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.'"

Comments

Re:If it cannot be loaded without the linux kernel

[Silver Sloth]

Try reading TFA

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? The VMware ESX FAQ provides an answer:

'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

Re:They made a movie about this with Charlie Sheen

[GoodbyeBlueSky1]

Don't forget:

• Omit actual details in favor of baseless speculation.

This is how you optimize FUD: keep the claims mysterious. SCO kept up this strategy for, what, 4 or 5 years?

Uh, what?

[TheRaven64]

The article has some interesting comments. One is:

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

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

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

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

Unless vmkernel can be loaded without the Linux kernel, it would appear so. Rubbish. Interfaces can not be copyrighted. It is only a derived work if it is not isolated from the kernel via a public interface. From the description in the 'article,' it sounds like:

1. Linux boots.
2. Userspace tool kexec's the hypervisor (an odd way of doing things, so I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't actually what happens).
3. The Linux kernel continues to run in a VM, providing an admin UI and drivers to the other guests, just as it does with Xen.

Looking at the patches that the VMWare guys have been sending in for hypervisor support, it seems like step three, at least, is accurate. Xen does the following in a typical install:

1. Linux is installed, with a Xen-compatible kernel.
2. User reboots.
3. Xen Hypervisor boots.
4. Xen Hypervisor loads a Linux (or NetBSD or Solaris, or Windows with Xen Enterprise) domain 0 (privileged) guest, which runs the (userspace) management tools and provides device drivers.

There has, I believe, been some work done making Xen boot using kexec from Linux, so you can skip step 2 if you want. If you do this, then you get exactly the same set of steps as VMWare ESX.

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

Re:Adds to Perception of GPL as Viral

[an.echte.trilingue]

It would seem the GPL is "viral". Why do you think it is not?

One big clue is that people who claim that the GPL is "viral" have to put "viral" in quotation marks to obfuscate the meaning of the word "viral".

FUD based on a fallacy

[vrmlguy]

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.

Re:Help me understand...

[cortana]

Hold on a second... you are talking about both Linux (the kernel) and Linux (the platform, which does not in fact exist). Which do you mean?

If you are talking about the kernel, then you should read the COPYING file: if your work is a derived work of the Linux kernel, then it must be released under the GPL. If it is not a derived work of the kernel then you can do whatever you want.

If you are talking about one of the many platforms based on Linux (e.g., RHEL, Debian GNU/Linux, etc) then you must consider the licensing terms of every work which you derive from (e.g., the GNU C Library, GTK+).

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? And look where it got them. Well, I have no idea if Netware is still alive and/or relevant today, but the sheer number of crappy proprietary drivers written by two bit hardware companies has locked them to the shitty old i386 architecture, and it looks like this will continue to be the case for decades to come.

BTW, I must correct your implied assertion that the free software community wants "ownership" of a vendor's code. This is not the case! We merely want vendors to respect the licensing terms of any works from which they create a derivative work.

Re:Help me understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

And that is the base issue... running on linux... derived from linux... either way they have to show the code.

No.

Derived from Linux source code = Have to show the code
Running on Linux = whatever you want to do
Derived from linux concepts (commands, interfaces, etc) or using linux API's = whatever you want to do

Please don't spread rediculous misconceptions about what the GPL forces to be free, it hurts the GPL movement because people will avoid it for fear its will "infect" their code, I had to get our lawyers sign off that checking our proprietary code into the GPL'd CVS would not force our code to be GPL; arguements that using Open Office make your term paper GPL or that somehow the ability to run Halo under WINE means you have a right to the source code is the type of anti-GNU FUD MS wants to spread.