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

171–180 of 299 posts

Re: VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation

#171

Post by ternaryoperator »

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?

As a VMware customer, why would you do any of that until you know the results of the litigation? Suppose VMware is found not to have violated the GPL.

Re: VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation

#172

Post by JoshTriplett »

jordigh wrote: post #153
JoshTriplett wrote: post #57

LWN has a very clear explanation of just how clear-cut this is: https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/635290/e501ce0264c182f4/ In particular, this isn't just a question of whether a kernel module is a derived work of the kernel. Apparently VMWare has copied code from the Linux kernel, with GPLed headers on top, and compiled that code directly into some of their code.

Aside, shouldn't you be parsimonious with subscriber links for LWN and not post them publicly? I haven't had a LWN subscription in a while, but I really like their business model. I would not have posted this link myself.

Reasonable question (and I don't think you should be downvoted for it), but no, LWN editors (including Jonathan Corbet) have explicitly said that they're very happy to see LWN subscriber links posted to social networking sites and discussion sites. The main thing they don't want to see is someone systematically posting links for every single subscriber-only article.

Re: VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation

#173

Post by belorn »

paulhauggis wrote: post #108

The GNU license doesn't sound very "free" to me. It's strange that the owners of GNU code think that all additions to their code should rightly be released to the public (even if they never wrote the additions). The original code is still "free" for the world to use, so there really isn't anything being taken.

Every day I enjoy being "free" by not getting stolen from, since thievery is restricted by my government. I also enjoy that every driver is restricted by rules on the road, as I can walk "freely" without being crushed. I can do so many things in my life, and most of them would not be possible without the massive number of restrictions that is put on people around me.

I only wish more people could be this free.

Re: VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation

#174

Post by onestone »

hga wrote: post #116
ChuckMcM wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be an interesting result. To my knowledge the GPL (any version) hasn't actually been litigated to the point of a published decision (would love to hear that it had). That said, (and continuing with my possibly incorrect assumption that the GPL hasn't been litigated) if it does get decided that this remedy can be enforced by the license holders through the court, I expect it will create the largest software…

" The business risk would become too great that they might be litigated by a rival into inoperation. " Only the owners of a copyright have standing to sue, so I think the complete version of your concept fails unless, like in this case, the copyrights are held by many people instead of being assigned to one person or organization. I also can't imagine that a lot of companies haven't considered this risk, it hardly ma…

> Only the owners of a copyright have standing to sue

That's not true, at least in some countries. For example, see this case in France from 2009:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/09/big-gp...

> "We've long said the GNU GPL is enforceable, and of course we're pleased to see another court reaffirm that fact," said FSF France president Loic Dachary in a statement. "It's a commonly held belief that only the copyright holder of a work can enforce the license's terms—but that's not true in France. People who received software under the GNU GPL can also request compliance, since the license grants them rights from the authors."

Re: VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation

#175

Post by hga »

blfr wrote: post #162
hga wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" The business risk would become too great that they might be litigated by a rival into inoperation. " Only the owners of a copyright have standing to sue, so I think the complete version of your concept fails unless, like in this case, the copyrights are held by many people instead of being assigned to one person or organization. I also can't imagine that a lot of companies haven't considered this risk, it hardly ma…

Only the owners of a copyright have standing to sue What about people who receive the compiled software (customers) and would like the source code as well? Don't they have standing?

In the case of copyleft software, I would think so, and onestone tells us this has been established in France. So I've amended my posting (minimally, near the end of the edit window).

Re: VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation

#176

Post by MaulingMonkey »

s73v3r wrote: post #110
paulhauggis wrote: post #108

The GNU license doesn't sound very "free" to me. It's strange that the owners of GNU code think that all additions to their code should rightly be released to the public (even if they never wrote the additions). The original code is still "free" for the world to use, so there really isn't anything being taken.

If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it. Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions?

> Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions?

I don't see where paulhauggis is claiming he's entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions. Can you point out that claim explicitly for me? (edit: removed a stray nonsensical "it" for clarity)

> If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it.

This is what I generally do when it comes to GPLed libraries. Even closed source APIs generally grant me more "freedom" as a developer in how I redistribute my own programs invoking those APIs.

But hey, it's their right to release GPLed software. I make use of some GPLed software (generally only as a user, not a developer) and thank their developers for their contributions.

...but I don't think it's outrageous to find their definition of "free" a little odd, I get why it can be hard to follow their line of reasoning, and don't see the harm in trying to dig into the reasoning behind using the GPL over, say, a more permissive license such as MIT. Personally, I'm more inclined to release under permissive licenses - but this is your chance to convince paulhauggis of the merits of the former, no?

Re: VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation

#177

Post by [deleted] »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #104
nordsieck wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that it'll come to that. There are some really nasty consequences of being found to violate the GPL: 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License... From what I understand, there is no obvious…

That would be an interesting result. To my knowledge the GPL (any version) hasn't actually been litigated to the point of a published decision (would love to hear that it had). That said, (and continuing with my possibly incorrect assumption that the GPL hasn't been litigated) if it does get decided that this remedy can be enforced by the license holders through the court, I expect it will create the largest software…

[deleted]

Re: VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation

#179

Post by dragonwriter »

blfr wrote: post #162
hga wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" The business risk would become too great that they might be litigated by a rival into inoperation. " Only the owners of a copyright have standing to sue, so I think the complete version of your concept fails unless, like in this case, the copyrights are held by many people instead of being assigned to one person or organization. I also can't imagine that a lot of companies haven't considered this risk, it hardly ma…

Only the owners of a copyright have standing to sue What about people who receive the compiled software (customers) and would like the source code as well? Don't they have standing?

> What about people who receive the compiled software (customers) and would like the source code as well? Don't they have standing?

In the US, IIRC (and IANAL and this is not legal advice) license are analyzed under contract principles to the extent applicable, which might extend to standing, and, under contract principles, you could argue that those receiving the software are intended third-party beneficiaries with standing to sue.

So, its possible.

Re: VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation

#180

Post by rplnt »

emacsen wrote: post #6
tw04 wrote: post #4

I'm surprised it took this long. I can't really blame them, after 15 years of ignoring the GPL, they probably figured nobody would ever come up with the financial resources to actually go after them. This is going to take years to come to a resolution and millions and millions of dollars in lawyers fees.

I agree. If you want to help the little guy here, then pleased donate to fund the lawsuit: http://sfconservancy.org/linux-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-app...

The sad thing is that in the end you're only helping lawyers.
Post reply on HN