Slashdot Mirror
VMware May Violate Linux Copyrights
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.'"
then why does the free version run under Windows?
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
Copyright gets infringed, licenses get violated.
The Banjo Players Must Die!
ESX runs directly on the hardware. They're saying ESX is what's violating the copyrights.
When does this happen in the movie?
They're referring to the ESX server, which is the VMware host for virtual machines, not the VMware workstation.
Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
'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. To reitterate The question then is whether the ESX OS is based on Linux
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
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.
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
Which merely hosts multiple instances of virtual machines and allows you to manage them, move them around and supply physical resources to them.
VMWare's description makes it sound like ESX is a Linux 2.4 app, but the technical experts need to argue that.
Licensing issues aside, VMware's support for linux hosts is good. I think VMware has been good for linux.
The article is about ESX which does not run on windows. It is an OS of it's own. You are thinking of the VMWare Workstation or Server products....
Because ESX server (the specific product in question here) runs differently than the Windows and Linux Workstation products (the key word being "hypervisor"):
"[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
Whereas the desktop products operate over the OS layer, ESX is closer to the bare hardware (Type 1 versus Type 2 hypervisor - Read more. 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.
WASTE - The Secure P2P
Couldn't they start with a Linux kernel, write a couple of binary blob drivers, and do everything else in userland with their own binary to use instead of init?
Would it be based on Linux? Yes.
Would it violate any copyright? Not if they offered the source to the kernel and the blob wrapper to those who bought the software.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
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.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
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.
I joined two users too late.
VMware has two main products (as far as I can remember). GSX (I think it was renamed to VMware Server a few months back) is just an app that runs on top of Windows. Their bread and butter product ESX, though, was originally developed using a version of Red Hat. They've done lots of internal development so I'm not sure how much Red Hat is left, but I do know that with ESX 2.5, the last one I used extensively, patches were still applied using rpm.
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.
My blog
Probably because it is permitted to link a proprietary binary blob to the Windows NT kernel. That is my guess.
Hey, if you're looking for somebody to pursue the case, it looks like Darl from SCO will be available soon!
VMware Server actually runs on Windows or Linux.
The service console runs a heavily modified version of Red Hat (in ESX 2.5 I believe it was Red Hat 9. In 3.0 it's RHEL 3). In 3.0 patches are still done through RPMs.
Strange that during a training session the instructor consistently referred to the underlying platform as a highly modified RedHat. They didn't even try to claim that this was anything else, or even just their own Linux, they used the brand name of the starting point.
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.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
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!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
- Linux boots.
- 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).
- 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:- Linux is installed, with a Xen-compatible kernel.
- User reboots.
- Xen Hypervisor boots.
- 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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
They don't offer those to software purchasers. It's very difficult to get VMware running on new hardware platforms, partly because of this lack of source, and partly because their underlying kernel is so very old. Newer kernel patches simply can't be applied to it.
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.
From what I understand, the Linux 2.4 kernel (Service Console) does the initial boot, but only addresses a limited amount of RAM (usually between 256M and 384M, depending on how many VMs you plan on running). It then loads the vmkernel, which takes the rest of the RAM and takes over scheduling functions from the Service Console, and directly addresses the hardware. With the exception of the initial RAM, everything else the Service Console does is through the vmkernel. The way it was explained to me was that the SC essentially becomes a pseudo-VM itself, relying on the vmkernel for hardware access.
In turn, the Service Console has some hooks into the vmkernel to perform management functions, monitoring, etc. The SC functions as a bridge between the vmkernel and the outside world. That's the way I understand it, anyway. Could be totally wrong. I have heard rumors in the past, though, that VMware is planning to ditch the Linux SC in future versions in favor of their own service console OS. Which would render the whole argument moot.
Maybe someone can help me understand something I'm unclear on: How does one go about creating proprietary software that runs on Linux (the kernel) without "violating the GPL?" Based on the blurb, and many similar stories I've read here over the years, it almost seems like the FOSS community expects every piece of software that is written to run on a Linux platform to be Open Source. If that's the case, why? I understand not liking proprietary device drivers for the want of controlling the hardware you own, and I understand liking a project/product like MySQL for the desire to be able to tune the software that controls your data. But there should be room for proprietary software that leverages the significant platform that is Linux.
I harken back to the days of Netware NLMs. Netware didn't seem to want some sort of ownership for people loading things onto their kernel, nor did Microsoft demand rights for people distributing TSRs. So why is this different?
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
It may render the whole argument moot, but in the meantime, if (and that's still an *if* here folks, innocent until proven guilty and all that) VMWare is distributing GPL software, then it is bound by that license.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
But not in what I do for the most part. I don't want to share OS instances on one box, I cluster boxes behind load balancers to scale load handling. It's good for sharing a bunch of low-utilization servers on one mini or things of that nature, but not the be-all and end-all, just like Citrix hasn't killed the desktop OS market. It's a niche. Maybe a big one, but still just a niche.
"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.
Test your net with Netalyzr
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?
I've read somewhere that SCO was offering a special discount on linux licenses this week. Quick! get one before the offer ends!
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.
This is correct, this is exactly the case. All this baseless ruckus is just someone trying to bring down the stock. How pitiful...
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.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
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.
I'm going to the casino. Don't gamble.
get in on the IPO and figure out where to get off......
Vmware Server (free version) is built on GSX not ESX. And yes VMware ESX is some form of linux.
Personally, I use Microsoft's Virtual PC 2007. It's better, it's free, and it doesn't infringe on teh Lunix's copyrights.
Not since Netscape have I seen a company bang it's head so hard against reality by somehow trying to make money in a market which has more than enough free alternatives to satisfy almost all consumer demand. Good luck on that IPO, guys, but don't expect AOL to save you like they did Netscape. AOL has their own troubles these days (figuring out why the hell they purchased Netscape isn't their only one, but it's certainly one of the bigs).
Go read this article (http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08 /09/171248) 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.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
So someone who uses ESX server asks 'em for the sources under the GPL. :-) Or their lawyer does.
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
I think Christopher Hellwig put it best: 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.
Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
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...
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.
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
binary blob? Shouldn't that be just blob or binary lob? Or is this just another case of the SSN number syndrome?
I intend to forward back their reply about FreeBSD support and attach a fair-use Nelson Muntz Ha Ha! as a wave file.
Then you had a poor-quality instructor. Every VMware instructor I've had has been crystal clear that the Service Console runs a heavily modified version Red Hat, but that the vmkernel - the OS that's bootloaded by the SC, which handles virtualization and hardware access, or in other words the underlying platform - is a completely proprietary OS.
My Nagios box refers to my ESX server as Linux 2.6.8 (Debian) Not that this is conclusive by any means but is interesting nonetheless.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
I think they can only license their artwork on which they have copyright.
"Moreover, there was no evidence that Sony had desired to bring about taping in violation of copyright or taken active steps to increase its profits from unlawful taping." Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
545 U.S. 913
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.
it was drunk freshman college girls that got violated???
Suppose most of the readers of this site, are actually non-native English speakers. It's a frightening speculation due to the rather Americanized "news" that keeps popping up, some of them absolutely irrelevant to anyone who doesn't happen to live within the US, not even worth memorizing as "common knowledge".
I'd say, keep that Mr know-it-all self heightening piece of BS to yourself.
I happened to look them up, since to me, they seem very similar, and I admit, I'm not a native English speaker so none of them feels "natural" to me.
Infringe: to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress
Violate: to break, infringe, or transgress
Ok, so they are the same, and here you come and wants to show off the beautiful side of an intellectual. How delightful. You gotta be proud of yourself.
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.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
err... we have a ESX server and the "run directly on the hardware" doesnt mean that they use their own OS... its using a redhat linux with just the vmware services, but you can even ssh to the servers and run a uname -a :
/etc/vmware/ |grep esx
/usr/src/
# uname -a
Linux srv-esx1 2.4.21-37.0.2.ELvmnix #1 Fri Mar 30 10:21:21 PDT 2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
# ls -l
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 111 Aug 14 16:01 esx_checksum.conf
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 29777 Aug 14 15:28 esx.conf
# ls -l
total 12
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 24 2003 debug
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 Jul 24 05:41 linux-2.4 -> linux-2.4.21-37.0.2.EL
drwxr-xr-x 16 root root 4096 Jul 24 05:41 linux-2.4.21-37.0.2.EL
drwxr-xr-x 7 root root 4096 Jul 24 05:42 redhat
the "directly on hardware" is marketing talk saying that you dont need and shouldnt even bother with the host OS, vmware takes care of it (installation, support, updates, etc)
higuita
Higuita
Actually, Linux is the boot OS, and service console. The VMWare Kernel appears to be some kind of driver that loads after the Linux OS loads.
This looks to me like the same situation as Windows 95, it boots up with DOS then loads a kernel that takes over much of the functionality, or Netware that also loads boots with DOS then loads the kernel.
The problem I have is that it appears that the original Linux boot OS is still the one that's at the root of everything, though the VMWare virtual machines run under the vmkernel which runs on the Linux OS.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
I'm not sure it would matter to much on who asked. You would need evidence to support your argument to take it past asking. Simply running in a certain way on a certain platform might not be enough. You would be likely to never get it to court and possibly face paying their defense fees for their defense if you did.
Don't confuse this with SCO getting into court, they asserted ownership of the copyright in question in order to do so. You wouldn't necessarily have that ownership and couldn't necessarily be harmed by a provision VMware never passed on to you. In the end, the copyright owners are the one who need to make th complaints.
Nobody is saying you can't write your own closed-source application which runs on top of Linux.
nobody is saying that? Really? What about TFA: "is VMware a derived product of Linux? Unless vmkernel can be loaded without the Linux kernel, it would appear so."
The article says that because VMware runs on top of linux, it is a derivitive. The article says the opposite of what you just said.
Mod the parent up. Clearly Microsoft Virtual PC is superior than VMWare in that it allows for significantly greater functionality such as allowing a 'guest' to execute arbitrary code on the 'host' or other 'guests'. Clearly VMWare is inferior in this aspect and we're all fools for not using another manifestation of 'Trustworthy Computing' from Microsoft. Hey, not to mention, VMWare doesn't run on Linux either...er...yes it does.
n /MS07-049.mspx
MS07-049:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulleti
From the advisory:
"An elevation of privilege vulnerability exists in Microsoft Virtual PC and Microsoft Virtual Server that could allow a user with administrator permissions to the guest operating system to run code on the host operating system or other guest operating systems. An attacker with administrator permissions to the guest operating system, could exploit the vulnerability by running specially crafted code on the guest operating system. This could result in a heap overflow on the host or other guest operating systems. An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could take complete control of an affected system."
This can be quickly resolved with some stock....
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
If the ESX kernel is totally independent from Linux, why did'nt they use some version of BSD? No legal hassles, higher code quality.
You do not need an argument to say, 'Does VMware ESX server use any GPL or LGPL software of any versions, and if so, may I please have the sources to that software'. You can also add, and if so why are you violating the GPL by not including the sources or how to get the sources in the distribution? You could ask any vendor for that, and they would have to comply.
It also is very easy to prove that it is Linux if you have access to the software. Nuances of the TCP/IP stack, et cetra should reveal some detail of the lineage of the underlying OS.
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
I suppose I am missing something. What's the point of it being open source if people can't use it?
10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
20 DRINK COFFEE
30 GOTO 10
The article linked way up top actually notes that the SC is a heavily modified Red Hat version.
The problem is, as the article also notes, vmkernel itself is loaded as a Linux kernel module using insmod. This could very well subject it to the GPLv2 as it requires the Linux kernel to operate.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Then again this was a sales presentation, so the sales guy might have been full of it.
kqemu, which is 100% free as in beer and speech and even runs on windows.
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...
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.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Thanks for your links! I had been of the uncertain belief that the gpl was not viral, because you can't force people to do anything, you can only enforce penalties if they break the law. So a company that used gpl'ed code could be levied penalties preventing further distribution of closed source copyright infringement, to the point that the company gets held in contempt, fined, dissolved etc. But no legal remedy would ever guarantee the right to see the sourcecode and have it be GPL. But obviously I'm not a lawyer so I just had the belief that it wasn't viral, I didn't know the exact legally valid reasons to support that. The groklaw article is clear, easy to read, and unequivocal in its explanation.
Thanks for the informative post.
Gravity Sucks
If you are a programmer, and you think your work is wrth more thana :-) from some anonymous users, avoid Linux like the plague.
VMkernel does not run on Linux kernel.
Please, let me reiterate this again: VMKernel DOES NOT RUN ON Linux.
Actualy what happens is that you boot into VMkernel which runs on bare metal, and on top of that you run bastardized version of RedHat Linux distribution as a virtual machine. I.e. service console is actualy Linux running inside VMkernel virtualization environment that speaks to the bear metal.
You can run ESX into "recovery mode" which doesn't boot VMkernel, but rather boots ordinary non-virtualized Linux kernel with GNU utilities included. VMkernel can not be started or used in any way in this mode, as Linux kernel "owns" the hardware. This approach clearly means that VMkernel an Linux kernel have no meaningful relationship whatsoever. Service console could just as easy be BSD based, and this would change absolutely nothing about VMkernel.
Somebody obvisouly confused dual boot ESX vs. Linux with "ESX derived from Linux". This usualy happens to the people that don't have a clue. VMkernel is not derived from Linux and in production mode actualy is THE KERNEL that gets loaded right from Grub. Service console w/Linux gets loaded as a virtual machine almost like each and every other guest VM you might want to install and run on an ESX host.
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. GNU utilities running inside this virtualized environment are unchanged, meaning source code is everywhere. Proprietary utilities, which are not licensed under GPL, are linked only against GLibc, which contains exclusion clause specificaly enabling such applications to remain closed source.
Everything else that is left is just some hot air coming from a clueless bozo, probably sponsored by somebody who has a business interest in damaging VMware reputation. Obvious suspetcs are available everywhere, and I wouldn't put it even beyond Xen to produce rumors like these, while trying to materialize solution as complete and as supported as VMware.
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
http://www.vmware.com/download/vi/open_source.html
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.
HTTP/1.1 400
you swallowed the vmware marketing and sale crap hook and sinker. the so-called "vmware kernel" runs as a service under linux, and must use Linux API for dealing with the real machine including memory. Linux is the OS in charge of the machine, the drivers for real devices are linux drivers and vmware uses linux virtual memory for the pool of memory it dishes out to the vm.
"If you are a programmer, and you think your work is wrth more thana :-) from some anonymous users, avoid Linux like the plague.
:-( from an anonymous user.
:-)
If you are a programmer who wrote his own spell check, it's not worth more than a
(I'm hoping you'll take that humorously for it is not meant in a bad way... spelling/grammar/sentence structure nitpick attacks are pathetic. As long as I can understand what the person is saying, it's irrelevant)
ESX is like free software, it's better when it's free.
"Piter, too, is dead."
Not to nitpick...well, yes, to nitpick:
"It explicitly releases the work from copyright restrictions on the sole condition that the same rights are passed on to derivative works."
"Copyleft" is just a word. The end result is a LICENSE which requires the user to alter his behavior to coincide with the terms of the license. This is exactly the same as copyright. It is enforceable in the courts. That a "copyleft" license allows redistribution whereas a "copyright" does not is really not relevant to the underlying point the original poster was making - if you allow people to use copyleft to coerce the behavior you desire, you can't complain about people using copyright to coerce the behavior they desire.
This is the fundamental flaw with ALL "intellectual property". It is coercive by definition.
This doesn't mean you can't have "contracts" (which a license is). There is, however, a difference between a freely negotiated contract for a performance which relies on mutual behavior provisions or reputation effects or actual force to be enforced, and an "imposed" contract on a product not based on negotiation which relies on legal enforcement.
The latter is a coercive attempt to control a person's behavior in exchange for use of a product and is fundamentally not "freedom" in any sense.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
http://www.vmware.com/download/vi/open_source.html
So how is the GPL being violated? Seems like they have older versions of their product on there too. Anyone want to clarify this? I read some comments that VMware seems to be in compliance. This was a fairly easy link to find. It was not buried anywhere obscure either.
And just to clarify, viral marketing deserves the term because it invades pre-existing social networks with self-perpetuating processes, such as kewl videos or catch phrases. (yes I ripped that off from wikipedia), whereas the GPL only "infects" code if you take the existing GPL structure and add to it.
At least, that is my understanding of the issue.
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
You would need an argument to do anything more then saying or asking the question. That was the point. All you could do is ask, they wouldn't even be obligated to answer. Using your lawyer to ask is just a waist of money, he cannot really sue or anything unless you own or have rights to the copyright in question. You not getting something the company never suggested that you would for a product they sold to you wouldn't be a solid reason to goto court.
It will take someone who has control of the copyright to the code in question to make the issue about it. As an unrelated consumer, you would have little to no standing on it. Legally or ethically. If they don't give you the code and they were supposed to, they didn't violate your right, they violated the license terms which places them into copyright violation. You as a consumer are still unrelated to any of the damages.
The spirit of the GPL is meant to discourage closed source anything. Businesses SHOULD stay away from it unless they have a plan for profiting off of their own open source code.
If you distribute your code, you're not even allowed to link to GPL libraries without your code falling under the GPL.
There is plenty of great BSD/LGPL/MIT/etc licensed code out there which is much less of a legal nightmare.
ESX is based on CentOS a downstream of Redhat Enterprise Linux.
If so, one should be able to freeze the "service console" Linux, and the VMs should continue to run. Yet, what happens if you freeze the Linux kernel i
If you read the GP, without skipping every other word this time, you'll notice that it acknowledges that the GPL is in fact a license (that's what the little 'L' at the end is for). However, what you don't seem to get is that it is a license that removes the implicit copyright protection that federal law grants to every written work. It actually *removes* the automatic restrictions governing it's use. Isn't that lovely?
Now back to the original point... the GGP is equating the GPL copyleft (yes, COPYLEFT) license which nullifies the implicit federal copyright protections on the work, with the RIAA's copyright controls on music. It's a senseless comparison, the former is a license intended to grant total freedom of use to the recipient, whereas the latter is intended to limit the recipient's use to a bare minimum.
Now I think the feeble point you are trying to make is that the GPL has a "catch". It is in fact true, the GPL prevents you from taking advantage of it's free use, passing it off as your own work, and refusing to offer the same freedom of use to the next guy. How on earth you can twist your eyes enough to see this as somehow "coercive" is beyond me. Everyone has the right to take it or leave it, as with any other software license.
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.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
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***!
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Clearly you missed my entire point and argument. Not surprising.
It was inevitable given your complacent notion that you understand everything and nobody else understands anything.
Hence your condescending tone.
Go back and reread my post, then STFU.
The fact that the license can be ignored - if you don't want the product at all - as can any license is irrelevant to my point, which is that one uses a license to compel behavior. This is, compared to true freedom, coercion. It's that simple. You either compel behavior or you do not. (You CAN compel behavior by using rewards - this is NOT coercion. Many contracts provide for rewards to "compel" behavior.) A "copyleft" license is LESS coercive than a copyright license, but it is still coercive. In fact, a (weak) case could be made that a copyleft license is MORE coercive. At least a copyright license merely forbids you to do something (redistribution). A copyleft license REQUIRES you to do something - at least if you do redistribute the product.
In other words, a copyleft license TREATED AS A CONTRACT is not coercive in the same sense as a LAW such as copyright is. But it is enforced by law by the state, which makes it indistinguishable from a copyright license. That makes it coercive.
The fact that contracts are enforced by law by the state does not make them coercive in the same sense, because such contracts could be engaged in by a society without a state, using reputation or contract details that use rewards for contract compliance or even personal force to enforce them. The latter would be coercive, but could be argued to be self-defense.
In other words, a contract is an agreement, nothing more. How one deals with the problem of a broken agreement determines whether the contract and the means to deal with a broken contract are coercive or not.
In that respect, copyleft is no different from copyright - which was the original posters point, I believe.
Your kindergarten explanation of the supposed "difference" notwithstanding...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
This could very well subject it to the GPLv2 as it requires the Linux kernel to operate.
Do does apache, or any one of a million other apps.
Hell, so does oracle. Is oracle GPL now?
Kernel vs. User mode is irrelevant to the discussion (and anyway there's a specific exemption for kernel modules just in case) - GPL mentions neither. It only talks about derived works.
Mod the parent up. Clearly VMWare is superior to Microsoft Virtual PC in that it allows for significantly greater functionality, such as allowing Remote Users Execute Arbitrary Code, Lets Users Read/Write Arbitrary Files, and Stores Passwords in Memory. And that's just the start of their "feature" set!
7 .html
http://www.securitytracker.com/archives/target/53
Obscurity: the greatest security model the FOSS community has come up with yet!
Oh buh-whah, you sound like a little girl. Get over yourself, you made a very weak argument that was entirely irrelevant to the posts you were replying to.
In other words, a copyleft license TREATED AS A CONTRACT...
See, this is where you reveal how little you understand. A license *is* a contract. A contract that is entered into willfully by both parties, the licensor, and the licensee. There is no coercion (check out http://dictionary.com/ you may want to look this word up). It would be a pretty useless contract, however, if there were not provisions. The provisions of the GPL are very simple:
(1) The licensor relinquishes his legal right to limit your usage of this software, and
(2) If you redistribute it to others, identically or modified, you must extend this same license.
If you don't like (2), then don't do (1). There's no coercion, you can just walk away if you want (might not be a bad idea, in your case). Not sure how much simpler I can make this for you. And it's exactly the opposite from how the RIAA works, which was in fact the point of the earlier posts.
...I don't know why more effort isn't being put into FreeBSD, where the licensing isn't an issue.
He who said 1,000,000 monkeys on 1,000,000 typewriters would eventually type the great novel, never saw an AOL chat room
ESX reminds me of Xen. I'm sure someone will gladly step up to correct me, but this is my take on it.
According to the last paper I read on the subject, in one operating mode of Xen (perhaps the one that requires processor support?) it does in fact run 'under' all of the domains, but doesn't know everything about the hardware. The 'Dom0' domain has special status and is the only one that has to be patched (with processor support that is. You need processor support to run Windows for example). Dom0 can communicate with the hypervisor (start domains and such), but more importantly the hypervisor intercepts certain ops by the guest domains, and passes them along to Dom0 for actual processing.
This makes sense for VMWare.
-VMWare doesn't want to write drivers for every hadware device that vmkernel needs to use.
-VMWare doesn't want to open source their hypervisor. It very likely shares a good chunk of code with their other products. It's their bread and butter.
So this is their solution.
-FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, as with Xen, hardware support is decided by the 'service console', Dom0 in Xen speak. Correct me if I'm wrong. I haven't found a specific mention of hardware stuff being passed to the service console by vmkernel, but this seems likely.
-They patch Red Hat to provide support for the above. IANAL, but it seems certain that they will have to provide their patches. I really can't say if the hypervisor can be called a 'derived work'. This is an interesting case. I'd personally say that vmkernel is not much unlike the nVidia module TFA mentioned. vmkernel could just as well run with a Windows host if either of the two was modified to communicate with the other. The kernel patches serve that purpose in the current setup -- it's more like 'Linux is patched to interface with something proprietary' than 'Something proprietary is based on Linux'.
I'm not familiar with the Xen startup process, but it appears that vmkernel is only loaded partway through the boot process. Host kernel loads, everything comes to a grinding halt, vmkernel sticks its fingers where they don't belong, and is from then on controls the hardware. It's a strange design decision that raises questions. I thought that the Xen hypervisor loaded earlier in the boot process, but I haven't verified that.
"Strangers have the best candy" -Me
This nonsence is really getting old.
Who really cares if there is some copyrighted code in there? Really, no one cares but the attorneys.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This reminds me a bit of NetWare. SERVER.EXE was launched from DOS, but DOS was really only used as a boot loader. SERVER.EXE probably used some DOS function calls to setup its hooks, but DOS could be removed from memory using the "remove DOS" command (or "secure console" in later versions). Some specialty software could interact with DOS even after NetWare was loaded (which is why removing DOS was recommended for more security). Using Linux and insmod probably makes it easier to load vmkernel, which might then position itself below the already running Linux kernel. (It's just a theory. I am not a kernel developer.)
It's not really the same. A typical closed source licence doesn't require that you distribute your entire product under the same licence as the closed source component. The GPL does. If you include GPL'd code in your distribution, then pretty much any code you distribute with it has to be GPLd. If the GPL was confined to the module that contained the GPLd code, I doubt anyone would be anywhere near as concerned. But then it would be more like the LGPL.
Add to this that closed source components tend to be business-oriented. They nearly always provide a way for businesses to buy rights to redistribute, including if the closed source product was introduced lazily, accidentally, or without permission by an ignorant developer. GPLd code doesn't always -- it's not uncommon for copyright holders of GPLd code to be less negotiable on selling alternative licences. Sometimes even tracking down the copyright holders can be a problem, as a lot of GPLd code has evolved through many developers and forked projects.
Plus, closed source code tends to be distributed in a more modular fashion, which is likely to be easier to add, remove or replace in a larger product. With GPLd code, it's just as easy for a programmer to lift bits of code, change them, and make it much less clear as to what came from the GPLd source and what didn't.
If you use GPLd source code without being certain that you'll have rights to buy an alternative licence, you have to be pretty sure that you're never going to distribute your product, or that you'll be happy giving away its source code. I don't fear the GPL, and I'm fortunate to work for an employer who's clued up enough to know the difference between including GPLd source, and running a GPLd application. On the other hand, I can fully appreciate why many businesses consider it a big risk that someone might one day discover some GPLd code that was accidentally or lazily introduced a product 10 years before, and then demand that the business release all their source code.
NetBSD on the Macintosh SE/30 requires a little MacOS-based loader program to be run on MacOS to boot NetBSD on the SE/30 from. Does this mean that NetBSD is part of MacOS?
There are methods of launching Linux from a Windows/Dos Prompt (i.e. loadlin). Does this mean Linux is part of MS-DOS?
Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
Won't get major corporations to port their programs to likux like that!
"Dell apparently will be booting a version of ESX from BIOS."
This doesn't prove anything, as Linux would still be used to start vmkernel (unless ESX used in the article was especially modified - which wasn't stated in the article you linked to).
There's a video of this embedded in the article.
Apache doesn't need the Linux kernel in order to run. It needs a platform which supports certain APIs. Or are you completely unaware that Apache also runs on BSDs, Solaris -- pretty much every UNIX or unix-like system -- as well as even Win32? Or do you think they have a special Linux kernel embedded in it on other platforms so it can run?
Specifically, the parent said VMkernel is a Linux kernel module, which is quite distinct from an application which happens to run on Linux.
Not specifically arguing against your point, but comparing Apache or Oracle to a kernel module completely misses the point.
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?
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
The article goes into very specific detail about how Linux is used to start vmkernel, and exactly how that related to Linus' stance on licensing for binary blobs, as well as Hellwig's complaints to VMware.
"Couldn't they start with a Linux kernel, write a couple of binary blob drivers, and do everything else in userland with their own binary to use instead of init?"
This is exactly what ESX does.
"Would it be based on Linux? Yes."
The blob doesn't necessarily contain Linux code, but according to Linus' logic and Hellwig's complaints is considered a derivative work on the Linux kernel on which it relies.
*Sigh*. VMware distribute GPL software, and provide the source for that.
/etc/rc3.d/S90vmware on an ESX box to see how vmkernel is started by Linux.
They do not provide the source to the binary blob loaded by their Linux driver when the ESX product starts.
Look in
This is what Hellwig is complaining about, and this is the kind of software Torvalds objects to.
The links are not to the source for vmkernel, which is what Hellwig's statements and Linus' logic say are considered to be derived from Linux.
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..
When I include MS's Shared Source I don't have to obey MS's license? When that kid wrote something that allowed debugging and MS said "the license can't do that" when the kid answered "you said in your MSDN place this was allowed" they gave up and let him?
.Net runtime license doesn't affect me?
Sun's run time license doesn't affect me? JBuilder license didn't affect me?
What about if I included SCO's code in my product? Actually, even if it isn't SCO's code, they;ll probably try to bind me in their license... bad example...
Or in fewer words: you're full of shit.
Even if all they are doing is using Linux to get the machine in a know state, they are distributing that linux kernel with their product. As such they are required to include a copy of the GPL and make the source code available.
If you mean "make the source code [of the linux kernel] available" then you're right. Otherwise, that's incorrect.
GPLv2 specifically states that mere aggregation of an item with a GPL-licensed program does not extend the program's GPL license to that item. The items in an aggregate all retain their own licenses.
What's more, the various items in an aggregate can USE a GPL-licensed program without becoming subject to to the GPL, because (as Eben Moglem has clearly stated on numerous occasions), the GPL is not a usage license.
Could it be that what they're calling the "VMkernel" is actually just the hypervisor? I.e., just like Xen?
The way Xen works now is that Xen boots, then starts dom0, which is a Linux kernel containing all of the device drivers. Perhaps VMWare just does it backwards -- loads Linux, then has Linux load in the hypervisor.
There was (and perhaps is) a similar thing for Linux, that would allow you to boot into Windows, and then run this program and boot Linux. The program (as I understand it) would basically load the Linux kernel into memory, then jump to the start address.
Suppose now, that Linux didn't have its own boot-time code, but relied on this method always to execute. Would it still be fair to call Linux a "derived work" of Windows?
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
I use the bass line riff of a song in my song. This is a copyright violation, even though I only used a few notes repeatedly.
Copyright is a far more repressive thing than you thought and just because it's FOSS doesn't change that.
Businesses should have no fear USING GPL'd software, or distributing proprietary software that relies on GPL software in order to run, provided they don't link the code directly in to theirs. For instance distributing a proprietary App that has a GPL database system distributed with it for a back end is not a violation of the GPL, as long as you include access to the source code of the database system.
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
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.
What I'm worried about is when the investors pull the plug on vmplayer. They would be stupid not to.
Death is life's great reward. R. Hoek
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
When MS made their patent violation claims, everyone said 'Show me'. Now all the idiots want it the other way around.
Do MacOS or DOS continue running after NetBSD or Linux load?
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Sigh...
You still don't get it.
I'm wasting my time with you.
Not to mention that I said nothing about the RIAA at all.
Not to mention that I know perfectly well what the FUCKING GPL SAYS! So you condescending little description of it was a complete FUCKING waste of my time.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I could load BasiliskII or Bochs if I want a 'MacOS or MS-DOS' interface. Isn't that what the 'Linux' that runs in this case provides?
Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
And you're right, you never did mention the RIAA. Which just goes to show that you paid absolutely no attention to the original post, or any that followed. All you really wanted to do was rant and rave against folks that license their software under the GPL. My suggestion is that you just not use any of it. It's that simple.
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
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
Can I bum a sig? I left mine at the office.