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

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: Report from the VMware GPL court hearing

#31

Post by jordigh »

bsder wrote: post #18
jordigh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

Hyperbole aside about how Linux would be useless without nvidia blobs, the situation with nvidia is not about a mere GPL wrapper. The nvidia blob is using parts of the Linux API for which the Linux API explicitly declares "there's no GPL here". This declaration is enforced via C macros.

Re: Report from the VMware GPL court hearing

#32

Post by djsumdog »

delsarto wrote: post #15
georgyo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The implications of this are pretty broad reaching. I think it'd be amazing if, at the end of this, the VMWare kernels all becoming opensource.

Re: Report from the VMware GPL court hearing

#33

Post by djsumdog »

tkinom wrote: post #29
tinco wrote: post #21

I am not really up to date on this case. Why is Christian sueing for just the copyright infringement of his contributions? It sounds like this 'fading' concept might really put a stop to this whole trial. Wouldn't it be possible for Christian to represent more Linux developers so their collective work sits comfortably above 1% of Linux?

His lawyer should probably make it a class action - represent the "Linux Kernel Developers" class. That probably cover 100% of the code.

Yea, why isn't the Kernel.org teal or the FSF taking up this case as well. It seems odd he's bringing it about individually.

Re: Report from the VMware GPL court hearing

#34

Post by sangnoir »

bsder wrote: post #27
davexunit wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it so important to protect proprietary software companies that infringe on other's copyright?

Leaving aside the fact that this isn't really settled legal theory... Linux would be hurt more by nVidia's absence than nVidia would be hurt by Linux's absence. Linux could disappear tomorrow, and there are plenty of free Unix-like alternatives that easily fill the void. If nVidia disappeared tomorrow, there are lots of Linux contracts that would simply stop (and most likely switch to Windows). Now, you can argue ide…

> Linux would be hurt more by nVidia's absence than nVidia would be hurt by Linux's absence.

Maybe for the desktop, but not overall: Nvidia is heavily pushing supercomputing/machine learning and it can't afford to ignore Linux in this space (since Linux dominates).

If Nvidia were to abandon Linux, they would be gifting AMD a free come-back opportunity.

Re: Report from the VMware GPL court hearing

#35

Post by tzs »

sangnoir wrote: post #34
bsder wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leaving aside the fact that this isn't really settled legal theory... Linux would be hurt more by nVidia's absence than nVidia would be hurt by Linux's absence. Linux could disappear tomorrow, and there are plenty of free Unix-like alternatives that easily fill the void. If nVidia disappeared tomorrow, there are lots of Linux contracts that would simply stop (and most likely switch to Windows). Now, you can argue ide…

> Linux would be hurt more by nVidia's absence than nVidia would be hurt by Linux's absence. Maybe for the desktop, but not overall: Nvidia is heavily pushing supercomputing/machine learning and it can't afford to ignore Linux in this space (since Linux dominates). If Nvidia were to abandon Linux, they would be gifting AMD a free come-back opportunity.

What if Nvidia provided good ⋆BSD drivers? According to the answers from Greg Lindahl and Eugene Miya on Quora to the question "Why is the OS landscape of Supercomputers dominated by Linux instead of BSD?" [1] the Linux dominance is largely an historical oddity rather than due to some inherent superiority of Linux.

If for some reason supercomputer builders could no longer use the best GPUs in supercomputers, would they stick with Linux or would they follow the hardware and switch to a ⋆BSD on the compute nodes?

[1] http://qr.ae/RUortF

Re: Report from the VMware GPL court hearing

#36

Post by karltk »

bsder wrote: post #18
jordigh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Not sure I'm able to follow your logic here, esp regarding "quickly render Linux useless" and "losing a lot of corporate seats".

Linux is extremely pervasive by now: embedded systems, phones, laptops/desktops, servers, super computers. Let's say NVIDIA boycotted Linux on account of the GPL. No more NVIDIA for Linux-based embedded systems, phones, laptops/desktops, servers, supercomputers. What then?

It certainly wouldn't make a dent in the embedded space, where NVIDIA hardly has any presence at all, even if you do include NVIDIA Shield. On the phone side, how many of the 1+ billion Android devices use NVIDIA chips? 1 million? 2?. It certainly wouldn't make a dent in the server space -- the market for GPGPUs on regular servers is rather tiny. In the supercomputing space, there's a trend towards more GPGPU capabilities, so here it might actually make a difference for some. Still, seems somewhat unlikely that lack of NVIDIA support would "quickly render Linux useless" as a supercomputing OS...

That leaves the laptop/desktop space. Linux has around 2% market share on the laptops/desktops. Most people in that space who need rock-solid 3D performance for CAD/CAM work are already using Windows. Sure, there are still die-hard NVIDIA Linux users left, even after everyone decided to transition to MacBooks and OSX for development, but their number hardly qualify as "lots of corporate seats".

All of that being said, I'd love for additional uptake of the *BSDs, in addition to the ~30 million PS4s running FreeBSD :)

Re: Report from the VMware GPL court hearing

#37

Post by jo909 »

tkinom wrote: post #29
tinco wrote: post #21

I am not really up to date on this case. Why is Christian sueing for just the copyright infringement of his contributions? It sounds like this 'fading' concept might really put a stop to this whole trial. Wouldn't it be possible for Christian to represent more Linux developers so their collective work sits comfortably above 1% of Linux?

His lawyer should probably make it a class action - represent the "Linux Kernel Developers" class. That probably cover 100% of the code.

There is no class action in german law. Everybody has to sue on their own (with very few exceptions), but of course there is no point in having (and funding) multiple identical cases unless this case gets dismissed for a technicality like the fading issue.

Re: Report from the VMware GPL court hearing

#38

Post by phjesusthatguy3 »

bluejekyll wrote: post #28
davexunit wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it so important to protect proprietary software companies that infringe on other's copyright?

I think his point is that if the nvidia company felt threatened by Linux, then they would immediately stop producing for Linux. In which case the Linux ecosystem would shrink, and the platform would become less useful. Would this actually happen? Would it effect Linuxes popularity? That's harder to predict.

They're already not producing for Linux, though; they're producing for themselves and flouting the GPL to expand their market.

Re: Report from the VMware GPL court hearing

#39

Post by germanier »

jo909 wrote: post #37
tkinom wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His lawyer should probably make it a class action - represent the "Linux Kernel Developers" class. That probably cover 100% of the code.

There is no class action in german law. Everybody has to sue on their own (with very few exceptions), but of course there is no point in having (and funding) multiple identical cases unless this case gets dismissed for a technicality like the fading issue.

Just to add: If similar lawsuits are anticipated or the question is seen as important courts usually give they opinion on what criteria to use to judge other cases. So even if this one is lost due to technicalities we will likely learn more about this legal question.

Re: Report from the VMware GPL court hearing

#40

Post by xorcist »

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…

> Now it seems it is OK to ship a binary blob driver that links against Linux driver apis. Nvidia, ati,

Several copyright holders in the kernel are on the record that what Nvidia is doing is not ok. Linus himself is known for some harsh words.

In theory you only need one who is willing to put up a fight. Your business model should not depend on winning a court case concerning the actual license as it is put in print. It should be based on you not going to court at all, by not doing things against the copyright holders wishes.

Post reply on HN