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