This is the only post so far that seems to have gotten it right.
We've done this pragmatically, have identified the reasons in detail, and have nothing to hide. We believe that of the range of open source licensing options for this code, the GPLv2 was the right one. Our decision was not based on any perceived obligations tied to the GPLv2 license.
This was a project we began in October of last year, and which we have been working on ever since.
Our diligent adherence to the standards of the Linux kernel community, including the license used, the process, and the changes we are now seeing we need to make to the coding style of the source code, are driven by our goal of having the code accepted into the kernel. This will make it far easier for any developer who wants to modify their distribution to run on Hyper-V, for solutions providers to modify and support these features, and for customers to obtain Hyper-V support for their Linux distribution of choice. We have been endorsed by both Greg K-H and Jim Zemlin for the approach we've taken, and we believe that this process will be good for Hyper-V's capabilities and customer adoption.