Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

VMware May Violate Linux Copyrights

Posted by Zonk on Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:34 PM
from the what-about-its-copylefts dept.
Nailer writes "Bloomberg believe VMware's IPO today may the largest technology offering since Google. But doubts have been cast over the company's supposedly proprietary ESX product, as top 10 Linux contributor Christopher Hellwig claims the software may violate Linux kernel copyrights. 'Is Hellwig right, and is VMware a derived product of Linux? Unless vmkernel can be loaded without the Linux kernel, it would appear so. VMware was developed from another, long ago OS created as a research project, but it's unclear whether vmkernel was ported from that OS or rewritten as the Linux-requiring binary blob. What's more of an issue is that VMware had these serious questions posed directly to them a year ago, repeated in a public forum many times since, but have yet to respond at all.'"

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • by captnitro (160231) * on Tuesday August 14, @12:36PM (#20227007)
    • Wait for big, innovative company to IPO.
    • Watch as share price goes up 90% on a day when the Dow is losing 100 points. Feel bad I don't work for that company. Boo.
    • Blog about possible copyright violations that would surely bring down EMC or VMW. Make investors nervous. Buy low.
    • Profit.
  • then why does the free version run under Windows?
  • Copyright gets infringed, licenses get violated.
  • Step One.... (Score:2, Troll)

    by UncleTogie (1004853) * on Tuesday August 14, @12:45PM (#20227111)
    (http://127.0.0.1/ | Last Journal: Friday November 02, @08:43PM)

    1. Build product using someone else's stable OS.
    2. Offer IPO.
    3. Get scads of cash in to pay off OS licensers and IP lawsuits, and....
    4. ....Profit!

    In short, they just paid off their Mastercard with their Visa card...
  • Adds to Perception of GPL as Viral (Score:3, Insightful)

    by langelgjm (860756) on Tuesday August 14, @12:50PM (#20227173)
    Whether or not VMWare violates Linux copyrights, the mere fact that this is being discussed may add to the perception of the GPL as a "viral" license, and steer developers/businesses away from using Linux and other GPL software in their products.
  • by kerubi (144146) on Tuesday August 14, @12:50PM (#20227177)
    You heard it here first. In the next major ESX release, VMware will ditch the Linux service console altogether in favour of their own proprietary one. Admins around the globe cheer as they have to learn yet another system.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Old news? (Score:1)

    by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Tuesday August 14, @12:53PM (#20227201)
    (http://stylus-toolbox.sf.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday May 15, @11:50AM)
    Christopher Hellwig has been on about this for about over a year now. No one from VMWare has responded. The fact is, that the vmkernel is a big binary blob loaded by a Linux kernel module. It can't run without Linux, so that makes it a derived work. Yes, nVidia and ATI get a free ride because their drivers are largely derived from the Windows drivers, they can stand on their own, so Linus says that they get a break. I don't agree with Linus, but then again, I'm not the copyright holder on the Linux kernel, so who am I to say anything? Especially when I'm directly benefiting from nVidia's driver.
    • Re:Old news? by Bill, Shooter of Bul (Score:2) Tuesday August 14, @12:57PM
      • Re:Old news? by morgan_greywolf (Score:2) Tuesday August 14, @01:03PM
        • Re:Old news? by Sancho (Score:2) Tuesday August 14, @01:22PM
          • Re:Old news? by suckmysav (Score:2) Friday August 17, @05:13AM
    • Re:Old news? by Cyrano de Maniac (Score:2) Tuesday August 14, @01:23PM
      • Re:Old news? by Timothy Brownawell (Score:2) Tuesday August 14, @01:38PM
      • Re:Old news? by russotto (Score:3) Tuesday August 14, @02:38PM
      • Re:Old news? by Doug Neal (Score:2) Tuesday August 14, @05:10PM
    • Re:Old news? by terrymr (Score:2) Tuesday August 14, @01:24PM
    • Re:Old news? by harlows_monkeys (Score:2) Tuesday August 14, @02:35PM
    • Re:Old news? by Antique Geekmeister (Score:2) Tuesday August 14, @06:20PM
    • Re:Old news? by morgan_greywolf (Score:1) Tuesday August 14, @01:12PM
      • Re:Old news? by morgan_greywolf (Score:2) Tuesday August 14, @01:25PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Old news? by morgan_greywolf (Score:1) Tuesday August 14, @02:56PM
      • Re:Old news? by morgan_greywolf (Score:1) Wednesday August 15, @07:46AM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Old news? by Hatta (Score:2) Tuesday August 14, @03:43PM
    • Re:Old news? by morgan_greywolf (Score:1) Tuesday August 14, @04:07PM
    • Re:Old news? by totally bogus dude (Score:1) Wednesday August 15, @02:14AM
    • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • litigation (Score:2)

    by mikeee (137160) on Tuesday August 14, @12:55PM (#20227241)
    Hey, if you're looking for somebody to pursue the case, it looks like Darl from SCO will be available soon!
  • Not necessarily a violation. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sl3xd (111641) * on Tuesday August 14, @12:59PM (#20227287)
    (Last Journal: Thursday November 07 2002, @12:49PM)
    There is, of course, a way that they aren't violating linux copyrights: They may simply be using the Linux Kernel to get the hardware into a known state prior to loading the VMkernel. Similar projects include LinuxBIOS, and Linux's own kexec (kexec lets you boot a new linux kernel without actually 'booting').

    Of course, it is a violation if ESX is actually running a modified Linux Kernel, instead of using the Linux Kernel as a bootloader. Using the Linux Kernel as a bootloader is a done deal; just look up 'kexec' for proof of it. (Though I'm fairly certain kexec isn't what VMware uses).

    But even then, remember that ESX is their "enterprise" product, which acts more like a hypervisor, and is not to be confused with VMware Workstation, VMware Player, or VMware Server.
  • by Paracelcus (151056) on Tuesday August 14, @12:59PM (#20227289)
    I was sent to VMware by Robert Half for an interview.
    Everything was going fine until we started to talk about Linux, with a growing sense of unease I could feel coming from them the interview ended abruptly.

    The next day the head-hunter who set it up called me and said that they told him that "I smelled" and were angry that he would send someone that was "smelly" to them.

    Something stinks and I don't think it's my pits!
  • Uh, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheRaven64 (641858) on Tuesday August 14, @01:00PM (#20227297)
    (http://theravensnest.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 07, @07:05AM)
    The article has some interesting comments. One is:

    So according to VMware ESX actually has two kernels - the vmkernel, and a Linux kernel. This sounds a bit odd, given a computer can only run one kernel at a given time - otherwise which one determines who gets access to the CPU, memory, and other hardware?
    Perhaps the writer is missing the point of having a hypervisor, which is (drum roll) to allow two kernels to run at once.

    The license for the Linux kernel is quite different to the licensing for DOS that allowed Netware to use it for a bootloader.
    The license for Linux only applies if you are distributing Linux (fair enough, they are), and only applies to Linux and code which is a derived work of Linux. It does not apply, for example, to binary-only applications running on Linux and using system calls. Linux includes the kexec system call, which allows the running kernel image to be replaced with another, effectively making Linux into a bootloader. This was originally written as part of the Linux BIOS project, to allow Linux to be used as (another drum roll please) a bootloader.

    Linus Torvalds (the copyright holder for the Linux kernel)
    Not even close. Linux owns copyright on some small parts of the kernel, but does not require copyright assignment, and so these days much of the copyright is owned by other people (not relevant, but yet another error).

    Is Hellwig right, and is VMware a derived product of Linux?
    Hellwig is a troll.

    Unless vmkernel can be loaded without the Linux kernel, it would appear so.
    Rubbish. Interfaces can not be copyrighted. It is only a derived work if it is not isolated from the kernel via a public interface. From the description in the 'article,' it sounds like:
    1. Linux boots.
    2. Userspace tool kexec's the hypervisor (an odd way of doing things, so I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't actually what happens).
    3. The Linux kernel continues to run in a VM, providing an admin UI and drivers to the other guests, just as it does with Xen.
    Looking at the patches that the VMWare guys have been sending in for hypervisor support, it seems like step three, at least, is accurate. Xen does the following in a typical install:
    1. Linux is installed, with a Xen-compatible kernel.
    2. User reboots.
    3. Xen Hypervisor boots.
    4. Xen Hypervisor loads a Linux (or NetBSD or Solaris, or Windows with Xen Enterprise) domain 0 (privileged) guest, which runs the (userspace) management tools and provides device drivers.
    There has, I believe, been some work done making Xen boot using kexec from Linux, so you can skip step 2 if you want. If you do this, then you get exactly the same set of steps as VMWare ESX.

    Now, to be fair, Xen actually does include some code (stuff like atomic operations, for example) from Linux (and is GPL'd, making this a non-issue), but this was done to save time, rather than because the code has to come from Linux.

    • Re:Uh, what? (Score:4, Informative)

      by chrb (1083577) on Tuesday August 14, @01:27PM (#20227697)

      Perhaps the writer is missing the point of having a hypervisor, which is (drum roll) to allow two kernels to run at once.


      No, you're missing the point. Linux is loaded first, then a closed source module, which loads a closed source OS. The closed source module is a derived work of linux.

      The license for Linux only applies if you are distributing Linux (fair enough, they are), and only applies to Linux and code which is a derived work of Linux. It does not apply, for example, to binary-only applications running on Linux and using system calls. Linux includes the kexec system call, which allows the running kernel image to be replaced with another, effectively making Linux into a bootloader. This was originally written as part of the Linux BIOS project, to allow Linux to be used as (another drum roll please) a bootloader.


      But they don't use kexec. They use a closed source module.

      Hellwig is a troll.


      Arguments should be evaluated on their merits, not on who makes them.

      Rubbish. Interfaces can not be copyrighted. It is only a derived work if it is not isolated from the kernel via a public interface.


      Did you miss the part about the closed source module? There is no public interface. This isn't kexec. VMware are distributing the kernel and a closed source module together. Can you name another company that does that?
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Uh, what? by InsaneGeek (Score:2) Tuesday August 14, @02:12PM
        • Re:Uh, what? by charlesnw (Score:1) Tuesday August 14, @03:04PM
        • Re:Uh, what? by xenocide2 (Score:2) Tuesday August 14, @03:04PM
      • Re:Uh, what? by franl (Score:1) Friday August 17, @02:06PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • VMware claims OSs of today will be history tomorrow as virtualization becomes norm and without need of todays OS's.

    Of course this is IPO hype to jack up investor interest.

    To use that as an indication of the ethics of VMware, what does such indication tell you?

    It tells me that VMware probably does infringe.
  • by jaweekes (938376) on Tuesday August 14, @01:07PM (#20227409)
    It runs on their own kernel which loads up a virtual machine console running Red Hat; this is referred to as VM0 or the first virtual machine, and is not the kernel that ESX runs on. It's talked about in all their training and should come to no surprise to anyone who runs ESX.
  • Now the GPL may define a derived work however it wants but the GPL only applies if standard copyright law would deem the VMware application to infringe on linux copyrights. I'm not up to speed on this issue but if it only interfaces at a small number of points it very well may not. If the VMware app does not infringe on linux copyright then they do not have to accept the GPL to distribute it and there is no problem.

    Of course it's entirely possible that it would be declared an infringing product. I have no idea.
  • Just say no to FUD (Score:3, Informative)

    by nweaver (113078) on Tuesday August 14, @01:11PM (#20227469)
    (http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~nweaver/)
    "So according to VMware ESX actually has two kernels - the vmkernel, and a Linux kernel. This sounds a bit odd, given a computer can only run one kernel at a given time otherwise which one determines who gets access to the CPU, memory, and other hardware?"

    Uhh, this is a virtualization system. The ESX kernel provides a hardware abstraction layer which the linux kernel in the service console can access.

    So yes, it IS running two kernels, the ESX kernel which has priority, and the linux kernel running on top of it in a VM like every other virtualized kernel, once it gets running. Duh.

    But the meat of the FA seems to be that "Because a Linux kernel is used to initiate the ESX kernel, and because the linux kernel has a binary blob driver to help in the bootstrap process, QED ESX kernel is considered a derivitive work, because Linus says that things which require kernel changes are derivitive works" WTF?

    FUD is bad. No matter the source.

    The Linux kernel allows binary blobs. VMWare uses an F@#)(* huge binary blob to bootstrap ESX and other stuff. OOOHHH SCARY bogeyman violate GPL. Either sue (Linus does have standing. The SCSI author actually does have standing if it includes his code anywhere in the hacked up kernel) or get off the pot.

    And Just say no to FUD.
  • To sum up.. (Score:1)

    by chrb (1083577) on Tuesday August 14, @01:12PM (#20227497)
    VMware use a 2.4 linux kernel to bootload their own kernel (VMkernel) using a closed-source linux module (vmkmod). This module doesn't exist for any other OS, so Linus would say it's a derived work of the kernel. It's a pretty clear cut argument that vmkmod should be open source.

    Now the argument get a bit more complicated - since VMkernel exists in kernel space, and requires a derived work of linux to load, then it also is a derived work. This argument is basically like saying that Microsoft couldn't distribute a version of Grub with Windows without violating the copyright of Grub, because Grub is GPL and Windows is closed source. It comes down to one question: is bootloader+kernel a derivative work, or are they two separate things? Does the fact that they're both in kernel space at the same time, and a one makes a function call to the other, enough to make a derivative work?
  • lucky bastards! (Score:3, Funny)

    by roscocoltran (1014187) on Tuesday August 14, @01:12PM (#20227499)
    I've read somewhere that SCO was offering a special discount on linux licenses this week. Quick! get one before the offer ends!
  • Cannot use linux as a bootloader? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Timothy Brownawell (627747) <tbrownaw@prj e k . n et> on Tuesday August 14, @01:14PM (#20227521)
    (Last Journal: Friday June 15, @08:57PM)

    So if I'm reading this right, anything that uses Linux as a bootloader is "derived from" Linux (because it depends on Linux, because nobody bothered to implement another bootloader) and must be GPLed? That seems very, very bogus, and I will be very annoyed if such nonsense is upheld. Just because something looked at your code funny once, does not automatically make that thing derived from your code.

  • Derived Works (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sloppy (14984) on Tuesday August 14, @01:15PM (#20227543)
    (http://www.biglumber.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday September 18, @12:25PM)

    But some proprietary modules do exist, and they do that on one premise: Linus Torvalds (the copyright holder for the Linux kernel) has repeatedly stated that he doesn't consider drivers ported from other operating systems to be derived works of Linux. After all, if something can load without Linux, it can't really be considered a derived work.

    Sometimes I have to ask: where the fuck are the lawyers? Did we finally kill them all? ;-)

    Folks, software creators like Linus or the FSF people, can put whatever terms into licenses that they want, but one thing they can't do is define derived works. Congress does that (very poorly, so the courts end up mostly stuck with the job). And unless you make something that is a defined work, do never need to get bound to the license in the first place, so.. words in the GPL do not matter, and Linus' opinion does not matter. Well, it matters in the since that we're talking about smart people who have obviously given the issue some thought. But that's all.

    What I'm getting at, is that Linus is making an argument. He is not giving an authoritative declaration as a copyright holder or licensor. He can't.

    Linus has determined? (inferred? decided?) that if something works w/out Linux, it's not a derived work, and if it doesn't work w/out Linux, it is a derived work. I think that's very arbitrary, and brings up so many (apparent?) counter-examples that it would terrify everyone in the software industry except for maybe the BIOS guys.

  • 1. It details information that is from an older and nearly 2.5 year old revision of the Product. The Current Version is 3.0.x and the relationship of the Linux system and the VMKernel has changed substantially.

    2. VMWare licenses the Implimentation of Linux used in ESX from Red Hat, however nowhere is that mentioned in the Article.
  • Stupid Article (Score:1)

    by Champion3 (599877) on Tuesday August 14, @01:20PM (#20227601)
    (http://www.teamohms.org/)
    It's clear from TFA that the author doesn't even understand these details.

    1. kernel32 is not actually the Windows kernel. It's a user-mode DLL that implements part of the Win32 API. The "kernel" name is there for historical reasons.

    2. The linux kernel is not a bootloader. ESX might use it or host it in some capacity, but it's wrong to compare it to GRUB, NTLDR, etc.

  • Hurry...... (Score:2)

    by 3seas (184403) on Tuesday August 14, @01:21PM (#20227613)
    (http://threeseas.net/ | Last Journal: Friday January 18 2002, @01:44PM)
    get in on the IPO and figure out where to get off......
  • by bilbus (999819) on Tuesday August 14, @01:22PM (#20227623)
    Vmware Server (free version) is built on GSX not ESX. And yes VMware ESX is some form of linux.
  • Go read this article (http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08 /09/171248 [slashdot.org]) from last week and note that Dell apparently will be booting a version of ESX from BIOS. If ESX can be booted with an alternate bootloader, it must not be that closely tied to RedHat.
  • This isn't Tivoization (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ExE122 (954104) * on Tuesday August 14, @01:27PM (#20227707)
    (http://www.slashdot.org/~ExE122 | Last Journal: Friday September 22 2006, @09:47AM)
    I found this article to be nothing more than a poorly written rant of an opinion piece. Especially ridiculous were the Karl Rove tactics in which the author tried to "clarify" quotes by adding some text in parenthesis to reinforce his point. Example:

    I personally consider anything a "derived work" that needs special hooks in the kernel to function with Linux (i.e., it is not acceptable to make a small piece of GPL-code as a hook for the larger piece), as that obviously implies that the bigger module needs "help" from the main kernel.
    ~Linus Torvalds 19 Oct 2001
    Well let's ignore the "i.e." that I don't think Torvalds actually spelled out and read what this really is saying...

    I personally consider anything a "derived work" that needs special hooks in the kernel to function with Linux, as that obviously implies that the bigger module needs "help" from the main kernel.
    Well that's nice and all, but we need to keep in mind is that the kernel in question, Linux 2.4, was released in 2002. That means it fall under Version 2 of the GPL which, as far as I can tell, says that software is "derived" only if it includes GPL source code or it is linked with a GPL library. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in there that matches LT's "opinion" stated above.

    I think Christopher Hellwig put it best:

    I unfortunately don't have enough copyrights on that particular version to sue them.
    Exactly. Linux would've pushed legal action by now if they thought it would get them anywhere. The defense rests, end of story. So what is the point of this article? To whine about how unfair this is? Ok, maybe. But such is life.

    --
    Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called Democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
  • Hardware Support (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JumboMessiah (316083) on Tuesday August 14, @01:28PM (#20227713)
    I've never used ESX, but I would imagin that no matter what, ESX needs driver support.

    Being a hypervisor, it has to access all kinds of devices like VGA consoles, serial ports, Fibre Channel HBAs, SCSI HBAs, IDE controllers (for CDROMs), Ethernet adapters, etc., etc. So my question is, where does the ESX hypervisor (vmkernel) get these? Does it pull them from Linux or did they write their own? This hardware _HAS_ to be setup, initialized, and arbitrated. Does vmkernel have it's own stack of device drivers, or does it conveniently run the ones in the Linux "bootloader"?

    I'm thinking there's more to this than just the binary blob issue...
  • by sfjoe (470510) on Tuesday August 14, @01:28PM (#20227715)
    Looking at an ESX server, you'll find what looks like a Linux OS. This isn't a secret - VMware call this the 'console OS'. Is ESX server based on Linux?

    I've never run ESX but I'd like to know what Linux 'looks' like. Most people who see a shell confuse it with the operating system. A bash shell looks pretty much the same on Solaris, Linux, BSD, Cygwin, etc.

     
  • Philosophy (Score:2)

    by KidSock (150684) on Tuesday August 14, @01:36PM (#20227875)
    This is where you need to get philosophical. Is vmkernel using kernel routines because it wants to or because it *has* to. Meaning, is vmkernel using the kernel routines to do all the vm related work that they could otherwise do equally well with their own code? Or is vmkernel using kernel routines that it MUST use to interface with the host to do I/O, implement the abstract syscalls, etc? Considering ESX runs on a number of platforms my *guess* is they probably favor the later. If they did just what they needed to do to make their product run on Linux then I don't see why anyone should have a problem with that. And if the GPL is not compatible with that then I would advocate adding a clause to the license to provide for these scenarios.
    • Re:Philosophy by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday August 14, @02:30PM
  • I'm sure (Score:3, Funny)

    by Capt James McCarthy (860294) on Tuesday August 14, @02:30PM (#20228787)
    (Last Journal: Thursday July 07 2005, @09:59AM)
    This can be quickly resolved with some stock....
  • by that IT girl (864406) on Tuesday August 14, @02:45PM (#20228957)
    I suppose I am missing something. What's the point of it being open source if people can't use it?
  • I don't understand this (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Master of Transhuman (597628) on Tuesday August 14, @03:14PM (#20229371)
    I read the article and as far as I can see, while there may be a technical legal issue with the VMWare kernel being loaded by a Linux kernel (or some part thereof - insmod), thereby in some extremely technical sense making the VMWare kernel a "derived work" - this is really reaching in my opinion.

    Particularly since it would seem obvious that that they could easily rewrite the thing to do its bootloading in some other way. The Linux kernel appears to be have been used only as a convenience to make the system more portable than their original development OS. And this was probably done "back in the day" since they're using a 2.4 kernel.

    And if said Linux kernel being used is described as a "badly hacked 2.4 kernel", then who the hell cares? Hellwig seems to be pissed that VMWare asked the kernel maintenance list for some support or something, but basically seems to be on a "crusade" like the FSF fanatics. He's all pissed off about something that nobody else in their right mind couldn't care less about.

    Perhaps VMWare should rewrite their boot loader (they certainly have enough money and smarts to do so), but basically I agree with the first poster - this appears to be either FSF fanaticism or an attempt to influence the VMWare IPO or both.

    It's really beginning to seem like a religious crusade for some "fundamentalists" to root out "heretics" in the OSS world. The same socialists who deride proprietary companies for preventing "freedom" are more than willing to use a state-enforced license to drag people into line with their ideology. This is not "freedom". It is coercion.

  • nothing mysterious here (Score:5, Informative)

    by semenzato (445337) on Tuesday August 14, @03:20PM (#20229473)
    (http://www.semenzato.com)
    I am a former VMware programmer. Obviously I do not speak for the company, just myself.

    VMware is not infringing anything. First, they have high standards of ethics. Even if they didn't, they would be too smart for that. When ESX was designed, there were other choices for the console OS, FreeBSD for instance. But they figured out that using Linux was legal and did so. Both VMware and Linux benefit from this. Yes, it is not a "standard", well-understood relationship such as running some app on top of the kernel. But it respects the technical aspects of the license and I believe its spirit as well (although my interpretation of the "spirit" may differ from yours).

    One could argue that Linux benefits more from VMware than the other way around. In many cases VMware ESX introduced Linux to corporate data centers that wanted nothing to do with it. The sales people had to work hard to convince potential customers that the product was NOT running on Linux, that Linux was just running in a separate VM to help along with various tasks.

    Linux is also helped by the fact that virtual machines offer a low-cost way of experimenting with new systems, and add a layer of freedom in the conservative corporate IT environment.

    As to whether VMware should be free software, there are situations for which free software is just not the right model and VMware is a good example. In the early years of the company, someone tried to start a competing free-software product (at some point called Freemware) but it didn't go far. VMware is a large (huge) system. It took a lot of unglamorous work from a lot of people under the same roof to bring it to life. It was almost a miracle that it would run. It stressed CPUs in truly novel ways. (The programmers hit and had to work around previously unknown bugs in the CPU.) I, the eternal pessimist, feared that we'd never be able to make it stable enough for a viable product. Fortunately I was wrong, and in any case Windows was a lot less stable than VMware those days, so it didn't matter that much.

    Luigi
  • Umm they do distrube the code!! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by opieum (979858) on Tuesday August 14, @03:24PM (#20229505)
    http://www.vmware.com/download/vi/open_source.html [vmware.com] So what is the problem? I bet the reason the forums have not gotten an answer is because the user never bothered to look for the answer. He wanted it answered for him instead of actually you know doing some of the legwork himself. That or just posting FUD. The code is there for all to see.
  • If vmware isnt using Linux for OS tasks like disk, net and other hardware those guys sure can write drivers en masse, and fast. Vmware runs on a great deal of hardware so its very probable that it uses Linux for anything driver related. How this is accomplished is not interesting, its the fact that Linux is the OS providing theese services to vmware. Who sits ontop has nothing to do with it. The goal here is ofcourse not to shut down vmware but if they use a heavily modified Linux kernel as their OS for vmware they should obey the license and release the source code to the public. Else, just start writing those thousands of drivers.
  • ESX is like free software, it's better when it's free.
  • by Kymermosst (33885) on Tuesday August 14, @04:39PM (#20230393)
    (Last Journal: Thursday November 01, @09:12PM)
    It's never made sense to me that something that makes use of kernel hooks ends up somehow being a derivative work.

    To me, that's like telling me if I install an aftermarket stereo (module) in my Buick (kernel) using the wiring harness that came with the car (module hooks), my stereo is now considered to have been a derivative work of my car.

  • by Pyrroc (1064152) on Tuesday August 14, @05:02PM (#20230619)
    Since we already had our car analogy in this thread, I'll use a different analogy... One that actually applies to copyright.

    Say I write a book whose sole purpose was to comment/critique/debunk/build upon the ideas written about in a book by a different author... I don't directly quote a single word of the original text, but my book is meaningless without the ideas proffered in the other book...

    Applying the same logic that is being put forth here, my book would be considered a derivative work of the original author...

    Bulls***!

    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by baggins2001 (697667) on Tuesday August 14, @07:42PM (#20231887)
    ...I don't know why more effort isn't being put into FreeBSD, where the licensing isn't an issue.
  • More garbage (Score:2)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Tuesday August 14, @08:20PM (#20232101)
    (http://slashdot.org/~nurb432/ | Last Journal: Friday August 27 2004, @03:24PM)
    This nonsence is really getting old.

    Who really cares if there is some copyrighted code in there? Really, no one cares but the attorneys.
  • by Nefarious Wheel (628136) * on Wednesday August 15, @02:18AM (#20233761)
    Oh my, do we really want this? Microsoft is spending hugely on their own Virtual Server range and we want to put road blocks in front of VMWare?
  • by hempdog (536526) on Wednesday August 15, @04:06AM (#20234165)
    Registered with VMWare recently and now keep getting lots of e-cards? Thats what I did. I registered with a specially crafted address only used once when registering with them and it is now receiving spam. Trust me, it's not an easily guessed address.

    I've tried to contact them about it but they keep silent..
  • by beringreenbear (949867) on Wednesday August 15, @06:57AM (#20234743)
    Oh yeah... Novell NetWare 4.12 and previous. You booted the computer using MS-DOS (or DR-DOS...), then after the NOS was running, you unloaded to bootloader. This was fixed in NetWare 5.0 (did anyone actually use it?). This rumor should scare the market nicely. Then I expect VMWare to release their own bootloader. Whether it will be "too late" by then or not is an open question. Of course, I still wonder, from a business-sense, what VMWare is doing as a separate company. It seems to me a miracle that some server OS company (*cough*Microsoft*cough*) didn't scoop them up and incorporate so that Windows Server 2008 could, in fact, run a half-dozen instances of Windows Server 2003, for example. But what do I know... I'm just a theoretician.
  • Who cares (Score:1)

    by ninevoltz (910404) on Wednesday August 15, @07:08AM (#20234817)
    What I'm worried about is when the investors pull the plug on vmplayer. They would be stupid not to.
  • if microsoft can (Score:1)

    by hesaigo999ca (786966) on Wednesday August 15, @08:35AM (#20235661)
    (http://www.auction-blog.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday September 20, @09:21AM)
    Sorry for sounding dull, but I think if microsoft can get away with what they have, monopoly and all, why not let these guys go on, as they are helping our development movement not hindering it.
    When you think of what they offer, and opposed to MS virtualPC i would rather have them.
    I wonder if Bill's hand is not reaching in his wallet on this one to help the lawyers find dirt on these guys....
    makes you think, why now???

    my 50cents
  • Let me sum it up (Score:2)

    by AlphaSys (613947) on Saturday August 18, @12:53AM (#20273287)
    I'm not even a GPL/GNU zealot, but I think I can clear this all up. It does look like ESX has a problem.
    • Distribute any binary kernel-mode module alone under any license you like - OK
    • Distribute a product which in part consists of an unmodified kernel with no (neither by directly modifying existing kernel code nor by extending kernel via insmod or vmkmod or similar methods) added functionality in kernel mode space with GPL source for that kernel but none for your non-kernel mode functionality- Still OK
    • Distribute a nonfree kernel module and separately distribute a "stock" kernel with GPL source of that kernel - Still OK (consider nonfree trees separately available for many distros)
    • distribute the two mentioned immediately above together not separately - NOT OK, or at least generally not considered so by the people who have thought about this the most. Whether or no the judicial arm would side with them is obviously fodder for debate, but the intent has been made very clear and has been done for a while now. The whole point of GPL is that
      • the right to modify the function or the substance of the GPL work in any way you like is conferred upon you explicitly and without any restriction
      • the right to redistribute the GPL work is conferred upon you -- provided you
        • have not modified the GPL work - OR -
        • make the modified work and full source available under the terms of the GPL as well

    So the whole thing can be distilled down to one simple question really: does a kernel running with a proprietary kernel-mode module constitue a modified kernel? LT would say unequivocally it does, and etymology would probably back him up. Mode, module, modify... hmmm... Module modifies mode.

    Plenty has been made of the exception whereby a binary, proprietary kernel mode module may be distributed with the GPL work in question (the kernel) and sans source or conferred GPL rights for the module if said binary module can be proven to

    • implement standard interfaces that are not unique to the GPL kernel
    • otherwise be shown to run unmodified on some other kernel

    A lot of pure idealists like to argue that this exception is bullshit and is Linus' way of worming aound the issue for ATI and NVidia because it would hurt the platform if he didn't. But that's a specious argument. The truth is, it allows the letter of the agreement to fit its spirit. Those modules do not hook the kernel functions in any unique ways. In fact, they are exported from implementations on other platforms. As such, they are not relying on unique features of the LINUX kernel to pull off functionality they couldn't pull off anywhere else or at least not without significant effort. That's why to Linus, distributing ATI or NVidia binary proprietary drivers is not that big a deal and why he came up with a special case for that scenario. Unfortunately for VMWare, the case for vmkmod/vmkernel is far less clear, and none of the people who know what the deal is have stepped up to dismiss that question, although they have made plenty of distracting gestures. And it is the ONLY question. I for one hope they can trot out a demo of something else loading and unmodified vmkmod + vmkernel and put it all to rest. But considering the bitching has gone on for over a year and they haven't so much as even implied they could, I'm doubtful. I'd surely think if they could have cleared the air on this before the IPO, they would have.

    If VMWare can exhibit this module performing its functions without being loaded by the LINUX kernel, then they are acquitted before any trial. If they cannot and the GPL grantors want to indict, this could be the truest test of the GPL ever imagined, as it really gets down to the heart of it. I su

  • by DreamCoder (679179) on Tuesday August 14, @02:58PM (#20229143)
    No, no, no... try to keep up. The GPL is not a copyright license, it is a copyleft license. It explicitly releases the work from copyright restrictions on the sole condition that the same rights are passed on to derivative works. The point at issue is whether or not VMware's product is, or is not, a derivative work. The answer to that question will affect their theoretical obligations with repsect to the code they currently consider proprietary. I say theoretical because I can't see Linus backing an effort to coerce VMware into opening up their code. RMS on the other hand...
    [ Parent ]
  • by Master of Transhuman (597628) on Tuesday August 14, @04:06PM (#20230069)
    "If you want, you can get complete source code for this bastarized 2.4 series kernel which contains no proprietary code and doesn't link with proprietary code."

    well, what is at issue here is whether the mere fact that a Linux kernel is used to boot the VMWare kernel makes the VMWare kernel a "derived work". I say this makes little sense.

    Apparently the argument goes as follows:

    1) A Linux kernel is used to boot the VMWare kernel.

    2) This makes the VMWare kernel a "derived work."

    3) The Linux kernel source used to boot the VMWare kernel is not available.

    4) Therefore we can't tell if the VMWare kernel is a "derived work" or not.

    5) And if the Linux kernel source for the kernel used to boot the VMWare kernel is not available, it's a violation of the GPL on its own.

    The argument is circular to me in this form. But if the Linux kernel source used to boot the VMWare kernel IS available, then the argument falls flat - certainly as to point 5.

    The only remaining argument is whether the mere fact of using a Linux kernel to boot a VMWare kernel makes the VMWare kernel a "derived work" to which source code must be made available under the GPL.

    I say that's a seriously stupid argument to make. If any other means of bootloading the VMWare kernel could be used, and the Linux kernel was only chosen for convenience sake and/or historical reasons (if it was used during development when porting from the original OS), then it would be reaching to call the VMWare kernel a "derived work" as the VMWare kernel does not depend on Linux and ONLY Linux to be usable.

    The "top" portions of VMWare that use Red Hat are not the issue here at all. It's the relationship between the kernel used to boot the VMWare kernel and the VMWare kernel.

    I suspect you're correct that this is some "infoterrorism" intended to affect the VMWare stock price - or perhaps some overzealous FSF fanaticism ("overzealous" being redundant here.)

    [ Parent ]
  • Re:VMkernel is a kernel... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nailer (69468) on Wednesday August 15, @03:23AM (#20233993)
    >> VMkernel does not run on Linux kernel.
    >> Please, let me reiterate this again: VMKernel DOES NOT RUN ON Linux.

    RTFA. According to everyone, including VMware, vmkernel is started from Linux.

    The article has been updated to include a video of an ESX machine booting.

    Run 'strings' on the 'vmnix' kernel on your machine (or just watch it boot). It's Linux. Nobody hides this fact.
    As TFA mentions, vmkernel is started by S90vmware, which insmods vmkmod to load it.
    [ Parent ]
  • 10 replies beneath your current threshold.