Does this mean that MSFT is shipping GPLv3 software? I can see that the actual download happens from Canonical servers, but isn’t MSFT facilitating or endorsing that download?
I’m not certain about where the initial tarball of Ubuntu user-land comes from, but the way it’s implemented is that ELF binaries are loaded and Linux syscalls intercepted by a (NT) kernel module which I assume is closed source. (Microsoft has definitely not made any news about open sourcing that bit of code.)
So I don’t think Microsoft is necessarily shipping any GPLv3 software. The packages and updates for the Ubuntu userland come from Canonical’s apt repos (and are in fact the exact same as if you used native Ubuntu installed in a VM or bare metal). And even if they did, so what? There is as much reason to bang on Microsoft’s doors for shipping GPLv3 software as there would be for enabling Cygwin-recompiled binaries.
Does this mean that MSFT is shipping GPLv3 software? I can see that the actual download happens from Canonical servers, but isn’t MSFT facilitating or endorsing that download?
I’m not certain about where the initial tarball of Ubuntu user-land comes from, but the way it’s implemented is that ELF binaries are loaded and Linux syscalls intercepted by a (NT) kernel module which I assume is closed source. (Microsoft has definitely not made any news about open sourcing that bit of code.)
So I don’t think Microsoft is necessarily shipping any GPLv3 software. The packages and updates for the Ubuntu userland come from Canonical’s apt repos (and are in fact the exact same as if you used native Ubuntu installed in a VM or bare metal). And even if they did, so what? There is as much reason to bang on Microsoft’s doors for shipping GPLv3 software as there would be for enabling Cygwin-recompiled binaries.