does that mean also that ANY commercial application designed for Linux is breaking "copyright".
In any case one would have to define "What is Linux". If "Linux" is an OS (although I think it is Torvalds who owns the KERNEL patent / copyright) then in no way is VMWARE WORKSTATION or PLAYER an OS since it needs to be started as an application under control of another OS.
ESXi is another issue - but there are FREE versions of that and in any case you only pay for the SUPPORT.
Same as RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise server) used by zillions of companies and netting Red Hat a very large income. You pay for the Support.
No, commercial software is perfectly fine on Linux, but that's a different matter. But if the accusation is true, that means that VMWare used the
source code of Linux in it and since it's GPL it means that any
derivates MUST also be GPL (which means, publishing its source). Running any program on Linux, even proprietary, is irrelevant, but the matter is if it took GPL source code.
Contrary to popular belief,
Linux is not an OS. It's just a kernel, the central part of the OS, but in itself the project don't has any other tool on it. After adding the full environment is what you get the full programs based on it (Ubuntu, Red Hat, Android, etc) and those MUST be GPL, since they use GPL code. It don't matters if VMWare is an OS or not, the only important thing is that they took GPL code. I can take the Linux source and build a poker game with it, and the history would be the same, it must be GPL if I ever release it.
Paying for support is also irrelevant, the license don't mentions it. It just precludes reutilization without releasing it as open source too. Red Hat complies because it's open source and anyone can download, modify, republish or distribute it.
I'm not sure which of the two has more money but the Linux side was asking for donations to pursue the case so that might give a hint
But yea just blank out Germany for the VMware products seems the easiest unless the Linux guys bailout for lack of funds :/
At first it seems they just wanted recognition or credits for the free product ?
Linux, as most open source projects, is run mainly on volunteer time, and as a non-profit effort it obviously needs support for such an action against a big company. It's not only a matter of recognition, it's a license violation. In the same way that you cannot use Windows in more computers as you have bough licenses, Linux source cannot be reutilized without making the resulting program open source too. If the case turns out to be true and the court rejects it, it's more or less like legalizing piracy.
There's absolutely NO infringement here -- the products are FREE - you pay for maintenance -- same as If I'm helping someone to fix a Windows machine - I don't have to pay Ms. Similarly if I write an application that works on Windows I don't pay Ms a royalty for using Windows. In fact I'm more likely to be REWARDED. !!
By any reasonable criterion Esxi is NOT copyright infringement. What about companies like CITRIX which also create their own HYPERVISORS and CHARGE for the product. Don't tell me that there's no Linux type kernel in that offering.
Not really, VMWare is NOT
free software, which is what the GPL requires, they only distribute free of charge, but it's not open source. If they really took Linux code in it, they MUST make the whole thing open source (or stop distributing it) to stop violating licenses. That means that it must be possible for anyone to download the source code, modify it at will, redistribute, publish modifications and so on, which is now impossible since it's proprietary software.
Repairing a Windows machine is a completely different case, you're not using Windows there, hence don't own anything to MS (you charge for your workforce instead). Writing Windows software is unrelated too, since you don't use parts of Windows itself for it. But if you where to disassemble a Windows binary and use that in your program, that would make you guilty of copyright infringement, just as in this case.
No idea about Citrix, but the problem is only for taking source code and using it in your programs without making them open source. Linux-type "kernel" is perfectly valid if it's a clone or something created from scratch taking ideas from it, but copying the original textually is certainly stealing.
Why doesn't Vmware use LGPL like Mozilla does with their products? My understanding is LGPL allows secret proprietary code.
Not only Google, enterprise version of some Linux distros may violate the GPL2 if I understand the licensing issue that is. I could be wrong.
LGPL is not compatible with GPL. The original Linux license requires that any derivate work be licensed under it or any other license that allows and enforce further free distribution. If VMWare were to use LGPL while taking Linux code, any forks of VMWare could be proprietary, which breaks the original intent of the GPL. Therefore VMWare MUST be GPL if all this comes to be true.
Enterprise Linux don't violate the GPL because they're still freely available. Those companies charge for the support, not for the program itself. The OS remains free to use, modify, distribute as you like.
