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

VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation

sfconservancy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 299 posts

Re: VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation

#61

Post by ghaff »

dmitrygr wrote: post #50

I very much doubt the accuracy of their claims that vmkernel is largely a copy of linux ( http://sfconservancy.org/linux-compliance/linux-vs-vmkernel_... ) Mostly since in many of those drivers, it performs better than linux, but also because vmware did not hire idiots, (and non-idiots know not to ever use GPL code). Source: worked there a while ago.

The claim, I believe, is that vmkernel uses Linux in a way that is not permissible under the GPL. At least that was the issue as people understood it the last time this came up: http://www.cnet.com/news/vmware-and-the-gpl-round-two/

Re: VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation

#62

Post by hijiri »

nitrogen wrote: post #29
cjbprime wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It started out that way, but as I understand the release materials here, this is now about Hellwig's copyright on core kernel code (e.g. the VFS), which VMWare has integrated into their product. I wonder what they're thinking. At least with nVidia there's a plausible sounding defense that goes like "hey, we just wrote a shim to load this platform independent code we already had lying around, so our platform independe…

I've seen it argued on HN that the GPL's definition of a derivative work differs from the legal definition, and if you never distribute the GPL'd code, you aren't bound by it. Thus, one could write kernel drivers, which (it was argued) are not derivative works under copyright, and be safe as long as the kernel is not redistributed by the same entity.

The GPL does say the conditions are only on redistribution. But I think that's how it works with other derived works as well, by default. The GPL is all about how you can relicense it to other people using only the same license, you're free to do whatever you want if you never give anyone your modified code.

Re: VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation

#63

Post by MatthewWilkes »

rdtsc wrote: post #41
emacsen wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just speculation but I suspect this is a matter of being caught with their pants down. They violated the GPL, but to comply with the license would mean that they'd have to release a lot of code that they don't want to release. From the page, it seems like there's been ongoing negotiation, so I am guessing there's been a lot of stalling.

> They violated the GPL, but to comply with the license would mean that they'd have to release a lot of code that they don't want to release. Well they could replace the component with proprietary (so there is not license to comply with), stop releasing the old version and then probably settle to pay fines or damages. In other words the legal outcome of GPL violations is not necessarily being forced to release the re…

Probably have to pay damages to all their commercial users, too, given they charged them for a licence for something they had no rights to distribute.

Re: VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation

#64

Post by MatthewWilkes »

rdtsc wrote: post #41
emacsen wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just speculation but I suspect this is a matter of being caught with their pants down. They violated the GPL, but to comply with the license would mean that they'd have to release a lot of code that they don't want to release. From the page, it seems like there's been ongoing negotiation, so I am guessing there's been a lot of stalling.

> They violated the GPL, but to comply with the license would mean that they'd have to release a lot of code that they don't want to release. Well they could replace the component with proprietary (so there is not license to comply with), stop releasing the old version and then probably settle to pay fines or damages. In other words the legal outcome of GPL violations is not necessarily being forced to release the re…

Probably have to pay damages to all their commercial users, too, given they charged them for a licence for something they had no rights to distribute.

Re: VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation

#65

Post by madez »

the8472 wrote: post #44
madez wrote: post #33

It's a german lawyer suing in a german court for a german client. How can I donate in EUR without the money going through USD? Edit: "[The USD] is our currency, but it's your problem.", John Bowden Connally, Jr. Obviously here are people who like it that way.

If your country participates in SWIFT a wire transfer should be possible, see http://sfconservancy.org/donate/

Thanks! I wrote an email to the given address for details on how to donate.

Re: VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation

#66

Post by JoshTriplett »

dmitrygr wrote: post #50

I very much doubt the accuracy of their claims that vmkernel is largely a copy of linux ( http://sfconservancy.org/linux-compliance/linux-vs-vmkernel_... ) Mostly since in many of those drivers, it performs better than linux, but also because vmware did not hire idiots, (and non-idiots know not to ever use GPL code). Source: worked there a while ago.

Go read https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/635290/e501ce0264c182f4/ for more of the details, including copied source files that contain Linux copyright headers and GPL notices at the top.

Re: VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation

#67

Post by tw04 »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #51
stephengillie wrote: post #14

As a VMWare customer, this makes me consider their ethics. If they're unethical, shouldn't we look into switching away from their product? I'm not aware of many competitors in their market space - Hyper-V certainly, but that's less of an option for some. Short of rearchitecting our service as a series of containers, what action can conscientious corporate leaders take?

Depending on what you're looking to do, you might investigate Xen or KVM, possibly with OpenStack on top.

The problem with OpenStack as a replacement for VMware (outside of the complexity of installation), is that most people using VMware have an expectation of high availability being table stakes (a VM automatically being rebooted on a different node in the event of a node failure). OpenStack assumes the software on the front end can tolerate a node going down in it's current form and that the front-end application will just route around a node failure.

Re: VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation

#68

Post by vetinari »

Alupis wrote: post #54
vetinari wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abstracting from ethics, Virtualbox is probably not a suitable replacement for ESXi. Oracle VM Server might be. But then, you could use Xen directly.

XenServer seems a more apt replacement for ESXi. They are both tier 1 hypervisors and come with comparable features and management options, and both install from an ISO with easy setup. XenServer is also 100% open sourced now by Citrix. It's a completely free product with all the features, but you can pay Citrix for enterprise support if you want/need it.

Oracle VM Server is Xen under the hood, just with different management tools (and comes with fees and occasionally, support too ;) ).

Re: VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation

#69

Post by rosser »

dmitrygr wrote: post #50

I very much doubt the accuracy of their claims that vmkernel is largely a copy of linux ( http://sfconservancy.org/linux-compliance/linux-vs-vmkernel_... ) Mostly since in many of those drivers, it performs better than linux, but also because vmware did not hire idiots, (and non-idiots know not to ever use GPL code). Source: worked there a while ago.

That diagram doesn't suggest that vmkernel is "largely a copy" of anything. It specifically alleges "modified Linux code".

Re: VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation

#70

Post by froseph »

dmitrygr wrote: post #50

I very much doubt the accuracy of their claims that vmkernel is largely a copy of linux ( http://sfconservancy.org/linux-compliance/linux-vs-vmkernel_... ) Mostly since in many of those drivers, it performs better than linux, but also because vmware did not hire idiots, (and non-idiots know not to ever use GPL code). Source: worked there a while ago.

The wayback machine* has Zachary Amsden's opinion in 2007 why the vmkernel (and other components) are not in violation of GPL. It's an interesting read.

He concludes:

> 1) There is no argument that depending on a Linux console OS makes any part of ESX subject to GPL that is not already opene sourced. We have open sourced those GPL components of the system which we have modified and given the changes back to the community.

> 2) There is no argument that loading the vmkernel by bootstrapping it with Linux makes the vmkernel subject to GPL. In fact, in the funniest counter-example, Linux itself used to be boostrapped under MS-DOS by running the command loadlin (note the 7 character name, since DOS would not allow enough characters for load-linux).

> 3) There is no argument that distributing GPL binary drivers makes any piece of software distributed with them or using them subject to GPL. In fact the converse appears to be explicitly stated in the GPL itself.

* http://web.archive.org/web/20080105204946/http://www.venture...

updated for formatting.

Post reply on HN