Changeset - 6054ab657a71
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn) - 9 years ago 2015-03-12 15:49:45
bkuhn@ebb.org
Link to copyleft.org to explain CCS.
1 file changed with 2 insertions and 1 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
www/conservancy/static/linux-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-faq.html
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -49,49 +49,50 @@
 

	
 
  <dt>Is this the Great Test Case of Combined / Derivative Works?</dt>
 

	
 
  <dd>This case is specifically regarding a combined work that VMware
 
  allegedly created by combining their own code (&ldquo;vmkernel&rdquo;) with
 
  portions of Linux's code, which was licensed only under GPLv2.  As such,
 
  this, to our knowledge, marks the first time an enforcement case is
 
  exclusively focused on this type of legal question relating to GPL.
 
  However, there are so many different ways to make combined and/or
 
  derivative works that are covered by GPL that no single case could possibly
 
  include all such issues. </dd>
 

	
 
  <dt>Why must you file a lawsuit?  Isn't there any other way to convince
 
    VMware to comply with GPL?</dt>
 

	
 
  <dd><p>Neither Conservancy nor Christoph takes this action lightly nor without
 
  exhausting every other possible alternative first.  This lawsuit is the
 
    outgrowth of years of effort to convince VMware to comply with GPL.</p>
 

	
 
    <p>In October 2011, Conservancy received a GPL violation report on
 
  BusyBox for VMware's ESXi products.  Conservancy opened the matter in its
 
  usual, friendly, and non-confrontational way.  Nevertheless, VMware
 
  immediately referred Conservancy to VMware's outside legal counsel in the
 
  USA, and Conservancy negotiated with VMware's legal counsel throughout
 
  late 2011, 2012 and 2013.  We exchanged and reviewed CCS candidates, and
 
  late 2011, 2012 and 2013.  We exchanged and reviewed
 
  <a title="Complete, Corresponding Source" href="https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech6.html#x9-470005.2.1">CCS</a> candidates, and
 
  admittedly, VMware made substantial and good efforts toward compliance on
 
  BusyBox.  However, VMware still refused to fix a few minor and one major
 
  compliance problem that we discovered during the process.  Namely, there
 
  was a major violation regarding Linux itself that ultimately became
 
  Christoph's key complaint in this lawsuit.</p>
 

	
 
 <p>Meanwhile, when Conservancy realized in late 2012 there might be a major
 
 Linux violation still present in VMware's ESXi products, Conservancy
 
 representatives sought every industry contact we had for assistance,
 
 including those from trade associations, companies (both competitors and
 
 collaborators with VMware), and everyone else we could think of who might be
 
 able to help us proceed with friendly negotiations that would achieve
 
 compliance.  While we cannot name publicly the people we asked for help
 
 to convince VMware to comply, they include some of the most notable
 
 executives, diplomats, and engineering managers in the Linux community.  No
 
 one was able to assist Conservancy in convincing VMware to comply with the
 
 GPL.  Then, in early 2014, VMware's outside legal counsel in the USA finally
 
 took a clear and hard line with Conservancy stating that they would not
 
 comply with the GPL on Linux and argued (in our view, incorrectly) that they
 
 were already in compliance.</p>
 

	
 
 <p>Conservancy in parallel informed Christoph fully of the details of the
 
   Linux violation on Christoph's copyrights, and based on Conservancy's
 
   findings, Christoph began his own investigation and confirmed
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)