Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Developer Loses GPL Suit Against VMware (itwire.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the taking-some-license dept.

An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes ITWire: Linux kernel developer Christoph Hellwig has lost his case against virtualisation company VMware, which he had sued in March 2015 for violation of version 2 of the GNU General Public Licence... The case claimed that VMware had been using Hellwig's code right from 2007 and not releasing source code as required. The Linux kernel, which is released under the GNU GPL version 2, stipulates that anyone who distributes it has to provide source code for the same...

In its ruling, the court said that Hellwig had failed to prove which specific lines of code VMware had used, from among those over which he claimed ownership.
In a statement, Hellwig said he plans to appeal, adding that "The ruling concerned German evidence law; the Court did not rule on the merits of the case, i.e. the question whether or not VMware has to license the kernel of its product vSphere ESXi 5.5.0 under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2." The Software Freedom Conservancy has described the lawsuit as "the regretful but necessary next step in both Hellwig and Conservancy's ongoing effort to convince VMware to comply properly with the terms of the GPLv2, the license of Linux and many other Open Source and Free Software included in VMware's ESXi products."

162 comments

  1. Verdict sound legitimate by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since "Hellwig had failed to prove which specific lines of code VMware had used", the verdict doesn't sound unfair.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since VMware is withholding source, that's difficult to prove.

    2. Re:Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since "Hellwig had failed to prove which specific lines of code VMware had used", the verdict doesn't sound unfair.

      That depends on the opportunity Hellwig had to examine VMWare's material, and even then, it might be the court did not properly examine the complaint.

      It's a bit like the difference between "You didn't identify which of the defendant's dogs bit you" and "You didn't show that one of the defendant's dogs bit you" in terms of analogy.

    3. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Luthair · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Obviously I'm not a lawyer but what about discovery? Shouldn't he have to opportunity to to grep their source code repository?

    4. Re:Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well AFAIK the vmkernel is 100% built within VMware. Also IIRC there is some layer allows it to use open source drivers for hardware. There's also the Service console which was a privileged VM to allow for some admin tools. This used to be Redhat Enterprise Linux and now it's BusyBox based. Smaller footprint for ESXi but not completely gone.

      Anyways I'm still not clear on what he thinks they did wrong. AFAIK VMware hasn't done anything that's not above board here.

    5. Re:Verdict sound legitimate by bloodhawk · · Score: 2

      If you can't prove you have a case against someone sounds like a pretty fair reason for it to be thrown out. All for screwing over companies that misuse other peoples licenses (commercial or OS) but the onus has to be on those filing the case to prove it.

    6. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only if he has a reasonable basis to start with that they are using his code, otherwise it would be open slather for whoever wants to peak at a companies source code.

    7. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by zwarte+piet · · Score: 2

      why would they? Nobody can be forced to cooperate with their own procecution.

    8. Re:Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be a case where Hellwig found that certain aspects of the program behaved exactly like his code did, perhaps bugs and all. This would be a strong indicator that the code bases were the same. Not enough for proof, but maybe enough to get the court to demand the source code.

      Or, maybe he's handy with a debugger and has seen the code as it is.

    9. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Intron · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So thieves don't have to give back stolen goods, because that would be cooperating. Interesting legal theory.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    10. Re:Verdict sound legitimate by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't really even need a debugger. Just binary code built to the same target. If you can find long enough nuggets that match, baby you've got a stew goin'. From there you can trace back to your own code's source and make sure it's not some trivial shit that everyone writes the same way (or the compiler rewrites the same way).

    11. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why would they? Nobody can be forced to cooperate with their own procecution.

      You're not required to "testify". Providing things like fingerprints, or DNA samples, or source code is not "testimony". So yes, you can be forced to cooperate.

    12. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by bloodhawk · · Score: 2

      Straw Man. you have to prove they were stolen goods. A thief that just happens to also have a item of the same manufacturer is not a thief and does not need to return the item unless it can be shown it is not his.

    13. Re:Verdict sound legitimate by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      You missed the point that the court would not allow Hellwig's expert's evidence. Perhaps it wasn't a case that Hellwig didn't have evidence, but instead that the court wouldn't listen to the evidence.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    14. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate is not going to fix societies problems.

    15. Re:Verdict sound legitimate by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

      My understanding was that the experts said, "The code was copied, anyone can see which code was copied by looking at place A, B, C."
      But that isn't how copyright cases work in the German courts. In the German court, you have to say, "here are Exhibits A, B, and C, these are the lines of code that VMWare copied."

      So they need to follow the proper procedures in court. Usually a lawyer should help with that, but maybe this kind of copyright case isn't very common?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Civil law is different.

    17. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      Where was this tried, and how much experience do you have with that legal system?

      I have none, and it sounds like you have experience with that if a different country.

      It might be better to state your bias, and ask if the jurisdiction has similar concepts. Otherwise it sounds like the old adage, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

    18. Re:Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the ruling is not related to source code that is withheld by VMWare. Hellwig did not sufficiently specify what parts of vmklinux (a vmware module clearly based on linux) he personally claims copyright to.

      For example, on the CD-ROM he created was a git blame of the linux source and also a diff between linux and vmklinux. In Germany it is not the job of the Judge to combine these 2 bits of information and Hellwig (or his counsel) should have done that. According to this ruling at least (or more specifically my interpretation of it, and I can't even read the German version).

    19. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure? Have you tried it?

    20. Re:Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not up to the court to investigate the complaint, the court is there to evaluate and rule on evidence as such the onus is on the him to provide sufficient evidence to be evaluated.

    21. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      He'd have to convince the court that there was enough likelihood of infringement to issue a subpoena. That is more difficult when you have little to no budget and there may be other, legal ways to write the same software. It's a cpoyright infringement, not a patent infringement, so the code would have to be substantively identical.

      Even companies _claiming_ infringement of their software have been very reluctant to show their source code in court. One understandable fear is that it will be copied and spread and lose trade secrets. Another is that it may convince people that they are lyin gthieves, That seems to be what happened when SCO tried to sue various Linux users infringing SCO's licenses for \UNIX source code, While SCO turned out to be mistaken in claiming ownership of SysV UNIX, which still resided with Novell, they were never compelled in court to show the full set of source code they were claiming was infringed.

      The lawsuits from SCO were ridiculous, but stretched on for years. I hope this judge pays attention to that lawsuit in exactly how _not_ to handle a software copyright case.

    22. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by gavron · · Score: 2

      Discovery is part of the US legal system (see US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26).
      The German system is different.

      E
      FD: IANAL. I have done expert testimony.

    23. Re:Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not up to the court to investigate the complaint, the court is there to evaluate and rule on evidence as such the onus is on the him to provide sufficient evidence to be evaluated.

      Actually, when the court makes a decision, it is up to them, they are performing an examination, and actually, that's the reason that the burden in the US is that all inferences must be drawn in the light most favorable to the non-moving party when a decision is being made in such circumstances. I have no idea about German law, so it could be different, but ultimately, the question is on the judge's determination.

      There are, unfortunately, a lot of questionable decisions by judges, and I do not believe German judges are immune to such problems.

    24. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious question: What the fuck does this have to do with this article?

    25. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by buchanmilne · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Also IIRC there is some layer allows it to use open source drivers for hardware. ...

      Anyways I'm still not clear on what he thinks they did wrong. AFAIK VMware hasn't done anything that's not above board here.

      Really, you missed the part where they copied GPL drivers into a proprietary kernel? How would that not be wrong?

      As far as I know, VMWare has admitted to copying Linux drivers, but they claimed that their kernel "wrapped" the Linux kernel in such a way as to not infringe. This claim alone should be sufficient for discovery.

      (Apologies in advance for any formattung issues, still no preview on the mobile interface.)

    26. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither is allowing them to scream racism every time life throws them a curve any one of us would have to endure.

    27. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      why would they? Nobody can be forced to cooperate with their own procecution.

      Because that's how discovery works lol Check it out and become educated

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    28. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a civil trial, you can be. This isn't a criminal trial, is it?

    29. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that doesnt work as an analogy here though because if you have any item from the same "manufacturer" it means you have violated the license. any copy is a violation.

    30. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According to /., if Hellwig still has the source code, then it has not been stolen, right? How is this any different than pirating music?

    31. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by aberglas · · Score: 2

      Nobody really knows what GPL even means.

      It does not define how closely linked code needs to be in order to be one work. Interpretations are very much C/C++ oriented, the meaning in Java/.Net etc. is even more obscure.

      Why is there a problem using drivers in a kernal, and not a problem running any non-GPL code on Linux? It aint explicitly in the license. And that is deliberate, because it is designed to be a lose as possible.

      The one thing it does do is allow Gnu/Linux to take code from the BSD project without ever giving anything back. The reason that OpenSSL was successful is that its license specifically precludes relicensing as GPL.

    32. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes

    33. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      hey I wasn't the one that came up with the stupid analogy, just responding to a blatantly incorrect statement.

    34. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not "stolen", it's "copyright infringed".

    35. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only /., it is follows the diea behind the BSD license too.
      It is not technically possible to "lock in" open sourced code. You can only lock in you own modifications. The original source is still out there.
      If Hellwig wants to compile something from these particular lines he can use his own source, but that isn't the case. He wants to git his hands on code someone else wrote that he suspects have been infected with lines from his code.

      The pirating analogy is interesting since anti-pirates wants me to pay a levy on storage regardless of if I intend to use it for music or not. They also want to have control over what I do with media in my own home.

      The one thing that GPL advocates and anti-pirates have in common is that they want to have a say in what I am allowed to transmit in a private conversation with a friend.

    36. Re:Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be a case where Hellwig found that certain aspects of the program behaved exactly like his code did, perhaps bugs and all.

      Well, it's either that or the most trivial implementation happens to experience those bugs.

      I've encountered situations where someone describes the symptoms of the bugs and I've been able to tell how they tried to solve the problem without looking at the code.
      Unlike patents copyright does not put a requirement on the solution having to be non-trivial for someone working in the field but if you go for the simplest solution then anyone doing the same will encounter the same issues.

    37. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Howitzer86 · · Score: 0

      Shitposting, Exhibit A.

    38. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really, you missed the part where they copied GPL drivers into a proprietary kernel? How would that not be wrong?

      The GPL depends on the term "derived work". If the vmware kernel can load various types of modules and the GPL'ed modules are all optional it might not be considered derived. NVIDIA has used the inverse of this for years for its binary driver, the blob itself is mostly independent of the kernel and comes with a thin compatibility layer.

      Also it seems that the developer failed to show that a copy even happened, having all his "evidence" dismissed on behalve of the defense. Why even ask the Conservancy for help? As far as I can tell they have funding issues and their success history includes a single default judgement.

    39. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Even if your claim is true - this is about a piece of code written in C - so by your own claim it's pretty unambiguous.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    40. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why is there a problem using drivers in a kernal, and not a problem running any non-GPL code on Linux? It aint explicitly in the license. And that is deliberate, because it is designed to be a lose as possible.

      From the horse's mouth, although some might call him an ass instead ;-)
      http://yarchive.net/comp/linux...

    41. Re:Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since VMware is withholding source, that's difficult to prove.

      Hellwig doesn't have access to the source either, yet he is confident enough to bring the case to court.
      All he has to do is preset what convinced him and then the court decides if he has enough on his feet to make it justified to look at WMwares source.
      If he can't convince the court then it is probably just a fishing expedition. It's not like he can show any damage because of their code usage.

    42. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If the item is confiscated by the police and re-distributed, that's not "giving back" anything. When you use an invalid analogy, it doesn't work. Hans Reiser didn't have to cooperate with his prosecution by producing his murdered wife. Though, after being convicted of murder, he produced the body, in exchange for a reduced charge/sentence.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    43. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why is it unambiguous?

      There is no clear distinction between compile time linking or runtime linking. Both are done before running the application and the distinction between disk and RAM storage have been vague ever since the first ram/rom based filesystem.
      A program is just a function that is called. There is no real difference between a separate program and a function specifically written as part of a program.
      You can claim that it is a separate program because it is distributed separately from the operating system, but what does that mean for a rar-split?
      You can claim that it is a separate program because it is copied from one type of memory to another at different times, but what does that mean for programs that loads part of its code at runtime or for rom-based software?

      There is nothing with C that makes the code compiled from it distinct from interpreted languages or bytecode. Code that is compiled to x86 machine code can still be treated as bytecode and executed in an emulated environment.
      There is no real difference between static or dynamic linking. The system you run it on can decide to cache the dynamic linking and then it becomes static linking.

      GPL relies on conventions that are based on current technology. A simple thing like compiling and distributing the GPL code separately and connecting it to non-GPL code through scripts quickly puts it in a situation where either GPL code can be used freely together with non-GPL software or where it can't be used at all simply because it is running on a system with a non-GPL BIOS or on a CPU with non-GPL microcode.

    44. Re:Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Change compiler and you won't find them

    45. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by CSMoran · · Score: 2

      for whoever wants to peak at a companies source code.

      Sounds like a weird fetish, even in this community.

      --
      Every end has half a stick.
    46. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voat's over there mate, this is Slashdot.

    47. Re:Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the SFC failed to secure a good lawyer, they had one successfull case in the U.S. ( a default judgement at that ) and funding issues. Finding a good lawyer without money is a global issue.

    48. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is actually the exact opposite of what he wants them to do, take a moment to breathe and actually read the summary. He wants them to RELEASE the source code as per the license agreement. He's not saying that they owe him money, but rather that they owe the public the source.

    49. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " I don't see 7% of Native Americans or 7% of Jews committing 50+% of all murders"

      Most of the people killed by African-Americans are OTHER AFs so how does that affect you? And why are highly-evolved whites still killing so many of their own kind? Just because someone else is worse doesn't excuse you.
      You want blacks to go back to Africa? Fine - but you have to fuck off to Europe first and let the Native Americans have their country back.

    50. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course in nVidia's case they don't copy any kernel code. True their shim is GPLed and by the letter of the GPL, the link to binary driver constitutes a violation, but the party that could bring suit would be the copyright holder of the shim code, nVIdia themselves. It could be argued that indirectly the core kernel team could sue, but it would be hard to argue that copyright was violated, which is a prereq for considering licensing terms to be violated. If it were possible, then Oracle would have won the suit against Google, Wine could be shut down by microsoft, and a ton of other bad outcomes.

      VMware is a bit different, as they actually provide binary downloads of the drivers. As such, they are potentially infringing on copyright unless they are adhering to the license. GPL is specifically designed to forbid things like modifying GPL code to work with a shim and then in turn using that shim to extend that project with proprietary code (unless you do some awkward workaround like communicating with proprietary code over a network socket). So unlike nVidia, there are grounds to consider vmware's compliance to the license.

    51. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Megol · · Score: 1

      Of course not*. But they can be forced to produce artifacts of interest for the case. Which in this case would be source code.

      (* ironic - yes people can be forced to cooperate even in the US)

    52. Re:Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This verdict would mean it's next to impossible to sue any violator of the GPL who doesn't provide the source code of his software.
      How is this a good development?

    53. Re:Verdict sound legitimate by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. You will need to show the limitation in your mainline kernel that would require VMWare to write a change to it.
      VMware could just be using the standard kernel, and just made a customized distribution with their own priority code as the key running component.

      The source for the kernel is widely available. But the VMWare product isn't.

      To be fare. VMWare has its software designed to run on Different OS's and Linux Distributions so the ESXi version may just be a normal port with a boing LInux running in the backend.
       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    54. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      "Nobody really knows what GPL even means." The GPL is treated more like a religion. Where people get all up in arms, when it isn't used the way they wanted it to be used.
      The GPL is rather strict, however there are loopholes, some that the GPL 3 closed (for better or for worse) So VMWare may be following the letter of the GPL but not the Spirit.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    55. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither is your stupid comment

    56. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Nobody really knows what GPL even means.

      It does not define how closely linked code needs to be in order to be one work. Interpretations are very much C/C++ oriented, the meaning in Java/.Net etc. is even more obscure.

      Bullshit. The GPL is built on copyright law, which means "derivative work" mean the same thing in relation to the GPL as it does everywhere else. It is a legal definition, not a technical one.

      In other words, the manner in which the compiler/interpreter links the proprietary code to the GPL'd code is entirely irrelevant: if the proprietary code is "based on" the GPL'd code, it's infringing. That even includes just reading the GPL'd code on GitHub and reimplementing it!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    57. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one thing that GPL advocates and anti-pirates have in common is that they want to have a say in what I am allowed to transmit in a private conversation with a friend.

      Nonsense. The only thing GPL ensures is that when you share the code with your friend, you can't deny him/her the same rights and permissions you received.

    58. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Obviously I'm not a lawyer but what about discovery? Shouldn't he have to opportunity to to grep their source code repository?
      Obviously not. On what legal base should he have the right to grep anyone's source repository?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    59. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Assuming his copyright was violated, what *has* been "stolen" are his rights to exclusively control who may copy his content. Exclusive, by definition, means that nobody else is doing it,. so by infringing on his copyright, they are genuinely depriving him of some of the rights that he had as the copyright holder. Since the work was under the GPL: copy being under his control would entail that everyone has access to his code and all derivatives of it. If someone deprives him of this right of control, then they are preventing people from accessing his code, which if it had been under his control would not be the case.

      Even if you want to allege that theft requires depriving the victim of whatever is stolen, a not entirely unreasonable argument can be made that copyright infringement is actual theft. It's just not the case that what the thief is gaining from the theft is the same thing as what the copyright holder loses.

      One may argue that intangible things cannot be stolen, but that is ultimately an arbitrary distinction, since the tangibility of something does not necessarily correlate with how much it may be considered to be worth.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    60. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > As far as I know, VMWare has admitted to copying Linux drivers, but they claimed that their kernel "wrapped" the Linux kernel in such a way as to not infringe.

      Netflix on the PS3 does a similar thing by providing their own "shim" to call GPL code . Sony's lawyers had a field day trying to determine if Netflix could do this -- their answer was grudgingly yes, since they weren't technically violating the GPL.

      It was kind of an interesting run-around / "hack" when you think about it.

    61. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whites came to america and took it because they wanted it, blacks came here unwillingly.

      The whole "go back to Europe" thing doesn't work bromigo.

    62. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Or they could even be following the spirit of the GPL...version 2. IIRC it was originally asserted that it was ok to use dynamic linking, but not static linking. If so, VMWare could be wrapping the drivers in a way quite compatible with the intent of GPLv2...but you'd need to see the code to know.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    63. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I came from Canada in 1865 you insensitive clod.

    64. Re:Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since "Hellwig had failed to prove which specific lines of code VMware had used", the verdict doesn't sound unfair.

      Is it? This begs the question of what Hellwig could have done. It is a classic Devil's Proof. In order to prove which lines of code which were copied he'd need access to the code, and he can't get access to the code without proving the lines were copied.

      As another (hypothetical) example, the NSA claims that they don't conduct illegal surveillance on people. If a person tries to sue them to confirm, the NSA says they don't have standing to sue because they aren't under surveillance, Q.E.D.

      Notionally one could flip the chessboard around to place the burden of proof on VMware to prove they did not copy code, but then you open the Pandora's Box of tons of frivolous lawsuits... and how does a company prove they did not copy code, too?

      A Devil's Proof indeed.

    65. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the authorities can check Michael Jackson's balls, surely we can have them look at the code.

    66. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Whites came to america and took it because they wanted it, blacks came here unwillingly"

      Which means that the troubles of both Native Americans and African-Americans were directly caused by whites.
      So you either kick out the root-cause shit-disturbers or you let the wronged parties decide who leaves.
      I'm reasonably sure both of them will agree that if anyone should be required to leave, it should be European-Americans.

    67. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well the spirit was to have all your code released under GPL as well. The dynamic linking rule was more targeted towards being able to link things because you can't have it GPL. vs VMWare where they won't have it GPL.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    68. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by afgam28 · · Score: 1

      It's common, at least in the US, for internal emails to be used as evidence in court. Some well publicized cases from the top of my head are the recent Oracle vs Google case and the Microsoft antitrust case. I don't know why source code would be treated differently.

    69. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Frankly if you follow that logic, we should all move back to Africa, as that is where the whole race originated.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    70. Re: Verdict sound legitimate by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      The thing about GPL is that it's a License - if you don't comply with it, then it's a simple copyright violation case.

      It's also easy to comply with (open your source)

      The vast majority of GPL cases have never hit court because it's been far more blatant cases (such as stealing busybox) and once the respondent's lawyers realised that if they argued the GPL wasn't enforceable, they'd then be fighting a copyright violation case - which in most cases would be open and shut with larger penalties because they'd already admitted using the code.

      This case is more subtle and from the look of it the courts haven't allowed sufficient discovery to be done. VMware probably learned lessons from Fortinet being taken down over its "proprietary operating system" fiasco.

      This will go to appeal and I doubt the higher courts will rule against discovery.

  2. Que the consultant guy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 3, 2, 1.....

    1. Re: Que the consultant guy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GPL = General Public License. Not Gnu Protective License.

    2. Re: Que the consultant guy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the top online investment firm doesn't sell the derivative work, (i.e. they only use it internally), then they don't have to release the source code for it.

    3. Re: Que the consultant guy... by buchanmilne · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released.

      Why hasn't anyone sued Oracle then? Oh right, this is obviously false and you are trolling.

      Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position.

      Yes, that of explaining how you paid lawyers who don't understand the word 'distribute'.

    4. Re: Que the consultant guy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consultant guy must be incredibly dumb because everybody knows about GPL. Also, consultant guy thinks he can use something for free and but not want to give anything back. Consultant guy complains about lack of access to Microsoft code but ends up writing code for the Microsoft platform anyway so what was the original complaint about. Consultant guy is a douchebag.

    5. Re: Que the consultant guy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Afaik, you can do anything you want with the code. But only, and only, when you distribute the binaries is when the license tells you have you give the source as well.

    6. Re: Que the consultant guy... by rl117 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You've posted this exact text to other stories. Please stop. The content is garbage. Code compiled with GCC is not forced to be GPL and never has been. Your compiled code retains your licence. Changes you make to the Linux kernel would be required to be GPL if you distribute them, the GPL being a *distribution* licence, but are required to be given to people you *distribute* the changes to only, not the whole world. If this is for real, and not just a lame troll, you got lousy advice from your "lawyers".

    7. Re: Que the consultant guy... by technosaurus · · Score: 1

      I don't like the GPL, but you misunderstand the legalese. You only have to distribute the source to whoever you distribute the binary. You can make as many changes as you wish within an organization without distributing the source outside of the organization. This includes work for hire.

    8. Re: Que the consultant guy... by radoslav.dejanovic · · Score: 1

      I'd say that your lawyers aren't very competent: they failed to check the legal framework first, and then they failed to interpret it correctly (gcc doesn't force anyone to release the code compiled with it). The utter incompetence of your lawyers made your solution more expensive and forced your customer to move to an undesired platform, incurring additional costs to them as well. It's not that you, your clients or GPL failed... your lawyers failed.

    9. Re: Que the consultant guy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your "lawyers " are dead wrong. You do not need to release your code, just because it's compiled with GPL'ed tools.

    10. Re: Que the consultant guy... by Interfacer · · Score: 1

      I am fairly certain that I've read that exact post a couple of times over the last couple of years.

    11. Re: Que the consultant guy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was copied and pasted from 2002:

      Google Groups

      I hope the people you are shilling for take your commission away this month for being an idiot.

    12. Re: Que the consultant guy... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      It was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License.

      If this is for real, and not just a lame troll, you got lousy advice from your "lawyers".

      Obvious troll trying to bring OSS zealots to nerd rage and write long posts to dispute it.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    13. Re: Que the consultant guy... by Holi · · Score: 1

      DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    14. Re: Que the consultant guy... by pscottdv · · Score: 1

      Kinda dumb doing all that work before looking at the license, don't you think?

      --

      this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice

    15. Re: Que the consultant guy... by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 1

      Even as a stale troll, this is hilarious. "I'd always done my work on Windows" but the best solution for their client, when using Linux, is for them to immediate start mucking with the kernel source.

    16. Re: Que the consultant guy... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released.
      Your lawyer is not only wrong, he is incompetent. You are heavily advised to get a better one.

      After my experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my associates.
      Perhaps you should post under your real name, so we can avoid your advice?

      A huge deal of the internet is running on Linux. That does not make the software running on it tainted by the GPL ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re: Que the consultant guy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protip, BSD

    18. Re: Que the consultant guy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, software is intellectual property that belongs to those few who are qualified to run and write it. We can't let the riff raff using it for unapproved purposes.

    19. Re: Que the consultant guy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't like the GPL, but you misunderstand the legalese. You only have to distribute the source to whoever you distribute the binary.

      Actually, with GPL2 if you choose not to include the source, but instead substitute a written offer of source, you must make it available to any third party who asks for it (per GPL2 section 3b),

  3. The merits of the case.... by Daemonik · · Score: 1

    "You see, the court did indeed rule that I had no evidence my door had been broken and something was missing from my home, but do not let that distract you from the fact I have been robbed!"

    1. Re:The merits of the case.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this is more like a robbery case being thrown out because the supposed victim can't name all the dates on the coins the supposed robber stole. Regardless if there is a broken lock, missing things, fingerprints, or not.

    2. Re:The merits of the case.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But slashdotters have always insisted copying of data is not robbery or theft, since the original owner still has his copy...

  4. Re:Sorry to all Germans and Pooftahs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    1) "America" isn't doing anything. A few individual Americans are doing well in the Olympics, however that doesn't reflect anything about you or any other American who isn't participating in the Olympics. Like an idiotic sports fan, you are conflating someone else's ability with your own.
    2) Nobody gives a shit about the Olympics any more, not even Americans.

  5. Re: Wrong again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wat? Using GPLed source code is an implicit agreement to the license.

  6. Re:Sorry to all Germans and Pooftahs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    does anyone really give a shit about Olympics anymore. I think the American womans goalkeepers attitude pretty well sums up why no one gives a shit about Olympics anymore. between drugs, politics, spoilt brats, bad sports and prima donna's it just isn't interesting to watch anymore, and seems world wide ratings are reflecting this.

  7. Re:Wrong again by iCEBaLM · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only thing that grants VMware the permission to use and redistribute linux code is the GPL, if they don't agree to it, then they can't use any of it.

  8. Re:Wrong again by Intron · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nobody has to agree to the GPL. However, if you don't agree to it you have no license to the code.

    --
    Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
  9. Re:Wrong again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did Vmware actually agree to the GPL?

    Yes, by distributing binaries built from GPL sources, they have agreed to abide by all the terms of the GPL.

  10. Why use VMWare? by whoever57 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    I don't know about the ESX version, but in my opinion, VMWare Workstation is a heap of steaming crap. We see VMs that slow down, even though the slow VM is the single VM that is busy on the host. Frequent re-starts appear to be the only solution to this.

    We tried a shared filesystem (shared between the host and other guests) and performance was terrible.

    Combined with VMWare firing the desktop developers, I cannot understand why anyone would pay for this.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:Why use VMWare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Comparing ESX to VMware Workstation is like comparing Red Hat Enterprise Linux to Knoppix. VMware Workstation was basically a get-mindshare product for them, that most people used for free and which they never cared too much about.

    2. Re:Why use VMWare? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      I don't know about the ESX version, but in my opinion, VMWare Workstation is a heap of steaming crap. We see VMs that slow down, even though the slow VM is the single VM that is busy on the host. Frequent re-starts appear to be the only solution to this.

      We tried a shared filesystem (shared between the host and other guests) and performance was terrible.

      Combined with VMWare firing the desktop developers, I cannot understand why anyone would pay for this.

      Well try running a whole enterprise with clustering, eSAN storage, virtual switching, failovers, cloud integration for backups, expiring VM's, auditing for infosec, ability to move the VM's anywhere, and command line tools to automate tens of thousands of virtual servers all on virtualbox and let me see how far you get?

      FYI Vmware workstation is their obsolete product they made in 1998 which is a type 2 hypervisor. ESX is a type 1 which means no special messy drivers to translate things back and forth. The guests can talk to the hardware directly in a type 1 which means no slow down unless hardware is overloaded. ESX is a totally different product!

      The only thing that may even kind of come close is Hyper-V on Windows which is a type-1. If you have the pro version of 8 - 10 you can enable it and play with it and see how much better it is compared to VirtualBox and Vmware workstation? But last I saw checkpoints were not production ready??? What?! Seriously? I use them at home but with checkpoints and until MS can guarantee I can do a checkpoint what choice do I have at work but to use ESX to manage virtually everything that is not tied down to solo host servers.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    3. Re:Why use VMWare? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Comparing ESX to VMware Workstation is like comparing Red Hat Enterprise Linux to Knoppix. VMware Workstation was basically a get-mindshare product for them, that most people used for free and which they never cared too much about.

      More like Minux to Gnu/Linux. Not in the same league and a different product. VMWare Workstation is quite expensive and no longer supported by Dell from what I read since Hyper-V is now available for free with Windows 8-10 pro/enterprise.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    4. Re: Why use VMWare? by buchanmilne · · Score: 2

      Well try running a whole enterprise with clustering, eSAN storage, virtual switching, failovers, cloud integration for backups, expiring VM's, auditing for infosec, ability to move the VM's anywhere, and command line tools to automate tens of thousands of virtual servers all on virtualbox and let me see how far you get?

      Why would I do that when i could just use ovirt, or the commercially supported version that is faster and significantly cheaper with 90% feature parity to vSphere Enterprise Plus, Red Hat Enterprise Virtualisation (RHEV)?

    5. Re: Why use VMWare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oVirt is powered by the Open Source you know - KVM on Linux.

      So utterly useless on Windows. Because I really want to use a different Virtualization solution on every platform I have to manage. It is 2016 people, there is no excuse to write non portable crapware.

    6. Re: Why use VMWare? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      oVirt is powered by the Open Source you know - KVM on Linux.

      So utterly useless on Windows. Because I really want to use a different Virtualization solution on every platform I have to manage. It is 2016 people, there is no excuse to write non portable crapware.

      If you're running vmware ESX or whatever it is called now, then linux is running on the metal no matter what the guest OSes are. So "utterly useless on Windows" is completely meaningless here. You don't run vmware on Windows, unless you are either 1) a moron or 2) just doing some testing. The performance is much better when the host runs Linux.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re: Why use VMWare? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      I run vmware player on my Windows 7 machine. But I am not running it 24/7 or anything like that. I use it to run a Linux development environment for my Nokia N900 phone (there is a ready-made Ubuntu vmware VM file for N900 development and its easier to run it that way than dual boot all the time)

    8. Re: Why use VMWare? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I use vmware player on windows 7 in several cases where performance doesn't matter at all, like automotive service manual software, so there clearly are cases where it makes sense. But in general, it's not running a server.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Why use VMWare? by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      The only thing that may even kind of come close is Hyper-V on Windows which is a type-1.

      Xen is type-1 as well.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    10. Re: Why use VMWare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I looked into oVirt as a replacement for my VirtualBox/phpvirtualbox environment. I love the features, but hated the fact that I needed 4GB minimum RAM (16GB recommended). I eventually gave up and went with Proxmox.

    11. Re: Why use VMWare? by JayJay.br · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but no. ESXi runs a custom proprietary kernel called "vmkernel" and has been this way since 1.0. You may be confused by the fact that up to v4.1 there was a Linux virtual machine running on top of it dubbed the "service console". Since v5.0 it has been removed. But even before, the Linux OS you mention is not the one that runs on the metal.

      Nowadays ESXi has no Linux running whatsoever, but there is a busybox shell that may make it look like so.

      Please note that I am not taking sides on whether the GPL has been infringed. Just saying that the Linux kernel is positively not there.

  11. "/usr/lib/xfce4/exo-1/exo-helper-1" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    exo-helper to get my root pw when I su (dumbly do it under X... but nvm). debian suddendly turned into windows. imagine if I add i386!!!!

    1. Re:"/usr/lib/xfce4/exo-1/exo-helper-1" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The location of exo-helper has moved to /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/xfce4/exo-1/exo-helper-1.

  12. Re: Wrong again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The GPL is a copyright license. If you don't agree to it, you NO rights to copy anything. If you use code that is GPL, you just don't have any choice but to agree.

    As said, the alternative is that you have no rights to copy at all. The PHB's at VMWare probably understand that better than you do as well as the lawyers.

  13. Re:Wrong again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /*

    I am 100% sure somewhere in the code they used that.

  14. Re: GPL Fails Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Companies shouldn't use GPL code if they don't want to abide by the terms of the license.

  15. Re: GPL Fails Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Nobody should use GPL code if they don't want to share their code with the public.

    There, broadened that for you. Have a nice day.

  16. Re: Wrong again by buchanmilne · · Score: 1

    "Did Vmware actually agree to the GPL?"

    Since they provide GPL copyright notices in their products pertaining to 3rd-party components that they distribute to others legal entities, they have agreed to it or are guilty of copyright infringement.

  17. Re: Wrong again by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    The old "moo" mentality? For all you know the MOOs at MOOware wipe their asses with toilet paper with MOO printed on it.

    By reading this post you implicitly moo that you're a cow.

    I'm pretty sure that's what you actually meant. Happy Monday!

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  18. Re:Sorry to all Germans and Pooftahs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not hard considering they're all dopers. The only difference between russian and US athletes is that the russians are typically exposed before the games. The US athletes get to do the talk-show circuit first before they're stripped of medals.

  19. Re:Wrong again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are trying to be funny. But no.

  20. They faked a sign-off-by from Christoph Hellwig! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They faked a sign-off-by from Christoph Hellwig. Harsh punishments must follow.

    Hans Reiser

  21. Re: Wrong again by WarJolt · · Score: 1

    GPLv2 dictates how code and binaries can be distributed. If you never transfer any software to any other party GPLv2 really has no restrictions on use.

  22. Re:Wrong again by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, some (many?) manufacturers use GPL code (the whole Linux OS + other apps) without releasing the part they modified/added, or only providing a completely obsolete version of it (eg the first one built 3 years ago).

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  23. Re:GPL Fails Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heheh that's funny. Nobody is strongarming anyone to use GPLed code. If you do use it, you need to follow the terms of the license. You don't like the terms, code it yourself.

  24. Re:Wrong again by swillden · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, some (many?) manufacturers use GPL code (the whole Linux OS + other apps) without releasing the part they modified/added, or only providing a completely obsolete version of it (eg the first one built 3 years ago).

    Which ones? Hellwig can sue them, too.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  25. Re: Wrong again by Megol · · Score: 2

    No it isn't! One have to accept the license to copy the software but as long as you don't distribute it you don't have to accept anything..

    Use* GPL licensed software?
    Compile GPL licensed source code?

    Allowed without accepting the license.

    Distribute GPL software? Must accept the license (otherwise one goes against the copyright) and follow the instructions.

  26. Re: Wrong again by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

    No it isn't! One have to accept the license to copy the software but as long as you don't distribute it you don't have to accept anything..

    Use* GPL licensed software? Compile GPL licensed source code?

    Allowed without accepting the license.

    Distribute GPL software? Must accept the license (otherwise one goes against the copyright) and follow the instructions.

    I've emphasized the part of your post that is correct, since you're not quite correct in the rest of your post. As soon as you make a copy of the source code, you have accepted the terms of the copyright license, even if you don't distribute anything.

    The terms of the GPL allow you to do pretty much whatever you want until you distribute the software, at which point you are required to make the source code available to anyone you give the software to. That's specific to the GPL, though; it is not an aspect of copyrights in general.

  27. ESXi is NOT Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen this steaming pile of horseshit posted in this thread a bunch of times already. But, let's make one thing clear here:

    ESXi IS NOT LINUX. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

    ESXi runs a proprietary Kernel that just happens to be ELF binary compatible. THAT IS IT. It is not Linux. It does not use Linux code. It is not covered by GPL.

    It also happens to be able to use Linux drivers, of which many are available via the GPL license. VMWare makes the source code to these drivers available on their website for each release (provided you are a user of ESXi and have a valid license).

    But, VMWare is under no legal obligation whatsoever to release the source code that they developed. None at all. It is proprietary, closed source, and is not corrupted with GPL code.

    1. Re:ESXi is NOT Linux by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Given that what you have asserted is true, it sounds as if the court made the right decision, even if for the wrong reasons.

      From what others have said, however, the reasons for the court decision were definitely wrong. Refusing to examine expert testimony isn't a valid basis for decision. (Deciding that it's wrong may be, but that isn't what was reported as happening here.)

      OTOH, there are other grounds for suspecting that VMWare might be in the right. Most of them, however, would require examining the code to validate.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  28. Civil Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody can be forced to cooperate with their own prosecution is true (5th amendment) but you only get prosecuted in criminal cases.

    This is a civil case. In a civil case there is a process that is gone through before the trial call discovery (well there's depositions too). But discovery you submit a motion to the court to request access to documents, code, devices, etc anything germane to the case then if the judge grants the motion the other party had to turn over what was requested (like a device would have to be turned over to a qualified expert recognized by the court to do the analysis, but documents, code, etc can be turned over to the party). Discovery goes both ways both parties can do their own discovery.

  29. Re:Wrong again by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Which ones? Hellwig can sue them, too.
    Actually he can't, unless he is the copy right holder.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  30. Re: Verdict sound legitimate FUCK NIGGERS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy crap, will you guys ever fix unicode so we can properly read the word "proteges" in the GNAA posts?

  31. Re: Wrong again by sexconker · · Score: 1

    If you use code that is GPL, you just don't have any choice but to agree.

    Wrong. You have the choice of not agreeing to the GPL, not ever seeing the GPL, ignoring the GPL, etc. and violating copyright law as a result.

    The GPL is a copyright license. If you don't agree to it, you NO rights to copy anything.

    Mostly correct. US copyright law doesn't invade every aspect of your life or cover every inch of the globe (yet).

    glitch! is correct, and he's modded Troll. And I'm modded flamebait. Fucking Slashdot retards.

    Unless you can prove they explicitly agreed to the GPL, the allegation here is that they violated copyright law. Copying something covered by the GPL does not implicitly mean you've agreed to the GPL. This is the distinction glitch! and I are pointing out.

  32. Rant Less, Read More by daboochmeister · · Score: 1

    The allegation isn't that VMware uses the Linux kernel, or that "VMware is linux" or whatever straw man you're attacking ... the allegation is specific to SCSI subsystem code that Hellwig wrote for the Linux kernel. There's been reasonably credible evidence they did use that specific code (which is from the main kernel tree, not a driver). No one is claiming that VMware "stole" Linux as a whole and is using it.

    --
    "Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh ... never mind." Dave Bucci
  33. PRESUME IT'S A LIE (FBI) (FBI) (FBI) [singing] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Appeal it. This is precedent. This is on Slashdot as an FBI victory, the capturing of open source Linux code with nothing they can do about it.

    Appeal it. If the judge doesn't make it proper where they can demonstrate which lines were stolen... dead judge. Fuck a bitch.

  34. Re:Wrong again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True, but you have to get the details right when you file the civil suit. In particular, if you file a "breach of contract" suit, the burden of proof is on you to establish that the contract exists. On the other hand, if you file a copyright suit, VMWare would have to rely on the protection of the GPL, and in order to do so they have to show that they accepted the license terms. This forces them to confirm the existence of the contract.

    Mind you, such a claim in a lawsuit would establish a contract between just the two parties in the civil suit, and not automatically extend to third parties. As a rule of thumb, civil lawsuits have little to no effect on third parties.

  35. Re:Wrong again by swillden · · Score: 1

    Which ones? Hellwig can sue them, too. Actually he can't, unless he is the copy right holder.

    He is a copyright owner of considerable chunks of Linux, which is why he's involved in this suit.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  36. GPL is unclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good link. In particular

    "There's a clarification that user-space programs that use the standard
    system call interfaces aren't considered derived works..."

    Nope. That aint in the license. I doubt it is anywhere other than convention. A good lawyer could have lots of fun with that.

  37. Bullshit Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "derived" work law was based around novels and songs, not computer programs.

    Please let me know the statutes that you claim clearly show how dynamic linking is different from calling kernal methods? You cannot because there ain't any.

    Nor much common law. But the lawyers will have a picnic defining it.

    It should be explicit in the license.

    Obviously, the interpretation of any contract is up to the law, by definition. But a good contract/license is clear, and GPL is deliberately vague.

    1. Re:Bullshit Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FSF maintains that if the linking (whether dynamic or static) makes a "single program," it's a derivative work.

      That makes things tricky, since it's not just the linking method but the design of the program that determines its status.

      In general, plugins = OK, library dependency != OK.

  38. Re: Wrong again by Megol · · Score: 1

    Have you read the licence text recently? It explicitly states that using GPL software doesn't require accepting the licence. Modifying the source code and distribution of source and/or binaries are what requires acceptance of the terms according to it. I choose not to list modification as there are arguments that a single user modifying source code that is legal to have and use (according to the licence text) can't be in violation of copyright laws.

  39. Re: Wrong again by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

    In a way, though, that's sort of an impossible statement. The reason that you can run the software without accepting the license is because the license explicitly says that you can. So you're accepting the license when you run the program, but most of the license doesn't apply to you. Courts have ruled that copying the program from disk to RAM in order to execute it counts as making a copy as far as copyright law is concerned (not to say that I agree with the ruling, but that's where they stand right now). So when the GPL says you don't have to accept the license in order to run the software, the effective statement is really that none of the other terms of the license apply to you if you are only running the software.

  40. Re:Wrong again by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    We talked about GPL in general and other apps.

    At least that was the point you liked to make in your previous post.

    My point is: you can only sue as a proxy of the copyright holder or if you hold the copyright yourself.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  41. Re: Wrong again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a way, though, that's sort of an impossible statement. The reason that you can run the software without accepting the license is because the license explicitly says that you can.

    In the USA, at least, you have the right to copy the program into memory for the purpose of "utilizing" it, regardless of what the license says.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

    A EULA may impose conditions for using the software, but GPL is not a EULA.

  42. Re: Wrong again by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    This also means that the damages and penalties possible are those for copyright infringement, which means nobody can be forced to release their work under the GPL because they derived it from GPLed code. They can face monetary damages and be hit with injunctions in the US, but that's the extent of it.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  43. Re: Wrong again by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    I can make copies of the source code without accepting anything. I can't do it legally, but what happens is that I've copied without a valid license, as opposed to accepted a license and violated the terms.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  44. Re: Wrong again by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

    I guess if you want to play meaningless semantics games, sure. You can also say that you automatically accept the license when you make the copy, and then you can still go ahead and do things that violate the license. It doesn't matter how you want to state what you did, you would be liable for copyright infringement either way.

  45. Re: Wrong again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's really not complicated. You "accept" the license by doing things the license allows, which would normally be copyright violations.

    I don't like the terms "accept" and "agree" in this context, it would be more accurate to say you "abide by" the license terms.

  46. Re:Wrong again by swillden · · Score: 1

    Ah, yes, I was referring only to the Linux kernel. Yes, obviously you have to be a copyright owner to have standing to sue.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.