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."

9 of 162 comments (clear)

  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 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?

    2. 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."
    3. 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).

    4. 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.)

    5. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.
  4. 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".