Changeset - 35f2952db5fd
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn) - 8 years ago 2016-08-30 05:22:59
bkuhn@ebb.org
Add tech id in this tag.
1 file changed with 1 insertions and 1 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
www/conservancy/static/copyleft-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-faq.html
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -102,97 +102,97 @@
 
   Conservancy's compliance conclusions.  Christoph then began his own
 
   enforcement effort with legal representation from Till Jaeger.  Christoph has
 
   been unable to achieve compliance, either, through his negotiations in
 
   2014.  VMware's last offer was a proposal for a settlement agreement that VMware would
 
   only provide if Christoph signed an NDA, and Christoph chose (quite
 
   reasonably) not to sign an NDA merely to look at the settlement offer.</p>
 

	
 
 <p>Thus, this lawsuit comes after years of negotiations by Conservancy to
 
 achieve compliance &mdash; negotiations that ended in an outright refusal by
 
 VMware's lawyers to comply.  Those events were then followed by a year of
 
   work by Christoph and Till to achieve compliance in a separate action.</p>
 

	
 
 <p>Simply put, Conservancy and Christoph fully exhausted every possible
 
 non-litigation strategy and tactic to convince VMware to do the right thing
 
 before filing this litigation.</p>
 
  </dd>    
 

	
 
  <dt>What are VMware's primary defenses for their alleged copyright
 
    infringement?</dt>
 

	
 
  <dd>With the guidance of counsel, Christoph was able to provide Conservancy
 
  with a high-level summary of VMware's statement of defense, which we share
 
  in this FAQ.  Specifically, VMware's statement of defense primarily focuses
 
  on two issues.  First, VMware questions Christoph's copyright interest in
 
  the Linux kernel and his right to bring this action.  Second, VMware claims
 
  vmklinux is an &ldquo;interoperability module&rdquo; which communicates
 
  through a stable interface called VMK API.</dd>
 

	
 
  <dt>How did Christoph respond to VMware's statement of defense?</dt>
 

	
 
  <dd>Christoph's response discusses his extensive contributions to the Linux
 
  kernel and disputes the technical merits of VMware's assertions. The
 
  response points out that vmklinux is <strong>not</strong> an
 
  interoperability module, but rather an arbitrary separation of the Linux
 
  derived module from vmkernel.   Specifically, vmklinux is nonfunctional
 
  with any non-ESX OS, and vmklinux is tied intimately to a specific version
 
  of ESXi.  Vmklinux does not allow reuse of unmodified Linux drivers in
 
  binary or source form.  Christoph further points out that if the Court
 
  allows proprietarization of an arbitrary split portion of GPL'd computer
 
  programs, it could allow redistributors to trivially bypass the strong
 
  copyleft terms found in the GPL.  Finally, the response explains that
 
  vmkernel and vmklinux don't &ldquo;communicate over an interface&rdquo;,
 
  rather they run in the same process as a single computer program.  Thus,
 
  VMK API, as used by vmklinux, is not an &ldquo;interface&rdquo; as set
 
  forth in
 
  the <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32009L0024&from=EN">EU
 
      Directive 2009/24/EC</a>.</dd>
 

	
 
  <dt>Can you explain further how VMware incorporated code from Linux into
 
  <dt id="tech">Can you explain further how VMware incorporated code from Linux into
 
  their kernel?</dt>
 

	
 
  <dd>
 
  <p id="diagram">
 
    Conservancy prepared this diagram to show the technical situation as we
 
    understand it.  The diagram compares the technical architecture of a full,
 
    running Linux kernel with a full, running VMware kernel:
 
    <p>
 
      <a href="/linux-compliance/linux-vs-vmkernel_en.png">
 
    <img class="inside-faq" alt="[Diagram of Linux and VMware running kernels]" src="/linux-compliance/linux-vs-vmkernel_en_scaled.png" /></a>
 
    </p>
 

	
 
    <p>If you want to download the diagram, it's available
 
    in <a href="/linux-compliance/linux-vs-vmkernel_en.svg">SVG
 
    (English)</a>, <a href="/linux-compliance/linux-vs-vmkernel_en.png">PNG
 
    (English)</a>, <a href="/linux-compliance/linux-vs-vmkernel_de.svg">SVG
 
    (German)</a>, and <a href="/linux-compliance/linux-vs-vmkernel_de.png">PNG
 
    (German)</a>.</p>
 
  </dd>
 

	
 
  <dt>Can you explain further in words (rather than a picture) about the central
 
  component in ESXi that the lawsuit alleges violates the GPL?</dt>
 
<dd>
 
    <p>The GPL violation at issue involves VMware's ESXi product.
 
    Conservancy independently reviewed ESXi 5.5 and its incomplete
 
      <abbr title="complete, corresponding source">CCS</abbr>
 
    release as part of our GPL enforcement efforts described above.</p>
 

	
 
    <p>Conservancy's preliminary investigation indicated that the operating
 
    system kernel of VMware ESXi product consists of three key components:
 
        <ul>
 
          <li> the proprietary component &ldquo;vmkernel&rdquo;, which is
 
            released in binary form only,</li>
 
            <li>the kernel module &ldquo;vmklinux&rdquo;, which contains modified Linux
 
Code, and for which (at least some) source code is provided.
 
            <li>other kernel modules with device drivers, most of which are
 
            modified Linux drivers, and for which (at least some) source code
 
              is provided.</li>
 
        </ul>
 

	
 
    <p>Conservancy examined the incomplete CCS alongside the
 
           binary &ldquo;vmkernel&rdquo; component.  Such examination indicates that functions
 
           in &ldquo;vmkernel&rdquo; do make function calls to Linux's kernel code
 
      in the usual way for a single program written in C.</p></dd>
 

	
 
    <dt>Doesn't VMware's &ldquo;shim layer&rdquo; insulate them from GPL
 
    obligations and allow them to keep certain code in their kernel
 
    proprietary?</dt>
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)