Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Friday March 06 2015, @10:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the lawyers-already-won dept.

El Reg reports:

Linux kernel developer Christoph Hellwig has sued VMware in Hamburg, Germany, over alleged violations of the GNU General Public License.

Hellwig's suit, which is backed by New York advocacy group the Software Freedom Conservancy, alleges that VMware's proprietary ESXi hypervisor products use portions of the code that Hellwig wrote for the Linux kernel, in violation of the terms of version 2 of the GPL.

"In addition to other ways VMware has not complied with the requirements of the GPL," the Conservancy wrote in a blog post on Wednesday, "Conservancy and Hellwig specifically assert that VMware has combined copyrighted Linux code, licensed under GPLv2, with their own proprietary code called 'vmkernel' and distributed the entire combined work without providing nor offering complete, corresponding source code for that combined work under terms of the GPLv2."

This isn't the first time Hellwig has made such claims. He first accused VMware of violating the GPL in 2006 via the Linux Kernel Mailing List, even threatening to sue. It now seems that the proverbial other shoe has finally dropped.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by tonyPick on Friday March 06 2015, @11:03AM

    by tonyPick (1237) on Friday March 06 2015, @11:03AM (#153797) Homepage Journal
  • (Score: 1, Disagree) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday March 06 2015, @11:15AM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Friday March 06 2015, @11:15AM (#153799) Homepage Journal

    If you download the installation ISO, it comes with binaries of GPL code such as the Linux kernel.

    I looked a while back, and did not find any written offers for the kernel source code.

    Now, the Mint website does say that their releases are based on specific Ubuntu release numbers, however my understanding is that if Mint distributes a binary, then Mint must either distribute the source as well, or make a written offer to do so.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by engblom on Friday March 06 2015, @11:37AM

      by engblom (556) on Friday March 06 2015, @11:37AM (#153800)

      But do they modify the source code? Do they have their own set of patches? That is the critical thing. If it is unmodified, they can point you to upstream sources.

      GPL does not require you to have the source code on your own site. All it requires is that any user of the product has a way to get the source code.

      • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @11:49AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @11:49AM (#153802)

        If it is unmodified, they can point you to upstream sources.

        If I remember correctly, that was added in GPLv3.

        GPLv2 was written when distribution was done on floppy or CD, so it's either include source or written offer.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:40AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:40AM (#155262)

          Linus Torvalds is quite emphatic that Linux is Open Source and not Free Software.

          My gripe is not so much that I cannot find the kernel source code, as that I can't find the exact same source code as was used to build the kernel I actually have installed.

          When I asked this question before, I don't think that offer to email root@linuxmint.org was present on the website.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by tonyPick on Friday March 06 2015, @12:19PM

        by tonyPick (1237) on Friday March 06 2015, @12:19PM (#153808) Homepage Journal

        AIUI this isn't technically the case, and if you distribute the binaries you need to be able to distribute complete source.

        From http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html [softwarefreedom.org]

        The license terms apply to anyone who distributes GPL’d software, regardless of whether they are the original distributor. Take the example of Vendor V , who develops a software platform from GPL’d sources for use in embedded devices. Manufacturer M contracts with V to install the software as firmware in M’s device. V provides the software to M, along with a compliant offer for source. In this situation, M cannot simply pass V ’s offer for source along to its customers. M also distributes the GPL’d software commercially, so M too must comply with the GPL and provide source (or M’s own offer for source) to M’s customers.
        This situation illustrates that the offer for source is often a poor choice for products that your customers will likely redistribute. If you include the source itself with the products, then your distribution to your customers is compliant, and their (unmodified) distribution to their customers is likewise compliant, because both include source. If you include only an offer for source, your distribution is compliant but your customer’s distribution does not “inherit” that compliance, because they have not made their own offer to accompany their distribution.

        Also touched on (indirectly) in the FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient [gnu.org]

        (Usual IANAL disclaimer here)

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Marneus68 on Friday March 06 2015, @11:58AM

      by Marneus68 (3572) on Friday March 06 2015, @11:58AM (#153804) Homepage

      Over five seconds of google-fu proved you were full of shit: http://packages.linuxmint.com/list.php?release=Rebecca [linuxmint.com]

      • (Score: 5, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Friday March 06 2015, @01:35PM

        by wonkey_monkey (279) on Friday March 06 2015, @01:35PM (#153824) Homepage

        Exactly. Over five seconds. I'm not made of time!

        --
        systemd is Roko's Basilisk
        • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Friday March 06 2015, @05:37PM

          by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Friday March 06 2015, @05:37PM (#153879) Journal

          I'm not made of time!

          Oh, you REALLY should look into that upgrade! I'M made of time - and space, too! It's a real life-changer, believe you me. Got the wife convinced that we should be saving a little to afford the next step: becoming PURE ENERGY! It's supposed to be a blast.

          --
          You're betting on the pantomime horse...
        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Friday March 06 2015, @05:38PM

          by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Friday March 06 2015, @05:38PM (#153882) Journal

          systemd is Odysseus' gift horse

          --
          You're betting on the pantomime horse...
    • (Score: 2) by SuperCharlie on Friday March 06 2015, @12:00PM

      by SuperCharlie (2939) on Friday March 06 2015, @12:00PM (#153805)

      If you look on their site or ask in their forums, an email. To root@Linuxmint.com gets you Mint source code I believe.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by moondrake on Friday March 06 2015, @12:45PM

      by moondrake (2658) on Friday March 06 2015, @12:45PM (#153818)

      This is completely different from what VMware is doing, but regardless, Mint does provide you with instructions to download the source.
      From the site where you can download the isos:

      "Some of the packages we distribute are under the GPL. If you want to access their source code you can use the apt-get source command. If you can't find what you're looking for please write to root@linuxmint.com and we'll provide the source to you."

  • (Score: 2) by engblom on Friday March 06 2015, @12:27PM

    by engblom (556) on Friday March 06 2015, @12:27PM (#153812)

    I am liking better BSD license than GPL and with BSD license there would not be this kind of legal processing. Still I hope they win over VMware in this case because:

    1. Those writing code should have the full right to pick any license they want for their project. If they want the source of derivate, they have their full right to demand it if they want so (through the license). They picked GPL because that stands for what they believe is best.

    2. VMware clearly do not respect the will of the creators as they willfully break the license. It is not morally right to do so. And even less morally to make money out of a broken license.

    So go FSC!

    • (Score: 2) by engblom on Friday March 06 2015, @12:38PM

      by engblom (556) on Friday March 06 2015, @12:38PM (#153814)

      SFC I mean.... of course

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Friday March 06 2015, @02:39PM

      by LoRdTAW (3755) on Friday March 06 2015, @02:39PM (#153837) Journal

      It's a mixed bag. If I wrote code that I wanted to give away, I would want everyone to benefit from it indefinitely. That is why the GPL is appealing. I can write code and be assured that no one can run with it and never contribute back. Of course many BSD based derivatives contribute back but there is no guarantee. It's based on an honour system that can be terminated at any time. At least the GPL keeps beneficiaries in check and ensures they give back.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Arik on Friday March 06 2015, @04:59PM

        by Arik (4543) on Friday March 06 2015, @04:59PM (#153877) Journal
        The biggest problem with the BSD licenses is that they are extremely convenient for businesses that wish to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. The GPL is simply a legal hack to prevent that.

        Anyone that does not object to E^3 treatment of Free Software should prefer the BSD license, anyone that does not wish to see that happen should prefer the GPL.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @11:46PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @11:46PM (#154002)

          I oversee the team in my company that pulls in all open source software for internal use. We're a large company, one of the largest on wall street, and employ a staggering number of programmers.

          GPL is an irritating library for us. We do not decide to give code back to software because it is GPL, instead we just don't allow people to use GPL'd works in ways that would, even potentially, obligate us to give code to a third party.

          I'm not saying businesses don't exist that exploit the GPL for EEE, but the practical view of the matter should always keep in mind that some companies will not participate as heavily in GPL'd software communities because of copyleft. We've given a large amount of code back and most of it to Apache/BSD style projects.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by Arik on Saturday March 07 2015, @12:47AM

            by Arik (4543) on Saturday March 07 2015, @12:47AM (#154014) Journal
            "We do not decide to give code back to software because it is GPL, instead we just don't allow people to use GPL'd works in ways that would, even potentially, obligate us to give code to a third party."

            Good, then it's working as it should. If you are not willing to assume the obligations, you should not use the code, and you are not the intended recipient of the code. The intended recipient is that startup that is about to eat your lunch by offering your customers a better deal. And the sooner they do that the better.
            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 4, Funny) by isostatic on Friday March 06 2015, @07:16PM

        by isostatic (365) on Friday March 06 2015, @07:16PM (#153904) Journal

        That is why the GPL is appealing. I can write code and be assured that no one can run with it and never contribute back

        No you can't. I take GPL code all the time, modify it, and never contribute back. I have no need to, unless I distribute the modifications. If I do that, then I have to distribute the changes to the code too, and people laugh at how bad my programming is, and I get upset. So I don't distribute the modifications.

      • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday March 09 2015, @09:11AM

        by TheRaven (270) on Monday March 09 2015, @09:11AM (#154795) Journal
        There was nothing in the GPL that stopped Google from taking the Linux kernel, modifying it, and running it on their datacentres without upstreaming the changes. Given that 90% of software development happens in house and is never redistributed, the number of people that you're forcing to release changes with the GPL is pretty small. The number that you're frightening away from ever looking at it with a license that's several pages of legalese is much larger.
        --
        sudo mod me up
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by gidds on Friday March 06 2015, @02:32PM

    by gidds (589) on Friday March 06 2015, @02:32PM (#153836)

    ...alleged violations of the GNU General Public License.

    You can't actually violate the GPL, can you?

    If the allegations are justified, then of course:

    VMware has not complied with the requirements of the GPL

    ...but that's not the same thing.

    If you don't comply with the requirements of the GPL (or any other licence), then it doesn't apply.  So what you've violated is copyright law.

    (Which I guess makes you an eeeeevil pirate, and probably a terrrrist.)

    So the headline has it right.

    Of course, after any mention of the GPL, the discussion is bound to degenerate into the merits or otherwise of various open-source licence styles, and probably of the people who wrote them.  (Is there a Godwin-style law for that?)  But I hope most will agree that, whichever licence this code should have been released under, failing to comply with the terms of its licence is not cool.

    --
    [sig redacted]
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday March 06 2015, @02:52PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Friday March 06 2015, @02:52PM (#153839)

      You can't actually violate the GPL, can you?

      Yes you can. If you fail to comply with the terms of the GPL, then you are in violation of the license, which means that the license is null and void, which means you are breaking copyright law. Yes, it's a civil matter, not a criminal matter, but you're violating it as surely as if you were pirating Windows. Also, because you are doing so willfully and for profit, that increases the damages.

      As an end-user, it's pretty close to impossible to violate the terms, because nearly all the requirements of the GPL have to do with distributing binaries and code, not merely using them for your own purposes. But a vendor like VMWare could absolutely be doing that.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Arik on Friday March 06 2015, @04:41PM

        by Arik (4543) on Friday March 06 2015, @04:41PM (#153872) Journal
        "Yes you can. If you fail to comply with the terms of the GPL, then you are in violation of the license, which means that the license is null and void, which means you are breaking copyright law."

        The other guy is right and you are, not so much wrong, as simply muddled.

        There is no obligation to comply with the terms of the GPL, it is not a law, it's an *offer.* An offer is not *violated* but *declined.* Or possibly just *ignored.*

        Either way, the charge here is violation of copyright law. The GPL is simply an affirmative defense VMWare might be able to counter the charge with, but if the plaintiffs can show that VMWares use did not comply with the GPL offer, then that defense fails, and the charge remains violation of copyright.

        As an analogy, you invite me to your house for dinner. In legal terms, you have extended a license to me. I accept, I enter your property, you try to charge me with trespassing. The license - your invitation to dinner - is my defense against the charge of trespassing. If I have it in writing or witnesses to attest to it then the charge will fail. But what if it was a conditional license? Suppose the invitation has an addendum outlining rules for attendance, and one of them is no alcohol. You show up with an invitation but you also have a flask of whiskey bulging out of your pocket. You have violated the license, it fails as a defense, and the trespassing charge is back on the table. Not some new charge of 'violating the license' - that is not an offense in and of itself, it simply forfeits your defense against the (trespassing or copyright) charge.

        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 06 2015, @06:42PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday March 06 2015, @06:42PM (#153890) Journal

          Violation:

          noun
          1.
          the act of violating.

          2.
          the state of being violated.

          3.
          a breach, infringement, or transgression, as of a law, rule, promise, etc.:

          "He was fined for a traffic violation."

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by isostatic on Friday March 06 2015, @07:12PM

            by isostatic (365) on Friday March 06 2015, @07:12PM (#153902) Journal

            a breach, infringement, or transgression, as of a law, rule, promise, etc.:

            You'd have to show that VMWare promised to abide by the GPL. Chances are they didn't, thus haven't broken any promise. They've violated copyright law, but not the GPL.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @03:10PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @03:10PM (#153847)

    The headline should read "VMWare Sued for Infringing Linux Source Code".

    That's one thing I've learned from reading Slashdot and SN comments over the years. Stop using words to make an action seem more worse than it really is!

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 06 2015, @06:45PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday March 06 2015, @06:45PM (#153891) Journal

      What does "infringe cource code" mean?
       
      Sued for Linux Source Code Copyright Infringement, perhaps. The Colloquialism is much easier. "Ripping Off" implies things like plagiarism as well, so it is much more accurate than "theft" which is the parralel you are alluding to, I think.

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @08:08PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @08:08PM (#153920)

        Fine. So people who obtain music through illegal torrents are ripping off the record companies, right?