Slashdot Mirror
VMware Touts Dismissal of Linux GPL Lawsuit (zdnet.com)
"For over a decade, VMware has been accused of illegally using Linux code in its VMware ESX bare-metal virtual machine hypervisor," reports ZDNet, adding that "A German court has dismissed the case, but the struggle may not be over."
VMware stood accused of illegally using Linux code in its flagship VMware ESX bare-metal virtual machine (VM) hypervisor... In 2011, the Software Freedom Conservancy, a non-profit organization that promotes open-source software, discovered that VMware had failed to properly license any Linux or BusyBox, a popular embedded Linux toolkit, source code... In 2015, having exhausted all other means, [Linux kernel developer Christoph] Hellweg and the Software Freedom Conservancy sued VMware in the district court of Hamburg in Germany. Besides the general violation of the GPLv2, "Conservancy and Hellwig specifically assert that VMware has combined copyrighted Linux code, licensed under GPLv2, with their own proprietary code called 'vmkernel' and distributed the entire combined work without providing nor offering complete, corresponding source code for that combined work under terms of the GPLv2."
The German court disagreed in November 2018. Helwig appealed and continued the fight, saying "The lower court dismissed the case as a result of evidentiary rules and likely an incomplete understanding of the documentation of the code in question...." [Monday] VMware rather mysteriously announced: "VMware is pleased with the Feb. 28, 2019 decision of the German appellate court in Hamburg to dismiss Mr. Hellwig's appeal and let stand the regional court's decision to dismiss Mr. Hellwig's lawsuit. "
Karen Sandler, attorney and the Conservancy's executive director, told ZDNet that "We strongly believe that litigation is necessary against willful GPL violators, particularly in cases like VMware where this is strong community consensus that their behavior is wrong. Litigation moves slowly. We will continue to discuss this with Christoph and his lawyers and hope to say more about it in the coming weeks -- after the courts provide their rationale for their decision to the parties (which has not yet occurred)."
Meanwhile, VMware stated that it "continues to be a strong supporter of open source software development," adding that it's been "actively" working on removing vmklinux from vSphere in an upcoming release as part of a multi-year project -- "for reasons unrelated to the litigation."
The German court disagreed in November 2018. Helwig appealed and continued the fight, saying "The lower court dismissed the case as a result of evidentiary rules and likely an incomplete understanding of the documentation of the code in question...." [Monday] VMware rather mysteriously announced: "VMware is pleased with the Feb. 28, 2019 decision of the German appellate court in Hamburg to dismiss Mr. Hellwig's appeal and let stand the regional court's decision to dismiss Mr. Hellwig's lawsuit. "
Karen Sandler, attorney and the Conservancy's executive director, told ZDNet that "We strongly believe that litigation is necessary against willful GPL violators, particularly in cases like VMware where this is strong community consensus that their behavior is wrong. Litigation moves slowly. We will continue to discuss this with Christoph and his lawyers and hope to say more about it in the coming weeks -- after the courts provide their rationale for their decision to the parties (which has not yet occurred)."
Meanwhile, VMware stated that it "continues to be a strong supporter of open source software development," adding that it's been "actively" working on removing vmklinux from vSphere in an upcoming release as part of a multi-year project -- "for reasons unrelated to the litigation."
It might have just been dismissed on a technicality. No point in speculating until the court releases their rationale, especially if you don't know anything about German law (of which I know a grand total of about five sentences worth of knowledge. For example, I know that most if not all of the judges are German).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
my thought. systemd
VMware is doing us a faver by showing how greedy insane organization like this 'software conservancy' dont give a crap about anything but there bottom line. vmware has given HUGE to the linux community and how is it thanked? with lawsuits and nutters attacking it. same thing goes for companies like ibm, microsoft and google and apple. they give and they give and they give but freetards are never happy and always want more and more, themselves without ever giving anything useful back than companies can make money using.
The court dismissed the case because they do not understand the documentation through evidentiary rules. Fantastic. Not even discovery.
Sue again in a more reasonable country. No one should get away with GPL violations just because the judge does not understand the documentation and isn't willing to learn. This would never happen to a large corporation suing for the same reason. Justice should not be limited based on hoe much money one has.
... they sure like to bitch and moan about people using their shitty open source code.
Whether you like it or not, "open source" means "we can use this for free" to nearly all people, including myself. Why make things open source and call it "free" and then have a million weird strings attached? It's not free. And it sucks anyway.
It's not free if people try to control how you use it. Too many strings attached. Also, you can't just makeup your own rules. Gpl license isn't law, it's just a made up set of rules that no elected government voted on. Its not worth the paper it's printed on.
they give and they give and they give but freetards are never happy and always want more and more, themselves without ever giving anything useful back than companies can make money using.
You had me going up until this last portion of your exposition. Why do Free Software developers need to give anything useful back that companies can make money using? That idea is ridiculous. From your line of reasoning, you are essentially co-opting Free Software developers as unpaid workers for these companies just because these companies have supposedly given something to the Linux community.
By virtue of these companies getting involved with the Linux community, it seems reasonable to me to assume that Free Software developers have ALREADY given plenty to these companies, so much so that these companies would dare to get involved with a sticky, virulent license agreement like the GNU GPL. If VMware doesn't want to get sued for using GPL'd code in a closed source product, then they should STOP USING Free Software developer's code, period!
What they do is copyright infringement on a commercial scale and that is a pretty serious crime. When an individual downloads a song (non-commercial infringement), they get hit with the whole book and get stomped in the ground. But when a corporation does it, it seems what happens is ... nothing?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
companies have done more for open computing than freetards have, period. you guys always demand companies "give back" but the amount of code written by freetards is easily dwarfed by the amount given by companies. this is an absolute FACT. freetards are the welfare queens of computing world. always demanding more and more free stuff so they dont have to work like the rest of us. well guess what, freetards, your freetard ride is now over. many people in the industry have woken up to the SCAM that is so called "free software" and oppose it always. i give talks at my university about the damage that so called "free software" has done to the industry and they are always PACKED with people.
i give talks at my university about the damage that so called "free software" has done to the industry and they are always PACKED with people.
Yeah, so was your inauguration, pull the other one, Mr. Trump!
"working on removing vmklinux from vSphere in an upcoming release " So admission of guilt?
I would be interested in seeing that presentation, Iâ(TM)ve had the same concern for many years. Can you message me privately?
The GPL isn't and never was legally valid. Which doesn't mean it doesn't have teeth; it means you are playing Russian Roulette if you use anything under it. It simply isn't worth the bytes wasted in the LICENSE file. Luckily, it is a dead license. More and more developers refuse to use or contribute to such projects.
you are playing Russian Roulette if you use anything under it.
I don't mean to commit one of those tired logical fallacies, but literally EVERY anti-GPL poster ever uses the word use wrong.
We know you lot like to redefine words so that you can lull people into adopting non-free terms thinking they are safe. I am speaking English, and you are only supporting my thesis.
... i give talks at my university about the damage that so called "free software" has done to the industry and they are always PACKED with people.
As I remember it the Time Cube(TM?) presentations were relatively popular too, ...
The GPL is based on COPYRIGHT dickhead. It's more than just a bit valid.
... oh, yeah.
Isn't that that old company that used to matter before everybody's OS came with virtualization?
I think they invented something about 20 years ago.
Are they still around, then?
Guy has collected millions from companies violating the GPL and in German courts. His lawyers probably could have won against Vmware.
VMware stated that it "continues to be a strong supporter of open source software development,"
Curious how vSphere doesn't run on linux though. You *used* to be able to use it on Linux and is one of the only damn things left keeping me using Windows.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The terms of the GPL are very specific regarding what a user can and can not do with the source code. However, from a philosophical standpoint the GPL is about the freedom of the source code itself, as if it were a person.
I am liberated source code.
You may use me for any purpose.
You may modify me for your own use.
You may distribute me to anyone.
You may compile me.
You must make me available to anyone for whom you distribute compiled versions of me.
You must not use technology to prevent others from exercising the rights that I give you.