VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation

Post by angersock » Fri, Mar 06, 2015, 5:33 AM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #228

angersock wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ethics don't enter into it--you might be thinking of negative externalities. That's the responsibility of the person running things next fiscal year. In the mean time, quit worrying and go deliver shareholder value.

> That's the responsibility of the person running things next fiscal year. In the mean time, quit worrying and go deliver shareholder value. No, that's a weird attitude (i.e. I'll create a mess today, next person will clean it tomorrow). One has to be responsible for the mess, and actually preventing it to begin with. What you described is exactly the lack of professionalism.

Post by yarou » Fri, Mar 06, 2015, 6:20 AM UTC

delsarto wrote: post #149

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.

I don't think it is as clear cut at all, but that makes it much more interesting. I left a comment there, but it bears some repeating I think ESXi's kernel does not bootstrap itself from Linux at all. There is no linux kernel as such [1] ESXi does reuse linux kernel drivers ... a lot of them. But the way this happens is through a well-defined API provided by (proprietary) vmkernel called vmkapi. What you are seeing i…

Post by Kalium » Fri, Mar 06, 2015, 6:53 AM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #230

Kalium wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Implicit is that I believe commercial software can exist while still being free.

How so? Commercial -support-, perhaps. Butt in not sure how offering to sell software that is free I'd any business model. And that's my point, Stallman absolutely DOES want to kill commercial software (as is this right)

Post by belorn » Fri, Mar 06, 2015, 8:28 AM UTC

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #200

belorn wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> [...] 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.

Post by yaeger » Fri, Mar 06, 2015, 8:47 AM UTC

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…