Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Report from the VMware GPL court hearing

laforge.gnumonks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 50 posts

Re: Report from the VMware GPL court hearing

#11

Post by belorn »

osivertsson wrote: post #5

Some quotes that I feel shows VMware's attitude towards the software freedom community: [...] the VMware defense in claiming that overall, they could only find very few functions that could be attributed to Christoph, and that this may altogether be only 1% of the Linux code they use in VMware ESXi. At times their lawyers made statements like linux is this small yellow box in the left bottom corner (of our diagram).…

Using diagrams and graphs to distort data has been utilized for such a long time that seems hard to find cases where it was correctly used to help understanding data. I even know a famous Swedish sketch (and accompanying song) that has misrepresenting diagrams as its central theme.

I can prove without a fault that the most code running on my server is the kernel. I can also prove that its the least significant code in the system. Counting cycles, the kernels idle function runs often at 99%. Counting bytes stored on the disk, the kernel is just a few MB in a vast sea of TB's of data stored and thus are far less than 1% of the machine. In terms of cognitive thinking, the machine could be described as a Linux box, a Debian machine, a GNU/Linux system, or a webserver, each attributing different independence to the kernel running inside. In terms of user-interaction, the kernel barely exist and I rarely ever interacts with it. In terms of executable binaries that I run, most have a larger number of syscalls in them.

The statement that "the diagrams are drawn in a way to twist the facts according to their view on reality" is a perfectly unbiased. If I were at a court and saw a diagram being presented by a party, I would by default distrust it and wonder what the actually data say.

Re: Report from the VMware GPL court hearing

#12

Post by georgyo »

delsarto wrote: post #10
osivertsson wrote: post #5

Some quotes that I feel shows VMware's attitude towards the software freedom community: [...] the VMware defense in claiming that overall, they could only find very few functions that could be attributed to Christoph, and that this may altogether be only 1% of the Linux code they use in VMware ESXi. At times their lawyers made statements like linux is this small yellow box in the left bottom corner (of our diagram).…

What did you expect them to say? Linux is a huge part of what we do? Here's how I see it. Vmkernel has a driver API. It's documented, versioned, comes with a ddk and has drivers written directly to it. As we all know, Linux basically has driver apis. They are not as explicit as the vmkernel driver apis; they are not versioned and deliberately unstable - but if you've written a line of kernel code you know they are th…

You missed a pretty big part here.

OpenZFS and Nvidia are modules of the kernel, they use the exposed API. OpenZFS is fully open source, with an incompatible license. Nivida's graphic driver has a GPLed portion that it's binary blob loads into.

OpenZFS is may be only considered derivative, because when it compiles, it has to include the kernel header files, because that is how you compile C code. No part's of its code base infringe on linux's and no part of linux's code base infring on OpenZFS's. Just the compile binary might be infringing. However this has implications that are far reaching, as if this is considered derivative. GLIBc is GPL, does that mean everything compiled against GLIBc are derivative of GLIBc? If so, this means a great many things are legal required to be GPLed and code shared.

Back on topic, in the case of VMWare, the claim is that they are actually using GPLed linux code in their code. Much more than using the exposed API. This one should be an open shut case.

Re: Report from the VMware GPL court hearing

#13

Post by jordigh »

delsarto wrote: post #10
osivertsson wrote: post #5

Some quotes that I feel shows VMware's attitude towards the software freedom community: [...] the VMware defense in claiming that overall, they could only find very few functions that could be attributed to Christoph, and that this may altogether be only 1% of the Linux code they use in VMware ESXi. At times their lawyers made statements like linux is this small yellow box in the left bottom corner (of our diagram).…

What did you expect them to say? Linux is a huge part of what we do? Here's how I see it. Vmkernel has a driver API. It's documented, versioned, comes with a ddk and has drivers written directly to it. As we all know, Linux basically has driver apis. They are not as explicit as the vmkernel driver apis; they are not versioned and deliberately unstable - but if you've written a line of kernel code you know they are th…

> Can I do the reverse? Implement a GPL licensed wrapper that converts the Linux driver API to one provided by a binary blob (ie. what vmklinux does talking to vmkernel) and thus use the drivers?

The GPL wrapper method has long been considered to be a subterfuge that GPL lawyers think judges would be able to see through.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLWrapper

As to the rest of your questions, this is how Conservancy answers them. The situation is more nuanced for vmkernel as compared to the nvidia blob.

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vmware-lawsuit...

Re: Report from the VMware GPL court hearing

#14

Post by belorn »

It will be interesting to see how the court will determine if its one work or two separate works, and if they will look at other copyrighted media. There is already a rather established model for music video, where even if you have rights to distribute a particular song, you need additional rights to adapt the music to moving images. On the other side of the argument, there is cases that has addressed compatibility. There were for example gaming consoles that had unlicensed third-party modules that courts deemed to be non-infringing.

A key argument I was missing in the article here was the question about market impact. In every court case I have read that talked about derivative works, they always considered the impact that the claimed infringement has on the original work. Court seems to have a historical viewed that copyright is there to protect the authors, and thus leans towards decision that minimize harm. In the case of VMware, it would be interesting to see such arguments from both parties.

Re: Report from the VMware GPL court hearing

#15

Post by delsarto »

georgyo wrote: post #12
delsarto wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did you expect them to say? Linux is a huge part of what we do? Here's how I see it. Vmkernel has a driver API. It's documented, versioned, comes with a ddk and has drivers written directly to it. As we all know, Linux basically has driver apis. They are not as explicit as the vmkernel driver apis; they are not versioned and deliberately unstable - but if you've written a line of kernel code you know they are th…

You missed a pretty big part here. OpenZFS and Nvidia are modules of the kernel, they use the exposed API. OpenZFS is fully open source, with an incompatible license. Nivida's graphic driver has a GPLed portion that it's binary blob loads into. OpenZFS is may be only considered derivative, because when it compiles, it has to include the kernel header files, because that is how you compile C code. No part's of its cod…

Glibc is a bad example, as they have explict linkage exceptions

There seems to be some thought that vmware are idiots and copied a bunch of Linux code and didn't release it. It's more about when something becomes a derivative work. Much more subtle

Re: Report from the VMware GPL court hearing

#16

Post by delsarto »

jordigh wrote: post #13
delsarto wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did you expect them to say? Linux is a huge part of what we do? Here's how I see it. Vmkernel has a driver API. It's documented, versioned, comes with a ddk and has drivers written directly to it. As we all know, Linux basically has driver apis. They are not as explicit as the vmkernel driver apis; they are not versioned and deliberately unstable - but if you've written a line of kernel code you know they are th…

> Can I do the reverse? Implement a GPL licensed wrapper that converts the Linux driver API to one provided by a binary blob (ie. what vmklinux does talking to vmkernel) and thus use the drivers? The GPL wrapper method has long been considered to be a subterfuge that GPL lawyers think judges would be able to see through. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLWrapper As to the rest of your questions, this is ho…

The wrapper is one way to look at it.

Another might be about reimplementation of APIs. The binary blobs could be evidence there is an API (even if you say you don't support it). If I reimplement it, is it derived?

So yeah, it's nuanced ... Otherwise I guess it would never have got so far

Re: Report from the VMware GPL court hearing

#18

Post by bsder »

jordigh wrote: post #13
delsarto wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did you expect them to say? Linux is a huge part of what we do? Here's how I see it. Vmkernel has a driver API. It's documented, versioned, comes with a ddk and has drivers written directly to it. As we all know, Linux basically has driver apis. They are not as explicit as the vmkernel driver apis; they are not versioned and deliberately unstable - but if you've written a line of kernel code you know they are th…

> Can I do the reverse? Implement a GPL licensed wrapper that converts the Linux driver API to one provided by a binary blob (ie. what vmklinux does talking to vmkernel) and thus use the drivers? The GPL wrapper method has long been considered to be a subterfuge that GPL lawyers think judges would be able to see through. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLWrapper As to the rest of your questions, this is ho…

> The GPL wrapper method has long been considered to be a subterfuge that GPL lawyers think judges would be able to see through.

However, the GPL lawyers don't want to press the point too hard as they could easily lose a lot of hardware that would quickly render Linux useless.

If nVidia, for example, got scorched by the GPL and started releasing binary-only drivers only for FreeBSD, Linux would start losing a lot of corporate seats.

Re: Report from the VMware GPL court hearing

#19

Post by bsder »

osivertsson wrote: post #5

Some quotes that I feel shows VMware's attitude towards the software freedom community: [...] the VMware defense in claiming that overall, they could only find very few functions that could be attributed to Christoph, and that this may altogether be only 1% of the Linux code they use in VMware ESXi. At times their lawyers made statements like linux is this small yellow box in the left bottom corner (of our diagram).…

They're definitely obfuscating the amount. If it were just a couple of functions that could be ripped out and rewritten, VMWare would have done it long before this hit court.

This doesn't even get into "linkage". They're almost certainly using huge chunks of Linux code wholesale.

Re: Report from the VMware GPL court hearing

#20

Post by dragonwriter »

jordigh wrote: post #13
delsarto wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did you expect them to say? Linux is a huge part of what we do? Here's how I see it. Vmkernel has a driver API. It's documented, versioned, comes with a ddk and has drivers written directly to it. As we all know, Linux basically has driver apis. They are not as explicit as the vmkernel driver apis; they are not versioned and deliberately unstable - but if you've written a line of kernel code you know they are th…

> Can I do the reverse? Implement a GPL licensed wrapper that converts the Linux driver API to one provided by a binary blob (ie. what vmklinux does talking to vmkernel) and thus use the drivers? The GPL wrapper method has long been considered to be a subterfuge that GPL lawyers think judges would be able to see through. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLWrapper As to the rest of your questions, this is ho…

If "GPL lawyers" think that, where are the enforcement actions? When lawyers say they believe things about the law but aren't, it -- as the SF conservancy itself pointed out in their statement on the Canonical ZFS issue -- often represents what their clients have an interest in people believing about the law more than anything else.
Post reply on HN