SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 5, Informative) by gidds on Friday March 06 2015, @02:32PM
You can't actually violate the GPL, can you?
If the allegations are justified, then of course:
...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
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
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
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
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.