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: 1, Disagree) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday March 06 2015, @11:15AM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
systemd is Odysseus' gift horse
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by SuperCharlie on Friday March 06 2015, @12:00PM
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
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."