5 ms·

I gotta say that I think this is just not a big deal for most people. I understand that FOSS ideals have appeal, I understand why people would like them to be p

I gotta say that I think this is just not a big deal for most people. I understand that FOSS ideals have appeal, I understand why people would like them to be protected -- but at the end of the day, I do feel like FOSS advocates, as well-meaning as they are, are perhaps investing their concern in the wrong place. FOSS rhetoric is nice, but it just doesn't seem that important.

rrdharan 10y ago
I'm very biased, since I worked at VMware for nine years. Nonetheless I disagree with you. I think it's worth actually pursuing this and settling the VMware situation clearly. Uncertainty is rarely a good thing for anyone in these kind of situations, and so I'm disappointed that there still hasn't been a real ruling on the merits of the case. Personally I remain convinced that the vmklinux/shim usage pattern is ok by the letter of the license, but I can understand Harald Welte and Christopher Hellwig's viewpoint.
- mikekchar 10y ago
  As much as I agree with you, I think it is unlikely to be cleared up to any great extent. In my mind, the main question of whether or not VMware is in violation of the GPL rests pretty squarely on whether or not it is a derived work. That definition, in a legal sense (AFAICT -- I'm not a lawyer) is intentionally vague. Potential violations in this sense will almost certainly have to be tested on a case by case basis. Which is frustrating for everyone. Like you, I hope for a speedy resolution of the VMware situation, but I'm not so confident that such a resolution will shine much light on similar issues in the future.
- yuhong 10y ago
  The entire fiasco started with Linux Foundation pulling funding to SFLC.
alfalfasprout 10y ago
inb4 the Stallman disciples descend upon this comment. The things with FOSS is there are different degrees of rigidity. On the one hand, you have copyleft licenses like GPL that tend to make commercial development very tricky. On the other hand you have more permissive licenses like MIT and Apache that do encourage further open source work but where the vast majority of improvements don't get committed back upstream (since they become a part of proprietary offerings).
- jasonkostempski 10y ago
  That's the difference between OSS and Free software. One focuses just on the benefits of working openly, the other is about making sure the user have full control of what their machine does. Open Source is a side effect of Free and it's a selling point to creators but the consumer is the priority. Edit: To be clear I'm talking more about philosophy, not licensing. I do still struggle with the idea of GPL requiring changes to be made public.
  - lolc 10y ago
    GPLv2 does not require you to make your source changes public, it only demands that this remains an option for anybody who acquires a license from you. So if I sell you software under the GPL, I have to provide you the source. You are then allowed, but not required, to publish the source.
- latj 10y ago
  What is tricky about using GPL for commercial development?
  - cyraxjoe 10y ago
    If you modify some free software, repackage and resell it without contributing the changes, then you are breaking the intentional viral effects of the license. Most of the web stuff that people work on these days is rather outside of this problem, unless is an AGPL license. It is tricky if you want to base your commercial product on a derivation of a GPL licensed software.
    - bkor 10y ago
      You don't have to contribute GPL changes back. Whomever you give a binary to you'll have to give the source to if they ask. It's pretty much that simple.
      - xenadu02 10y ago
johnmertic 10y ago
I see this article that cover's Linus's thoughts as an insightful counterpoint... http://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvaldss-love-hate-relationship-with-the-gpl/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvaldss-love-hate-relat... Net-net, I struggle to get more worked up about GPL compliance than the author of the affected open source compliance.
e12e 10y ago
I find this stance odd to say the least. I'd be happy to throw out copyright (and copyleft along with it) -- but to only enforce classical copyright, and not enforce copyleft? That's crazy. Are you also advocating ignoring OS X license terms (ie: do you advocate running a bought copy of OS X in a vm on non-apple hardware to build iOS/OS X applications)? Pirate Microsoft Windows, SQL Server - or run Oracle databases without paying a license fee? If not, I can't see how you can support not following the rather simple copyleft licenses. If a company don't want to leverage all the years of developer effort that is given away for free with the Linux kernel - they're free to invest the millions of dollars worth of work to write their own kernel. I mean, if a grad student could write the Linux kernel in the early 90s, surely VMware can write an OS kernel today?
- bykovich 10y ago
  Man, defraud multibillion-dollar corporations all you want. I'm absolutely fine with that.
latj 10y ago
So many people take FLOSS for granted- especially in a place like this where most people are just trying to figure out how to get equity in the next pied piper. The bottom line is that everyone's life is better because of FLOSS. So many of us owe our careers to an army of forgotten programmers who share their time and brain power to build software for the public domain. If offers artists in other countries an alternative to expensive software like photoshop. It allows a startup to lower the cost of opening a call center by not having to buy Windows licenses. The cancer researchers trying to find a personalized treatment for your colon cancer use FLOSS. Your state government uses software from Microsoft and Oracle. And even those are affected by and improved due to the existence of FLOSS. I know you wont understand this. But there are a lot of kids reading this too and they should know not everyone agrees with you.
- bykovich 10y ago
  No, I benefit from free software every day. I'm glad that there's software that isn't encumbered by expensive licensing schemes. What I'm taking issue with is free software orthodoxy, or with the notion that there is some sort of "ethical" issue at play with software that is different from the ethical issues at play with the usage and distribution of /any/ kind of product. "Software freedom" is an odd end-unto-itself.
mi100hael 10y ago
> I gotta say that I think this is just not a big deal for most people. I'm assuming by "people" you mean pirates like VMWare or mindless end users like yourself, since it's a huge deal for developers. When I make the conscious decision to license my work for others to use under the GPL instead of something completely permissive like MIT, I clearly don't want some commercial enterprise ripping off my work and using it to line their own pockets without even contributing back their modifications.
- bykovich 10y ago
  I agree that that is irksome. That being said, we're all victimized by commercial enterprises constantly -- it's difficult to see /this/ particular violation as uniquely worthy of outrage (although I confess that this is not a particularly good argument that FOSS violations are uniquely /un/worthy of outrage).
starkruzr 10y ago
You could substitute any number of important principles in for "FOSS" here and the same group of people would nod soberly and/or disaffectedly at it. FOSS makes the Internet possible at lower cost and with more innovation than it would be without it. Full stop.
scandox 10y ago
I gotta say this comment makes me feel I like I need to take this a lot more seriously than I have been.
crpatino 10y ago
Could you elaborate? What specific concerns you disagree with? What are the importation issues that, in your opinion, FOSS advocates fail to take into account?
ygaf 10y ago
Abiding by licenses is a big deal, and as far as the article is concerned VMWare haven't. I'm anti-GPL, anti-RMS, but find it as obnoxious as anyone else when a company not only goes with breaking the GPL, but admits it and discards all civility ("take us to court").

rrdharan 10y ago

I'm very biased, since I worked at VMware for nine years. Nonetheless I disagree with you. I think it's worth actually pursuing this and settling the VMware situation clearly. Uncertainty is rarely a good thing for anyone in these kind of situations, and so I'm disappointed that there still hasn't been a real ruling on the merits of the case. Personally I remain convinced that the vmklinux/shim usage pattern is ok by the letter of the license, but I can understand Harald Welte and Christopher Hellwig's viewpoint.

mikekchar 10y ago
As much as I agree with you, I think it is unlikely to be cleared up to any great extent. In my mind, the main question of whether or not VMware is in violation of the GPL rests pretty squarely on whether or not it is a derived work. That definition, in a legal sense (AFAICT -- I'm not a lawyer) is intentionally vague. Potential violations in this sense will almost certainly have to be tested on a case by case basis. Which is frustrating for everyone. Like you, I hope for a speedy resolution of the VMware situation, but I'm not so confident that such a resolution will shine much light on similar issues in the future.
yuhong 10y ago
The entire fiasco started with Linux Foundation pulling funding to SFLC.

alfalfasprout 10y ago

inb4 the Stallman disciples descend upon this comment. The things with FOSS is there are different degrees of rigidity. On the one hand, you have copyleft licenses like GPL that tend to make commercial development very tricky. On the other hand you have more permissive licenses like MIT and Apache that do encourage further open source work but where the vast majority of improvements don't get committed back upstream (since they become a part of proprietary offerings).

jasonkostempski 10y ago
That's the difference between OSS and Free software. One focuses just on the benefits of working openly, the other is about making sure the user have full control of what their machine does. Open Source is a side effect of Free and it's a selling point to creators but the consumer is the priority. Edit: To be clear I'm talking more about philosophy, not licensing. I do still struggle with the idea of GPL requiring changes to be made public.
- lolc 10y ago
  GPLv2 does not require you to make your source changes public, it only demands that this remains an option for anybody who acquires a license from you. So if I sell you software under the GPL, I have to provide you the source. You are then allowed, but not required, to publish the source.
latj 10y ago
What is tricky about using GPL for commercial development?
- cyraxjoe 10y ago
  If you modify some free software, repackage and resell it without contributing the changes, then you are breaking the intentional viral effects of the license. Most of the web stuff that people work on these days is rather outside of this problem, unless is an AGPL license. It is tricky if you want to base your commercial product on a derivation of a GPL licensed software.
  - bkor 10y ago
    You don't have to contribute GPL changes back. Whomever you give a binary to you'll have to give the source to if they ask. It's pretty much that simple.
    - xenadu02 10y ago

johnmertic 10y ago

I see this article that cover's Linus's thoughts as an insightful counterpoint... http://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvaldss-love-hate-relationship-with-the-gpl/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvaldss-love-hate-relat... Net-net, I struggle to get more worked up about GPL compliance than the author of the affected open source compliance.

e12e 10y ago

I find this stance odd to say the least. I'd be happy to throw out copyright (and copyleft along with it) -- but to only enforce classical copyright, and not enforce copyleft? That's crazy. Are you also advocating ignoring OS X license terms (ie: do you advocate running a bought copy of OS X in a vm on non-apple hardware to build iOS/OS X applications)? Pirate Microsoft Windows, SQL Server - or run Oracle databases without paying a license fee? If not, I can't see how you can support not following the rather simple copyleft licenses. If a company don't want to leverage all the years of developer effort that is given away for free with the Linux kernel - they're free to invest the millions of dollars worth of work to write their own kernel. I mean, if a grad student could write the Linux kernel in the early 90s, surely VMware can write an OS kernel today?

bykovich 10y ago
Man, defraud multibillion-dollar corporations all you want. I'm absolutely fine with that.

latj 10y ago

So many people take FLOSS for granted- especially in a place like this where most people are just trying to figure out how to get equity in the next pied piper. The bottom line is that everyone's life is better because of FLOSS. So many of us owe our careers to an army of forgotten programmers who share their time and brain power to build software for the public domain. If offers artists in other countries an alternative to expensive software like photoshop. It allows a startup to lower the cost of opening a call center by not having to buy Windows licenses. The cancer researchers trying to find a personalized treatment for your colon cancer use FLOSS. Your state government uses software from Microsoft and Oracle. And even those are affected by and improved due to the existence of FLOSS. I know you wont understand this. But there are a lot of kids reading this too and they should know not everyone agrees with you.

bykovich 10y ago
No, I benefit from free software every day. I'm glad that there's software that isn't encumbered by expensive licensing schemes. What I'm taking issue with is free software orthodoxy, or with the notion that there is some sort of "ethical" issue at play with software that is different from the ethical issues at play with the usage and distribution of /any/ kind of product. "Software freedom" is an odd end-unto-itself.

mi100hael 10y ago

> I gotta say that I think this is just not a big deal for most people. I'm assuming by "people" you mean pirates like VMWare or mindless end users like yourself, since it's a huge deal for developers. When I make the conscious decision to license my work for others to use under the GPL instead of something completely permissive like MIT, I clearly don't want some commercial enterprise ripping off my work and using it to line their own pockets without even contributing back their modifications.

bykovich 10y ago
I agree that that is irksome. That being said, we're all victimized by commercial enterprises constantly -- it's difficult to see /this/ particular violation as uniquely worthy of outrage (although I confess that this is not a particularly good argument that FOSS violations are uniquely /un/worthy of outrage).

starkruzr 10y ago

You could substitute any number of important principles in for "FOSS" here and the same group of people would nod soberly and/or disaffectedly at it. FOSS makes the Internet possible at lower cost and with more innovation than it would be without it. Full stop.

scandox 10y ago

I gotta say this comment makes me feel I like I need to take this a lot more seriously than I have been.

crpatino 10y ago

Could you elaborate? What specific concerns you disagree with? What are the importation issues that, in your opinion, FOSS advocates fail to take into account?

ygaf 10y ago

Abiding by licenses is a big deal, and as far as the article is concerned VMWare haven't. I'm anti-GPL, anti-RMS, but find it as obnoxious as anyone else when a company not only goes with breaking the GPL, but admits it and discards all civility ("take us to court").