber, #50428) [Link] (5 responses)

>Canonical or Debian Project are making them, not Microsoft.

Wrong.

https://github.com/microsoft/WSL2-Linux-Kernel

Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view

Posted Aug 2, 2023 14:10 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (4 responses)

Sorry, but where are the binaries?

WSL installer doesn't download these sources and doesn't build them, you know (while old Solaris and OS/360 installers did that, WSL doesn't).

WSL uses prebuilt binaries. And these don't come from Microsoft.

You may try to bring contracts between Microsoft, Canonical and EULA to the court and try to prove that Microsoft actually facilitates creation of these binaries that Canonical produces, but that would very-very complicated case with very-very unclear outcome (well one part of the outcome is clear: lawyers would become quite rich arguing for both sides… but anything else is very unclear).

Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view

Posted Aug 2, 2023 18:00 UTC (Wed) by dezgeg (subscriber, #92243) [Link] (3 responses)

The WSL2-Linux-Kernel that was linked is the kernel that all WSL2 distros run by default. It shouldn't have any ties to Canonical, no?

Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view

Posted Aug 2, 2023 18:09 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (2 responses)

Looks like you are right. Microsoft is providing Linux binaries novadays.

Haven't realized that. Indeed that changes things and the fact that they are also providing source (and even promise to send sources if you send them US $5.00… nice touch) means they have to comply with GPL… which they are actually doing.

Wonder what made them change gears, they tried to avoid distributing anything GPL for years.

Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view

Posted Aug 2, 2023 20:00 UTC (Wed) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link]

The way WSL2 works is that there's a single kernel instance running under hyperv, and all WSL instances are separate pid/mount/etc namespaces running on that same kernel - what some might call a container. So it makes sense to provide directly that kernel build, so that it gets security updates and such from windows updates. After all, a security breach in the kernel could allow a WSL payload to attack the hypervisor and then the host OS, among other reasons. And the integration with the host can be carefully controlled, and set up by what you might call the container manager. If the kernel came from the distribution itself instead, then it would be a full segregated VM, and the integration would be quite different.

Hall: IBM, Red Hat and Free Software: An old maddog’s view

Posted Aug 3, 2023 21:03 UTC (Thu) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link]

Wonder what made them change gears, they tried to avoid distributing anything GPL for years.

Money. They could see the big revenue growth was going to come from cloud computing, and a lot of potential customers thought "cloud" meant Linux. More generally, Microsoft's desire to avoid distributing anything GPL was more about trying to FUD the concept of FOSS than any real legal difficulty. Once it was obvious the FUD hadn't worked and there was real money to be made in the FOSS space, their reluctance went away.