191–200 of 299 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Welcome to business!
You mean unethical business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taking games as an example, in todays AAA games most have a long list of licensed work, with everything from personal permission slips to standard licenses like proprietary licensed third-party, lgpl, apache, bsd, mit and project specific ones. If they mess up on any single of those license requirement, they risk inoperation for the whole product. If a company want to remove this risk, they can't license someone else…
> Taking games as an example, in todays AAA games most have a long list of licensed work, with everything from personal permission slips to standard licenses like proprietary licensed third-party, lgpl, apache, bsd, mit and project specific ones. If they mess up on any single of those license requirement, they risk inoperation for the whole product. Commercial engines generally have a clause in there that you are not…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think the remaining Linux parts mostly exist as hardware drivers, and VMware is providing the core kernel routines like scheduling and memory management and "world" management (equivalent to process management, but it's a hypervisor). That description of vmkernel reminds me of Xen's hypervisor (dom0 handling hardware access, providing drivers but otherwise still sitting "above" the hypervisor), one technical diff…
I don't think so. Xen is a Type 1 "bare metal" hypervisor, perhaps like ESXi, this is about a Type 2 hypervisor like Virtual Box: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervisor#Classification . Proper Type 1 hypervisors run on top of the bare metal, boot first, and then in the case of Xen load a privileged virtual machine as Dom0 which has access to the bare hardware, which can be e.g. NetBSD in addition to Linux. Dom0's d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
This is exactly why I don't use any GNU code in any of my projects. I am just sick of people claiming it is "free" when it's actually a lure to get companies to use the code for free and then get bitten in the ass in the end by having to release proprietary code. Why is it that whenever I bring up this point, the words "theft" and "stealing" are used by many. However, when we are talking about copyright infringement,…
I should point out, that so far you are the only one in this conversation to use the word "theft", and the word "steal[ing]" was only used by one other commenter (who was not replying to you at all). (At least, this is true as of the 178 comment mark).
All software licenses at their core rely on some sort of copyright, including the GPL as well as proprietary licenses. This is at the heart, I believe, of what the parent poster meant by "Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their conditions?".
And as someone who both uses, and creates GPL code - let me assure you, it is most definitely not a "lure" to get companies to use it and then "release proprietary code".
So, it's not about giving and happiness anymore and happiness is it? Giving out software for free and then getting angry and going after someone in court when they don't use it to your liking is not freedom in my mind. I release all of my software under the BSD license. It's true freedom because I don't care what you do with it. It's a true unselfish act.
I don't think the parent post was saying it was all about giving and happiness. Nor do I, at least not directly. People spent time, money, etc.. creating code to release under a specific license. The license is clear, and well-known. It is not unreasonable to request that people respect the license when using the code. The reason why they chose the license isn't all that relevant, to be honest, when it comes to the validity of it.
It is clear that you don't like or respect the GPL very much; that is fine, and the appropriate option is the one you espoused: don't use it. I'm not sure I understand all your hostility, however.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're saying they would have jurisdiction over a US company in some cases? Just not a defamation one. From my edit [2] http://www.themarysue.com/france-sues-google-autocomplete/ "In any event, Google is a U.S.-based company, and isn’t compelled to operate under foreign laws. Google’s autocomplete practices are as subject to French law as they are to Japanese law, which is to say they are not subject at all."
That's a shady article and source. If Google has offices in France, and they probably do, then Google must respect French laws. A country has sovereignty over its territory, which means that if you want to operate under it, you must respect its laws. Don't know what happened with that lawsuit you mentioned, but if Google won, then it must have been because it was a stupid lawsuit.
VMWare: stop this and release the code on GPL v2. It is just old code. And also, recognize the mistake. Period.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From reading the linked article, it read to me like the complaint asserts that VMKernel itself is a violation of the GPL. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me, but these statements seems to point in this direction Conservancy discovered that VMware had failed to provide nor offer any source code for the version of BusyBox included in VMware's ESXi products But ESXi is not a purely open-source product; it also…
FYI - BusyBox is just a regular application that a kernel would run. It's not part of the kernel itself.
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?
Well, the go-to is generally considered Redhat with their RHEV product line. There are a plethora of other options out there, but if you're looking for an open source path with enterprise support they are generally candidate #1. Oracle has an option but... ya. Citrix Xenserver would be the other major player.
Our company started with RHEV and ran into lots and lots of issues with it. There were compatibility issues between our VM infrastructure and SAN (firmware problems on one side, I forget which). Guests would just lock up all the time. There were other problems, but I'm not familiar with them.
We've had little to no problem since migrating to VMWare.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Taking games as an example, in todays AAA games most have a long list of licensed work, with everything from personal permission slips to standard licenses like proprietary licensed third-party, lgpl, apache, bsd, mit and project specific ones. If they mess up on any single of those license requirement, they risk inoperation for the whole product. Commercial engines generally have a clause in there that you are not…
Commercial engines generally are not compatible with license requirement from other licenses. That is however outside the point since the argument parent post made is that the threat of enforcing third-party licenses will make every company switch to self-production only.
Note this problem only applies (in practice) to GPL licenses which are explicitly disallowed in all gaming environments I have encountered. As such the problem is moot. There are lots of Open Source code in computer games, just not GPL. It's a non issue.