
VMWare Taken to Court Over GPL Violation - emacsen
http://sfconservancy.org/news/2015/mar/05/vmware-lawsuit/
======
JoshTriplett
LWN has a very clear explanation of just how clear-cut this is:
[https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/635290/e501ce0264c182f4/](https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/635290/e501ce0264c182f4/)

In particular, this isn't just a question of whether a kernel module is a
derived work of the kernel. Apparently VMWare has copied code from the Linux
kernel, with GPLed headers on top, and compiled that code directly into some
of their code.

~~~
delsarto
I don't think it is as clear cut at all, but that makes it much more
interesting. I left a comment there, but it bears some repeating I think

ESXi's kernel does _not_ bootstrap itself from Linux at all.

There is no linux kernel as such [1]

ESXi _does_ reuse linux kernel drivers ... a lot of them. But the way this
happens is through a well-defined API provided by (proprietary) vmkernel
called vmkapi. What you are seeing in the code above is the mapping between
various Linux API's and these calls to the vmkernel.

I have no idea about the complaint. VMware's position is probably that
_anyone_ can go and write anything they want against the vmkernel's vmkapi
interface. Indeed some vendors ship drivers written espeically for this API.

VMware have chosen to write a linux<->vmkapi interface, which then allows them
to re-use many linux drivers. All of the linux<->vmkapi interface is released,
along with the drivers and any modifications and this is considered
sufficient. My guess is that the software conservatories position is that it
is not.

Note exactly the other thing happens on the "other" side -- between user-land
and the vmkernel. ESXi uses glibc ... but of course _that_ interfaces to
vmkernel via standard system calls. Maybe that's part of it too, I don't know.

So this _may_ be a fight over API boundaries and where the GPL starts and
stops. That's quite interesting...

[1] There _was_ with the ESX product, which shipped a version of Red Hat. That
hasn't been around for ages

~~~
rnovak
From reading the linked article, it read to me like the complaint asserts that
VMKernel itself is a violation of the GPL. If I'm wrong, please feel free to
correct me, but these statements seems to point in this direction

    
    
        Conservancy discovered that VMware had failed 
        to provide nor offer any source code for the 
        version of BusyBox included in VMware's ESXi products
    
        But ESXi is not a purely open-source product;
        it also contains a proprietary component called
        "vmkernel."
    
        VMware's developers appear to have taken a 
        substantial amount of kernel code, adapted 
        it heavily, and built it directly into 
        vmkernel itself
    
        
    

If so, that would be like me finding some code on Github, changing it a
little, and then including it in my own closed source application, clearly a
violation of the GPL.

Obviously though, I'm not sure how to prove that without the source of
VMKernel

Again, this is honestly just how I'm reading it, if I'm wrong feel free to
correct it.

~~~
Sanddancer
This sounds more like Oracle vs Google regarding Java, where VMWare, like
Google, is stating that APIs are not copyrightable, and the SFC, like Oracle,
is claiming that even those APIs are copyrightable.

~~~
hugoroy
There is a huge difference: in this case the Vmware product does include linux
kernel code. So there's definitely some reproduction and distribution of
copyrighted parts even excluding the use of APIs.

------
chubot
Good, I donated here:

[http://sfconservancy.org/linux-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-
app...](http://sfconservancy.org/linux-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-appeal.html)

~~~
cbetz
I donated too. If you're sitting on the side lines: remember that that the
Software Freedom Conservancy is a non-profit while VMware is multi-billion
dollar corporate entity with very deep pockets and high-priced lawyers.

------
tw04
I'm surprised it took this long. I can't really blame them, after 15 years of
ignoring the GPL, they probably figured nobody would ever come up with the
financial resources to actually go after them. This is going to take years to
come to a resolution and millions and millions of dollars in lawyers fees.

~~~
nordsieck
I doubt that it'll come to that. There are some really nasty consequences of
being found to violate the GPL:

    
    
      4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the
      Program except as expressly provided under this License.
      Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or
      distribute the Program is void, and will automatically
      terminate your rights under this License...
    

From what I understand, there is no obvious way to re-gain a license to GPL'd
code once it's been terminated (short of asking every single individual
contributor). There is the distinct possibility that VMWare could be enjoined
from using Linux in any way if they are ruled against (and it sticks on
appeal).

~~~
ChuckMcM
That would be an interesting result. To my knowledge the GPL (any version)
hasn't actually been litigated to the point of a published decision (would
love to hear that it had).

That said, (and continuing with my possibly incorrect assumption that the GPL
hasn't been litigated) if it does get decided that this remedy can be enforced
by the license holders through the court, I expect it will create the largest
software effort since Y2K to get rid of GPL'd software in any enterprise
larger than about 10 people. The business risk would become too great that
they might be litigated by a rival into inoperation. (I know the author's
aren't out to kill companies, they are out to enforce their rights, but there
are lawyers that like nothing more than extorting companies for large sums of
money and those lawyers would write "As you know VMWARE was damaged to the
tune of several billion dollars because they didn't use the GPL correctly, and
we know that you aren't using GPL correctly either, why take the risk and get
a writ of compliance for a mere $<large sum>." Or like the guys who are coming
out of the wood work to "test your house for formaldahyde" by basically
clipping some PH strips to a stick, waiting for them to turn blue, and them
selling the poor home owner a multi-thousand dollar "remediation" service.

I really respect what the GPL tries to do, but especially early in its life it
was way too ambiguous in its interpretation (consider the difference of
opinion between FSF and Linus on loadable kernel modules for example)

~~~
hga
" _The business risk would become too great that they might be litigated by a
rival into inoperation._ "

Only the owners of a copyright have standing to sue, so I think the complete
version of your concept fails unless, like in this case, the copyrights are
held by many people instead of being assigned to one person or organization. I
also can't imagine that a lot of companies haven't considered this risk, it
hardly matters to such companies if this hasn't reached the level of a
contested (vs. default) decision if they believe it could if pushed. E.g. see
this:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9153278](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9153278)

EDIT: Maybe not true for copyleft software, reported not to be true in France
(see below).

~~~
blfr
_Only the owners of a copyright have standing to sue_

What about people who receive the compiled software (customers) and would like
the source code as well? Don't they have standing?

~~~
hga
In the case of copyleft software, I would think so, and onestone tells us this
has been established in France. So I've amended my posting (minimally, near
the end of the edit window).

------
stephengillie
As a VMWare customer, this makes me consider their ethics. If they're
unethical, shouldn't we look into switching away from their product?

I'm not aware of many competitors in their market space - Hyper-V certainly,
but that's less of an option for some. Short of rearchitecting our service as
a series of containers, what action can conscientious corporate leaders take?

~~~
tw04
Well, the go-to is generally considered Redhat with their RHEV product line.
There are a plethora of other options out there, but if you're looking for an
open source path with enterprise support they are generally candidate #1.
Oracle has an option but... ya. Citrix Xenserver would be the other major
player.

~~~
jsmeaton
Disclaimer; I'm not a sysadmin. Data point below is second hand knowledge from
helping to track down issues with the ops team.

Our company started with RHEV and ran into lots and lots of issues with it.
There were compatibility issues between our VM infrastructure and SAN
(firmware problems on one side, I forget which). Guests would just lock up all
the time. There were other problems, but I'm not familiar with them.

We've had little to no problem since migrating to VMWare.

~~~
dijit
Controversial opinion here probably, but vmware has been doing virt for a long
time, so it makes sense that it's rather polished if you fit there eco-system.

however qemu-kvm hasn't been around so long, it's still not anywhere near the
adoption numbers such as Xen, however I've used it in production in three
different large companies with great success.. the beauty is that more people
who use it means more eyes on fixing it.

so for small things especially I'd really recommend it, and honestly I like it
anyway, it feels very freeing to use libvirt/kvm- you have much finer grained
controls than what vmware gives even in it's expensive offerings, and the best
bit is that it's free as in beer- you can use all it's features without being
in any kind of violation with licenses. the tools to administer it are ssh if
you're familiar with unix or a GUI python program which gives you good control
and graphs (works over ssh tooo, so encryption goodness) and works cross
platform (last time I checked) contrasting to when I last used vmware:- you
had to use there vsphere client which isn't ported to OSX or Linux.

I use Windows at work so it's not a problem, but I would prefer to run linux
so I can actually use decent virtualisation solutions for small test labs, my
company baulks at the cost of vmware workstation, and if I run linux for kvm
then I cannot administer our massive ESX clusters..

------
huhtenberg
Busybox strikes again.

I worked for a company that was on a receiving end of a similar GPL legal
action (though not busybox-based and not from SF Conservancy). I'll tell you
what will happen next. VMWare will (a) write a drop-in in-house replacement
for busybox (b) they will show that busybox is not an principal part for ESXi
and that it can be easily swapped for the in-house replacement. At this point
they will release the busybox sources, potentially including the in-house
version, but not under GPL. This will hinder the lawsuit, but it will keep
dragging on until everyone gets tired of its pointlessness and then it will
get quietly dismissed to the mutual satisfaction of both involved parties.

The thing is that it's not that VMWare is evil or unethical. It's just that
this GPL thing doesn't even register on their legal radar, so it never
percolates down to engineering. Similarly any concerns raised by engineering
are never taken seriously by the legal council. It's really as simple as that.

~~~
shmerl
Or you know, they can stop being jerks and release sources for the code they
derived from the GPLed one.

 _> It's just that this GPL thing doesn't even register on their legal radar_

It should register.

 _> Similarly any concerns raised by engineering are never taken seriously by
the legal council._

Not in any serious company to my experience. Being so lax on legal matters for
such company shows very low level of their management's professionalism.

~~~
huhtenberg
> _Being so lax on legal matters for such company shows very low level of
> their management 's professionalism._

Actually, no, it doesn't.

It merely means that the management views GPL violations as a low-probability
calculated risk. As in "we know that we can be in compliance, but we won't be
wasting any resources on it until it's justified". It has nothing to do with
the professionalism.

~~~
aros
What a bizarre world we live in where willful violations of a legally binding
license (a license which attempts to keep knowledge in the open) is considered
nothing more than a "calculated risk."

~~~
mgkimsal
Every time you speed on the freeway, you're willfully violating the law, and
taking a calculated risk that you won't get caught. No?

~~~
aros
I don't speed.

------
filmgirlcw
So this could be really interesting from a precedent standpoint because it
could help clarify the legality of the GPL in various contexts in the court.

Whatever you think about the GPL (and I'm for open source and open licenses
but I do have issues with GPL v3, but that's just me), this has been
necessary, I believe, in order for GPL and OSS projects to move forward.

~~~
lclarkmichalek
I'm not sure it will be that groundbreaking; this seems to be yet another
busybox violation litigated in Germany, of which we have had several already.

~~~
cjbprime
It started out that way, but as I understand the release materials here, this
is now about Hellwig's copyright on core kernel code (e.g. the VFS), which
VMWare has integrated into their product.

I wonder what they're thinking. At least with nVidia there's a plausible
sounding defense that goes like "hey, we just wrote a shim to load this
platform independent code we already had lying around, so our platform
independent code can stay proprietary because it's not a derived work of
Linux". I don't think this position is correct, but I can see that it at least
requires a court case to adjudicate.

But in VMWare's case, it appears that they took the Linux kernel and modified
it to make their own vmkernel. I can't see how you make an argument (that
their vmkernel is not a derived work of Linux) that takes more than ten
seconds to soundly defeat.

~~~
nitrogen
I've seen it argued on HN that the GPL's definition of a derivative work
differs from the legal definition, and if you never distribute the GPL'd code,
you aren't bound by it.

Thus, one could write kernel drivers, which (it was argued) are not derivative
works under copyright, and be safe as long as the kernel is not redistributed
by the same entity.

~~~
hijiri
The GPL does say the conditions are only on redistribution. But I think that's
how it works with other derived works as well, by default. The GPL is all
about how you can relicense it to other people using only the same license,
you're free to do whatever you want if you never give anyone your modified
code.

~~~
schoen
17 USC §106 refers to the right "to prepare derivative works" as an exclusive
right of a copyright holder, so creating the derivative work in the first
place could be a copyright infringement under U.S. copyright law even if it is
never distributed to anyone. So you can potentially infringe copyright in your
basement by making a fan translation of some movie or novel into your
language.

------
jallmann
Is there any information about why VMware thinks they are not bound by the
GPL? Curious whether they have a technical justification, rather than simply
being a blatant licensing violation.

~~~
geofft
I'm not fully up-to-date on this case, but there is a bit of wiggle room on
what counts as a _derivative_ work, even in kernelspace.

My favorite example is OpenAFS. Development of the AFS kernel module started
in 1983, so the code is a decade older than Linux itself. So it's hard to
argue that openafs.ko is a derivative work of Linux, and since it continues to
run on several kernels other than Linux (Darwin, Solaris, NT, etc.) and the
Linux-specific code is just glue code to make it work, it's not really obvious
that it's become a derivative work of Linux. (OpenAFS is free software under
the IBM Public License, which is a GPL-incompatible free software license, and
the rightsholders will not relicense. The Linux kernel infrastructure assumes
that any non-GPL kernel module is proprietary, for extra amusement.)

Along the same lines is the kernel module for VMware Workstation, the desktop
product that runs on Linux as well as Windows and Mac OS X. It doesn't predate
Linux, so the argument is slightly less clear.

VMware's vmkernel, as I understand it, is an amalgamation of VMware's
hypervisor code (that predated ESX, and originated on Workstation) plus Linux.
I think it conceptually started off as a Linux server with the existing kernel
module, but both have evolved quite a bit. I think the remaining Linux parts
mostly exist as hardware drivers, and VMware is providing the core kernel
routines like scheduling and memory management and "world" management
(equivalent to process management, but it's a hypervisor).

I think that VMware's argument is that they did not start with Linux and add
proprietary features to existing GPL'd code and call it proprietary; they
started with their own code and linked in parts of Linux via well-defined
interfaces, and they're happy to comply with the GPL for the parts that came
from Linux, but they don't want to GPL the entirety of the ESXi kernel.

It's worth noting that the concept of address space isn't a legal concept,
just a technical one. We generally acknowledge that it's not a GPL violation
to run proprietary applications on Linux, even applications that use Linux-
specific interfaces like cgroups and epoll and signalfd and all that good
stuff. Is this simply because the Linux kernel copyright explicitly disclaims
virality to userspace, or because there's some fundamental legal reason why
userspace and kernelspace are far enough apart? Can two components in ring 0
also be "far enough apart"?

~~~
detaro
From the wording in the link it sounds like they include modified GPL code and
don't publish that, not that they are expected to open-source ESXi (or
whatever it is called right now) entirely:

> In 2011, Conservancy discovered that VMware had failed to provide nor offer
> any source code for the version of BusyBox included in VMware's ESXi
> products (as required by BusyBox's license, GPLv2).

~~~
geofft
They then say that, while they were poking around at BusyBox violations, they
also realized that vmkernel is probably continuing to infringe Linux, and
decided to pursue that. (I think VMware's been vaguely moving away from
putting large parts of Linux in vmkernel, but may not have moved fast enough.)

From the FAQ at [http://sfconservancy.org/linux-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-
faq...](http://sfconservancy.org/linux-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-faq.html) :

"[...] admittedly, VMware made substantial and good efforts toward compliance
on BusyBox. However, VMware still refused to fix a few minor and one major
compliance problem that we discovered during the process. Namely, there was a
major violation regarding Linux itself that ultimately became Christoph's key
complaint in this lawsuit."

------
miles
From 2008:

VMware joins Linux Foundation--while reportedly violating the GPL

[http://www.cnet.com/news/vmware-joins-linux-foundation-
while...](http://www.cnet.com/news/vmware-joins-linux-foundation-while-
reportedly-violating-the-gpl/)

------
madez
It's a german lawyer suing in a german court for a german client. How can I
donate in EUR without the money going through USD?

Edit: "[The USD] is our currency, but it's your problem.", John Bowden
Connally, Jr.

Obviously here are people who like it that way.

~~~
the8472
If your country participates in SWIFT a wire transfer should be possible, see
[http://sfconservancy.org/donate/](http://sfconservancy.org/donate/)

~~~
madez
Thanks! I wrote an email to the given address for details on how to donate.

------
RexRollman
It feels weird not to read about this on Groklaw.

~~~
spacemanmatt
It feels less informed. HN covers tech to a fine point but Groklaw, IMO,
remains untouched for its legal coverage.

------
wongarsu
If I'm not mistaken this is the first instance of a kernel developer
participating in a GPL lawsuit. That could bring a whole new era of GPL
lawsuits.

~~~
JoshTriplett
The Software Freedom Conservancy did recently announce that they've started
working with kernel developers who are willing to have SFC enforce the GPL on
their behalf, so that they can directly work on Linux rather than just
busybox.

------
krick
I didn't bother to read it all, but all that stuff makes me feel apathy. I
very much believe, that VMWare did something wrong. Maybe even illegal. I
believe they deserve to be punished for that. But what I see here doesn't look
like punishment at all.

What does that solve? Whom does it help? For VMWare it's just professional
risk, they have their lawyers, they know their business. So even if it ends up
extremely bad for them (which I doubt) it will be just "nasty day at work" and
they'll recover somehow. And sure as hell it won't be tragic for EMC (if they
notice it at all). The "victim" won't be rewarded as well, because "victims"
are ordinary Linux-kernel contributors scattered over the world.

So what the whole thing _really_ is: gathering money to feed some lawyers, who
might not look as bad as VMWare when you read all that story, but in fact are
far less useful for society than even VMWare, who is supposed to be the evil
guy here.

It just makes me think how pointless all that stuff is. It's depressing.

------
tinco
I'm no lawyer, but isn't the most exciting fact about this lawsuit that it
takes place in Germany? That means no settlements or other silly American
business.

Just two parties making their case in front of a judge, and the judge deciding
who is right and what the repercussions are.

~~~
slapshot
Surely, two parties can settle a civil case in Germany. Otherwise every
dispute between two neighbors over a fence would end up taking up the court's
time when they are perfectly capable of agreeing to a solution.

Two seconds of Google research suggest that settlements are possible:
[https://books.google.com/books?id=zZoibg8oR1QC&pg=PA132&lpg=...](https://books.google.com/books?id=zZoibg8oR1QC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=germany+out+of+court+settlement&source=bl&ots=4_lrCM9oBO&sig=symVw-
nXxvPwJsLa_sKmbDx_f4k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=a7z4VMigII_ZoATM64HQBQ&ved=0CCoQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=germany%20out%20of%20court%20settlement&f=false)

You might mean plea bargaining, which is more of a US-centric feature, but
that's only applicable to criminal cases. This is a civil suit between two
parties.

~~~
Tomte
We also have plea bargaining, in various forms.

------
vially
Here's another story regarding GPL violations (this time by Allview):
[https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/linux-
sunxi/78MbtijK...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/linux-
sunxi/78MbtijKraY)

------
wil421
What could a German court do to VMWare? I am wondering if this is a similar
situation to where France wanted to sue Google[2] and more recently Fox
News[1].

Not trying to be a naysayer, but I wonder if this will accomplish anything?
(since the case is in Germany and not the US where VMWare is incorporated)

[1][http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/12/paris-
lawsuit-f...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/12/paris-lawsuit-fox-
news-reporting-no-go-zones-non-muslims)

[2][http://www.themarysue.com/france-sues-google-
autocomplete/](http://www.themarysue.com/france-sues-google-autocomplete/)

~~~
tbrownaw
They have an office in Germany:
[http://www.vmware.com/company/office_locations/office_german...](http://www.vmware.com/company/office_locations/office_germany.html)

~~~
wil421
Thank you, I was trying to figure out if that matters or not.

~~~
madez
National laws apply in the corresponding country in principle universally. If
a company from country A sells something in country B then the sale is under
the laws of country B.

~~~
esturk
Would it be possible for this case to be kick up to a higher court and
eventually encompassing the entire EU? I assume these copyright/copyleft cases
are standardized across all of EU.

------
dmitrygr
I very much doubt the accuracy of their claims that vmkernel is largely a copy
of linux ([http://sfconservancy.org/linux-compliance/linux-vs-
vmkernel_...](http://sfconservancy.org/linux-compliance/linux-vs-
vmkernel_en.png))

Mostly since in many of those drivers, it performs better than linux, but also
because vmware did not hire idiots, (and non-idiots know not to ever use GPL
code).

Source: worked there a while ago.

~~~
froseph
The wayback machine* has Zachary Amsden's opinion in 2007 why the vmkernel
(and other components) are not in violation of GPL. It's an interesting read.

He concludes:

> 1) There is no argument that depending on a Linux console OS makes any part
> of ESX subject to GPL that is not already opene sourced. We have open
> sourced those GPL components of the system which we have modified and given
> the changes back to the community.

> 2) There is no argument that loading the vmkernel by bootstrapping it with
> Linux makes the vmkernel subject to GPL. In fact, in the funniest counter-
> example, Linux itself used to be boostrapped under MS-DOS by running the
> command loadlin (note the 7 character name, since DOS would not allow enough
> characters for load-linux).

> 3) There is no argument that distributing GPL binary drivers makes any piece
> of software distributed with them or using them subject to GPL. In fact the
> converse appears to be explicitly stated in the GPL itself.

* [http://web.archive.org/web/20080105204946/http://www.venture...](http://web.archive.org/web/20080105204946/http://www.venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/)

updated for formatting.

~~~
geofft
> 1) There is no argument that depending on a Linux console OS makes any part
> of ESX subject to GPL that is not already opene sourced.

Yes there is: the GPLv2 says:

"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and
can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves,
then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections
as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of
the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other
licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part
regardless of who wrote it."

You would have to not consider the ESX product "a whole which is a work based
on" the COS.

Naturally, this interpretation would extend to just about everyone who builds
virtual appliances, special-purpose bootable CDs, etc. So it would be an
unfortunate interpretation. (In particular, you couldn't intermingle GPLv2 and
GPLv3 software on a virtual appliance!) But just because it is unfortunate
does not mean it is not valid.

[btw, it's worth noting that the COS basically no longer exists.]

~~~
snuxoll
There is already precedent for the separation of software licenses at process
boundaries, if the GPL was viral enough to cause issues with virtual
appliances then Linux distributions would be in deep water already since they
are a product of the combined software included on the installation media.

------
jorgecastillo
Serves them right for not using permissively licensed code!

------
pbowyer
Once the Conservancy has sorted out this GPL situation, perhaps they can
investigate the legality of the commercial GPL-using ecosystem around
WordPress.

------
faragon
VMWare: stop this and release the code on GPL v2. It is just old code. And
also, recognize the mistake. Period.

~~~
jlawer
This is not old code. This is the kernel of ESXi 5.5 (Their current product)
and its highly likely that ESXi 6.0 has the same problem. This is not old
code, it is the heart of their product offerings.

~~~
bonzini
It's not the heart of their product offerings. The heart is vCenter, the
kernel is only a small piece. Citrix has no problem with making Xen free
software.

~~~
jlawer
I disagree. When you think of all the functions the vmware hypervisor has a
range of features where it is quite far ahead of the competition including
Fault Tolerance. vSphere is the management interface, its telling the vmkernel
to do things, but the vmkernels are able to do a lot of work without the
vsphere service being available (HA, etc).

VMware basically invented the modern x86 virtualisation environment, and there
is still a lot of value in saying that they do it best as they have the most
experience. Make that a commodity and I don't think you have the industry
leader anymore.

------
sswaner
I support Hellwig and the Conservancy in their claim, but I see an unfortunate
consequence: This further hinders corporate adoption of open source software.

This lawsuit reinforce the corporate legal mindset that "use of open source
invites litigation...".

~~~
belorn
If licenses don't get enforced, "free" game engines like Unreal can't operate.
You get the world where the only available code which do not require long
meetings, massive upfront cash, lawyers and NDA's are those tiny exceptions
which are given under public domain. That is not a future anyone should wish
onto the software industry.

------
api
Good. Free as in freedom does not necessarily mean free as in beer, nor does
it mean you can just steal peoples' work without credit. OSS does not mean
"public domain" unless that's explicitly stated.

------
paulhauggis
The GNU license doesn't sound very "free" to me. It's strange that the owners
of GNU code think that all additions to their code should rightly be released
to the public (even if they never wrote the additions).

The original code is still "free" for the world to use, so there really isn't
anything being taken.

~~~
s73v3r
If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it.
Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their
conditions?

~~~
paulhauggis
This is exactly why I don't use any GNU code in any of my projects. I am just
sick of people claiming it is "free" when it's actually a lure to get
companies to use the code for free and then get bitten in the ass in the end
by having to release proprietary code.

Why is it that whenever I bring up this point, the words "theft" and
"stealing" are used by many.

However, when we are talking about copyright infringement, I am instantly
corrected when I try to use those words to describe essentially the exact same
practice?? (people here have even said it is their 'right' to freely copy
copyrighted material).

"If you don't like their conditions for using it, then don't fucking use it.
Why do you feel entitled to use other people's work without adhering to their
conditions?"

So, it's not about giving and happiness anymore and happiness is it? Giving
out software for free and then getting angry and going after someone in court
when they don't use it to your liking is not freedom in my mind. I release all
of my software under the BSD license. It's true freedom because I don't care
what you do with it. It's a true unselfish act.

The GNU is just Stallman's attempt to destroy the commercial software
industry, tie up our courts with ridiculous GNU violations, and essentially
socialize it (a few years back, he had goals of the GNU and one of them is to
have a 'compliance officer' mandated by the government in each company). I'm
glad most of these attempts have failed.

~~~
Kalium
GNU licenses don't exist to be "lures". They exist to make it difficult to be
parasitic to the open source world.

Stallman isn't out to destroy commercial software. He's out to ensure freedom
of computing for all. If commercial software can't function without taking
away freedom, then that's the problem of those business models.

~~~
FireBeyond
Eh, what? Because 'free software with commercial support offering' is not
'commercial software.

Your claim is "Stallman isn't out to destroy commercial software. If
commercial software can't function without being free, then that's its
problem" \- where one is the very exact opposite of the other. "He doesn't
want to kill it. But if it can't survive without being something it's
inherently the opposite of, well, that's not us seeking its death, but rather
'a problem of their business model'." Hmm.

~~~
Kalium
Implicit is that I believe commercial software _can_ exist while still being
free.

~~~
FireBeyond
How so? Commercial -support-, perhaps. Butt in not sure how offering to sell
software that is free I'd any business model. And that's my point, Stallman
absolutely DOES want to kill commercial software (as is this right)

~~~
snuxoll
If Stallman wanted to kill commercial software he would have put wording into
the GPL to prevent its use in commercial products. As it stands I can still
use the GPL on a commercial product, of course it is a rather odd choice since
the user is free to take the work and redistribute it, which is why going the
commercial support route is much more typical.

------
Stratoscope
Can we correct the misspelled company name in the title? (It's not "VMWare".)

------
spullara
Any litigation of the GPL is more than likely more dangerous for the GPL than
it is for the companies. A relaxing of the understood requirements of using
and distributing GPL code could cause an avalanche of fall out from formerly
protected code becoming less protected. If I was this organization I would
only risk a lawsuit of something that would have profound positive
consequences for open source. VMware's risk is relatively small vs the risk
that the GPL's viral component is weakened.

~~~
ngoldbaum
There is strong precedent in German courts for enforcing GPL violations.
Probably stronger than in any other country's legal system. The Software
Freedom Conservancy is probably the organization least likely to screw up the
decision to enforce the GPL through the courts.

~~~
yaeger
Except that the German system by large does not use precedence at all. At best
prior cases can be an aid in an ongoing court case. At worst, prior cases are
ignored completely and only what the law says will be taken into account by
the courts.

