Slashdot Log In
VMware May Violate Linux Copyrights
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:34 PM
from the what-about-its-copylefts dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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.
VMware May Violate Linux Copyrights
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 443 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
They made a movie about this with Charlie Sheen (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:They made a movie about this with Charlie Sheen (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
?????
Re:They made a movie about this with Charlie Sheen (Score:5, Insightful)
- Omit actual details in favor of baseless speculation.
This is how you optimize FUD: keep the claims mysterious. SCO kept up this strategy for, what, 4 or 5 years?Re:They made a movie about this with Charlie Sheen (Score:5, Informative)
(http://neolicity.blogspot.com/)
What details were omitted from TFA, in your opinion?
Re:Help me understand... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Help me understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
Derived from Linux source code = Have to show the code
Running on Linux = whatever you want to do
Derived from linux concepts (commands, interfaces, etc) or using linux API's = whatever you want to do
Please don't spread rediculous misconceptions about what the GPL forces to be free, it hurts the GPL movement because people will avoid it for fear its will "infect" their code, I had to get our lawyers sign off that checking our proprietary code into the GPL'd CVS would not force our code to be GPL; arguements that using Open Office make your term paper GPL or that somehow the ability to run Halo under WINE means you have a right to the source code is the type of anti-GNU FUD MS wants to spread.
Re:Help me understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://robots.org.uk/)
If you are talking about the kernel, then you should read the COPYING [kernel.org] file: if your work is a derived work of the Linux kernel, then it must be released under the GPL. If it is not a derived work of the kernel then you can do whatever you want.
If you are talking about one of the many platforms based on Linux (e.g., RHEL, Debian GNU/Linux, etc) then you must consider the licensing terms of every work which you derive from (e.g., the GNU C Library, GTK+).
BTW, I must correct your implied assertion that the free software community wants "ownership" of a vendor's code. This is not the case! We merely want vendors to respect the licensing terms of any works from which they create a derivative work.
Re:Help me understand... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.nodomain.org/)
Incorrect. You *cannot* link a GPL library into a non-gpl app. Check with your lawyers. Seriously..
Re:Help me understand... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Help me understand... (Score:4, Insightful)
FSF did not distribute SunOS, Solaris, HP/UX etc. and therefore they were not bound by those licenses. The same applies to say NVIDIA, since they don't distribute GPL-covered software either. VMWare has no such luck -- they distribute both GPL-covered and proprietary software, and they even do it on the same CD. Now, the GPL could have outright forbidden this "mere aggregation", which would obviously have been completely enforceable. Instead, the GPL allows shipping both on the same media -- but only if both pieces work independently of each other. And the VMWare hypervisor seems to not work without the Linux kernel. Whoops.
If it cannot be loaded without the linux kernel, (Score:1, Troll)
(http://www.digitaladdiction.net)
Re:If it cannot be loaded without the linux kernel (Score:5, Informative)
Re:directly on the harware = uses GNU/Linux (Score:5, Informative)
No, actually, it doesn't mean that at all. You have no actual concept of how ESX works, you just SSH'd into a box, ran uname and considered yourself clever. What you are looking at is the Service Console. The SC runs a modified RHEL 3, and functions on bootup as a bootloader for the vmkernel. Once the vmkernel is loaded, the vmkernel handles all hardware access and virtualization functions, and is a completely separate OS from the service console. The Service Console continues running as a pseudo-VM with API hooks into the vmkernel to preform management functions. It bridges the vmkernel with the outside world. The vmkernel itself, the underlying OS running everything and managing hardware access, is proprietary, and is not Linux.
Might I suggest you take some VMware classes to gain a better understanding of how this stuff works.
Re:If it cannot be loaded without the linux kernel (Score:5, Insightful)
'Q. Does ESX Server Run on Linux? On Windows?
A. ESX Server runs natively on server hardware, without a host operating system.
Ok, so ESX doesn't need a host OS. It's pretty clear that ESX installs directly on the hardware without needing Windows, Linux or any other OS installed first - ESX itself is the OS. The question then is whether the ESX OS is based on Linux.
Re:If it cannot be loaded without the linux kernel (Score:5, Informative)
Re:If it cannot be loaded without the linux kernel (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nagios (Score:4, Informative)
Re:If it cannot be loaded without the linux kernel (Score:4, Informative)
(http://c63.be/)
"[The] VMware ESX hypervisor virtualization approach provides lower overhead and better control and granularity for allocating resources (CPU-time, disk-bandwidth, network-bandwidth, memory-utilization) to virtual machines. It also increases security, thus positioning VMware ESX as an enterprise-grade product." - Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Whereas the desktop products operate over the OS layer, ESX is closer to the bare hardware (Type 1 versus Type 2 hypervisor - Read more [wikipedia.org]. The question in this case is why it needs the Linux kernel "loader" if it is a self-contained kernel. My understanding of the product isn't deep enough to speculate.
Incorrect wording in title (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.sancairodicopenhagen.com/tbpmd.html)
Re:Incorrect wording in title (Score:5, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Copyright gets extended, we all get violated.
Cheers
Step One.... (Score:2, Troll)
(http://127.0.0.1/ | Last Journal: Friday November 02, @08:43PM)
1. Build product using someone else's stable OS. ....Profit!
In short, they just paid off their Mastercard with their Visa card...2. Offer IPO.
3. Get scads of cash in to pay off OS licensers and IP lawsuits, and....
4.
Adds to Perception of GPL as Viral (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Adds to Perception of GPL as Viral (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Adds to Perception of GPL as Viral (Score:4, Informative)
From wikipedia: So, as you see, the GPL is clearly not viral. All it says is that you make derivative works with GPL works and distribute those works, you have to GPL them too, thus respecting the rights of the person who owns the code you are redistributing. You get the same thing with "closed" products too: you purchase a license to redistribute something, but the actual product you are redistributing has to stay closed.
Furthermore, you can run all kinds of closed source stuff on a GPL system. Very many websites are run on apache and very few of them are GFDL, for example. Vbulletin and CXOffice are good software examples. TiVo is another one, as much as it vexes us all. Closed source can come into contact with open source all day long without "contracting" the GPL.
Copyright is viral (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://photo.net/photos/swillden | Last Journal: Wednesday July 19 2006, @01:42PM)
The GPL is not viral. Copyright is viral. You can't take any copyrighted work and incorporate it into a new work of your own without permission from the copyright holder (excepting Fair Use). The work you incorporated "infects" your work.
Copyrighted work distributed under the GPL is different only in that it does give permission for creation of derivative works, given certain limitations. If you don't want to comply with the license, don't incorporate GPL'd code into your software. Go buy some commercial code and use that instead -- but be sure to comply with the terms of that license, because "viral" copyright will burn you if you don't. Or, if you prefer, you can write your own code so you don't need a license at all.
This is not rocket surgery. It's not even the slightest bit confusing, except when made deliberately so by FUDsters.
Re:Adds to Perception of GPL as Viral (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://c63.be/)
Before you all massacre me: I see your real point, that they will fear using Linux as a base operating system for their products, even when that usage wouldn't cause their code to fall under GPL. But should that stop people from protecting their IP? Contributors to the Linux kernel and other GPL products have issued an exclusive license under which their copyrighted material should be released. Allowing corporations to desecrate this for the lofty goal of popularizing Linux doesn't make sense. GPL is what it is, and if it doesn't become any more popular because of it's "viral" nature or even perception of such, so be it. Otherwise you will just be destroying the authors goals - to keep the software free and open at all costs.
Bottom line is, if it adds to the negative perception of GPL, it's worth advertising the positive, but certainly *not* worth dismissing the issue. Stand by the GPL principals, or don't use them in the first place.
Re:Adds to Perception of GPL as Viral (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
See, whether or not it's "viral" and whether you get to use Linux and other GPL software "in your products" depend entirely on what kind of software it is and what you're doing with it.
If you merely took Linux code (which is copyrighted) and incorporated it into your product, you've just swiped code -- which, oddly enough, is illegal under the law and the not provided for in the license. If it was LGPL and you can link to it, then you can make it as part of your product since it is just plumbing.
Nobody is saying you can't write your own closed-source application which runs on top of Linux. But, you don't get to steal parts of Linux or anything else under the GPL and pass it off as yours -- that's just plain old copyright violation. There's no blanket exemption to re-use it any way you choose; you must adhere to the license granted to you.
So, if someone wrote software based on Linux and find themselves running afoul of the GPL, it's likely not because GPL code is 'viral', it's that you tried to steal code you had no right to. Which is entirely different from this whole 'viral' talk.
u
What companies need is an occasional reminder that they specifically can't just incorporate Linux and other GPL code "into their products" any way they choose. It just doesn't work that way. As an end user, you can make use of GPL'd software until you're blue in the face with pretty much no obligations. As a company, you can't just take parts of it without any consequences. It's not a public domain code repository to pillage to your heart's content -- it's Open Source (TM), and there are rules about what you can and can't do with it.
I'm not sure that steering "developers/bsinesses away from using Linux and other GPL software in their products" is anywhere near as bad as you're thinking it might be.
Cheers
Service Console can be replaced (Score:3, Funny)
Old news? (Score:1)
(http://stylus-toolbox.sf.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday May 15, @11:50AM)
litigation (Score:2)
Not necessarily a violation. (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Thursday November 07 2002, @12:49PM)
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.
Re:Not necessarily a violation. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://neilmcallister.com/)
Re:Not necessarily a violation. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
http://www.vmware.com/download/open_source.html [vmware.com]
Heck the ESX EULA, gives you a nice hyperlink to the downloads even
http://www.vmware.com/download/eula/esx_server.ht
VMware, ESX and a bad smell (Score:1)
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!