# RMS Fanatics start yet another GPL Compliance Lawsuit



## John Call (Mar 5, 2015)

This is the article: http://sfconservancy.org/news/2015/mar/05/vmware-lawsuit/

The VMware ESXi products come with stuff like Busybox and Linux, and there is a lawsuit pending because they didn't provide source code.

This is a big WTF. Now VMware will probably either switch to *BSD or (likely) create their own solutions because they see that open source can be very legally dangerous around Stallman-fanatics.

Edit: You know, this is a great example of the weak oppressing the strong by forcing them to follow their license, their rules, when they cannot fight back to a perceived threat.


----------



## kpa (Mar 5, 2015)

What are they using Busybox and Linux for? Are they critical for ESXi products to operate or just included for convenience? If it's the case that they are shipping modified versions of the mentioned pieces of software then they are clearly violating GPLv2 if they don't offer source code for their modified versions, pretty lame if that's the case because they should have known already.


----------



## John Call (Mar 5, 2015)

It is kind of lame, but it seems almost predatory to me to pull this shit.

ESXi runs on bare metal, as an OS, and so includes stuff like a kernel and Busybox.


----------



## Beastie7 (Mar 5, 2015)

I agree with kpa, they should've known. However, if it doesn't pose any competitive disadvantage whatsoever, I really don't see the problem. It's not like the LF will die tomorrow.

It's kind of funny actually. Predatory enforcement and suing over stuff like this just isn't practical.


----------



## kpa (Mar 5, 2015)

I have a feeling that this lawsuit if it goes forward might become one the landmark tests whether GPL actually holds water and I predict that VMWare will win it.


----------



## protocelt (Mar 5, 2015)

kpa said:


> I have a feeling that this lawsuit if it goes forward might become one the landmark tests whether GPL actually holds water and I predict that VMWare will win it.


I agree in the lawsuit being a test for the GPL, but if you don't mind, could you expand on your resulting opinion a little more? I don't have any references of the top of my head, but IIRC, I thought reading at one point the GPL has already been tested a few times and held in court.


----------



## Crivens (Mar 8, 2015)

That could be interesting.

As far as I remember, there were allegations that the SCSI code was 'borrowed' from Linux, but that was based on comparison of disassembled code. With better compiler technology, it will be increasingly complex to say what the source code for a piece of binary code was. If it was meant to do something equal, it may be more and more irrelevant how you formulate that in the source level. It may turn out to be pointless to sue because there is no proof beyond doubt what was done, the stuff is much too complex for judge sixpack and giving that to a jury would be equal to playing Russian roulette with a 1911 .45 (meaning, you can only loose) in my humble opinion.

Maybe we are looking at the beginning of another SCO soap opera. Bring forth the popcorn.


----------



## sidetone (Mar 9, 2015)

Crivens said:


> That could be interesting.
> 
> With better compiler technology, it will be increasingly complex to say what the source code for a piece of binary code was. If it was meant to do something equal, it may be more and more irrelevant how you formulate that in the source level. It may turn out to be pointless to sue because there is no proof beyond doubt what was done.



They can mix music samples like that too, until it is unrecognizable from its source.


----------



## Carpetsmoker (Mar 10, 2015)

Crivens said:


> As far as I remember, there were allegations that the SCSI code was 'borrowed' from Linux, but that was based on comparison of disassembled code. With better compiler technology, it will be increasingly complex to say what the source code for a piece of binary code was. If it was meant to do something equal, it may be more and more irrelevant how you formulate that in the source level.


I have sometimes written code, and then discovered code written by someone else or old code from myself, and found it was almost exactly the same!

Another (related) issue is looking at another project's source, and then modelling (part of) your code after that (in terms of organisation, algorithms, other concepts). At what point exactly do is your code considered derived from the original?


----------



## asteriskRoss (Mar 10, 2015)

Carpetsmoker said:


> Another (related) issue is looking at another project's source, and then modelling (part of) your code after that (in terms of organisation, algorithms, other concepts). At what point exactly do is your code considered derived from the original?


I've debated the same for writing a driver for some poorly documented hardware.  It would be possible to reverse engineer the hardware, then write the driver, but that is a difficult and time-consuming way.  A GPL'd Linux driver exists (I would intend to license mine under the 2-clause BSD license), which contains the information I would otherwise obtain through reverse engineering.  But is that information fair game?  I wouldn't be copying code from the GPL'd project, but I would be using it for reference about the hardware...  Whilst I prefer more liberal (BSD or MIT style) licensing -- that's what "free" means to me -- I do respect the GNU project's ideology and wouldn't want to use someone else's code in a manner that goes against that.


----------

