マイクロソフトがWindowsとLinuxを比較評価した顧客の事例研究を "Get the Facts" と称して自社のウェブサイトに掲載したことによって、競合は2004年から新しい局面に入った。この事例研究ではアンケートや調査分析、マイクロソフトの支援による調査などを基に、業務用サーバ用途での信頼性、セキュリティ、総保有コストの面で、LinuxがWindowsより劣ると主張していた[45][46][47]。
この反応として、商用Linuxディトリビュータはそれぞれにマイクロソフトのキャンペーンに対抗するために研究、調査、証明を公表した。ノベルは2004年末から "Unbending the truth" と題するウェブ上のキャンペーンを開始し、利点の概説に加え（とくにSCO対IBM（英語版）における事例の観点から）広く喧伝されたLinux運用の法的な信頼性への懸念を払拭しようとした[48]。ノベルは多くの点で、とくにマイクロソフトの研究を引用した。IBMも "The Linux at IBM competitive advantage" と題してマイクロソフトのキャンペーンをかわすための一連の研究を公表した[49]。レッドハットは "Truth Happens" と呼ばれるキャンペーンを開始した[50]。
Windows Azureプロジェクトが2008年に発表され、後にMicrosoft Azureに改称された。Linuxはサーバベースソフトウェアの一部として統合された。2018年8月、SUSEはMicrosoft Azureプロジェクトのもとでクラウドコンピューティング用アプリケーションのための特殊仕様となるLinuxカーネルを製作した。マイクロソフトの代表者は、移植版カーネルについて「新しいAzure向けカーネルにより、顧客がSR-IOVにより高速化されたネットワークのような、新しいAzureのサービスの利点を迅速に享受できる」と述べた[59]。
1994年と1995年に、別々の国の何人かの人々が「Linux」を商標登録しようと試みた。そしてすぐにいくつかのLinux関連企業が使用料の支払いを請求され、これは多くのLinuxの開発者やユーザが同意できない措置であった。トーバルズはこれらの企業をLinux Internationalの支援により抑え込み、Linux Internationalへと移動させた商標の使用を承諾した。その後、商標保護を専業とする非営利組織のLinux Mark Institute（英語版）によって商標が管理されることとなった。
2005年、Linuxの商標使用により発生する使用料の用途について新しく議論が発生した。トーバルズの権利の代理者であるLinux Mark Instituteは、金額を500米ドルから5,000米ドルに値上げすることを公表した。これは商法保護にかかるコストの上昇を埋め合わせるために必要だったと弁明された。
^ abTorvalds, Linus. “COPYING”. kernel.org. 13 August 2013閲覧。 “Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.”
^ abTorvalds, Linus (2000年9月8日). “Linux-2.4.0-test8”. lkml.iu.edu. 2015年11月21日閲覧。 “The only one of any note that I'd like to point out directly is the clarification in the COPYING file, making it clear that it's only _that_particular version of the GPL that is valid for the kernel. This should not come as any surprise, as that's the same license that has been there since 0.12 or so, but I thought I'd make that explicit”
^[原文]
Hello everybody out there using minix -
I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat (same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons) among other things).
I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work. This implies that I'll get something practical within a few months, and I'd like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them :-)
Linus ([email protected])
PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs. It is NOT portable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(.
^Silvonen, Jussi (2003). “Linux ja vapaat ohjelmat: haaste informaatiokapitalismille?” (フィンランド語). MarxIT: Informaatiokapitalismin kriittistä tarkastelua. Helsinki: The Finnish Karl Marx Society. p. 120. ISBN952-99110-0-9
^[原文]Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you need a shell, compilers, a library etc. These are separate parts and may be under a stricter (or even looser) copyright. Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft. These tools aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU) for more info.
^Torvalds, Linus (1992年1月5日). “RELEASE NOTES FOR LINUX v0.12”. Linux Kernel Archives. 2007年7月23日閲覧。 “The Linux copyright will change: I've had a couple of requests to make it compatible with the GNU copyleft, removing the "you may not distribute it for money" condition. I agree. I propose that the copyright be changed so that it confirms to GNU - pending approval of the persons who have helped write code. I assume this is going to be no problem for anybody: If you have grievances ("I wrote that code assuming the copyright would stay the same") mail me. Otherwise The GNU copyleft takes effect as of the first of February. If you do not know the gist of the GNU copyright - read it.”
^“Kernel developers' position on GPLv3 - The Dangers and Problems with GPLv3”. LWN.net (15 September 2006). 2015年3月11日閲覧。 “The current version (Discussion Draft 2) of GPLv3 on first reading fails the necessity test of section 1 on the grounds that there's no substantial and identified problem with GPLv2 that it is trying to solve. However, a deeper reading reveals several other problems with the current FSF draft: 5.1 DRM Clauses [...] 5.2 Additional Restrictions Clause [...] 5.3 Patents Provisions [...]since the FSF is proposing to shift all of its projects to GPLv3 and apply pressure to every other GPL licensed project to move, we foresee the release of GPLv3 portends the Balkanisation of the entire Open Source Universe upon which we rely."”
^Kerner, Sean Michael (2008年1月8日). “Torvalds Still Keen On GPLv2”. internetnews.com. 2015年2月12日閲覧。 “"In some ways, Linux was the project that really made the split clear between what the FSF is pushing which is very different from what open source and Linux has always been about, which is more of a technical superiority instead of a -- this religious belief in freedom," Torvalds told Zemlin. So, the GPL Version 3 reflects the FSF's goals and the GPL Version 2 pretty closely matches what I think a license should do and so right now, Version 2 is where the kernel is.”
^Tanenbaum, Andrew S. (2004年5月20日). “Some Notes on the "Who wrote Linux" Kerfuffle, Release 1.5”. 2012年11月22日時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ。2015年3月15日閲覧。 “Linus didn't write CTSS and he didn't write MULTICS and didn't write UNIX and he didn't write MINIX, but he did write Linux. I think Brown owes a number of us an apology.”
^[原文]Brown wanted to go on about the ownership issue, but he was also trying to avoid telling me what his real purpose was, so he didn't phrase his questions very well. Finally he asked me if I thought Linus wrote Linux. I said that to the best of my knowledge, Linus wrote the whole kernel himself, but after it was released, other people began improving the kernel, which was very primitive initially, and adding new software to the system--essentially the same development model as MINIX. Then he began to focus on this, with questions like: "Didn't he steal pieces of MINIX without permission." I told him that MINIX had clearly had a huge influence on Linux in many ways, from the layout of the file system to the names in the source tree, but I didn't think Linus had used any of my code.
^Fontana, John. “Microsoft stuns Linux world, submits source code to kernel”. Network World. 2009年12月2日時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ。2009年7月20日閲覧。 “In an historic move, Microsoft Monday submitted driver source code for inclusion in the Linux kernel under a GPLv2 license. [...] Greg Kroah-Hartman, the Linux driver project lead and a Novell fellow, said he accepted 22,000 lines of Microsoft's code at 9 a.m.PST Monday. Kroah-Hartman said the Microsoft code will be available as part of the next Linux public tree release in the next 24 hours. The code will become part of the 2.6.30.1 stable release. [...] Then the whole world will be able to look at the code, he said.”
^[原文][...] And let’s repeat: somebody who doesn’t want to protect that name would never do this. You can call anything "MyLinux", but the downside is that you may have somebody else who did protect himself come along and send you a cease-and-desist letter. Or, if the name ends up showing up in a trademark search that LMI needs to do every once in a while just to protect the trademark (another legal requirement for trademarks), LMI itself might have to send you a cease-and-desist-or-sublicense it letter.
At which point you either rename it to something else, or you sublicense it. See? It’s all about whether you need the protection or not, not about whether LMI wants the money or not.
[...] Finally, just to make it clear: not only do I not get a cent of the trademark money, but even LMI (who actually administers the mark) has so far historically always lost money on it. That’s not a way to sustain a trademark, so they’re trying to at least become self-sufficient, but so far I can tell that lawyers fees to give that protection that commercial companies want have been higher than the license fees. Even pro bono lawyers charge for the time of their costs and paralegals etc.
^“Linux Mark Institute”. 2008年2月24日閲覧。 “LMI has restructured its sublicensing program. Our new sublicense agreement is: Free — approved sublicense holders pay no fees; Perpetual — sublicense terminates only in breach of the agreement or when your organization ceases to use its mark; Worldwide — one sublicense covers your use of the mark anywhere in the world”
^Dell, Michael (15 August 2000). “Remarks Putting Linux on the Fast Track” (PDF). May 15, 2013時点のオリジナルよりアーカイブ。February 2014閲覧。 - Keynote at the LinuxWorld Expo, San Jose, California
