5 ms·

The GPL has been tested in courts all over the world. VMWare is insane to continue violating it after being informed of the problems and to then refuse cooperat

The GPL has been tested in courts all over the world. VMWare is insane to continue violating it after being informed of the problems and to then refuse cooperation. They'll probably pay up and drop dead once someone mumbles injunction.

tbrownaw 12y ago
VMWare is insane to continue violating it after being informed Or maybe, they don't agree that they are?
- oldmanjay 12y ago
  That could be why there's a court case! My god, it's so simple...
- DannyBee 12y ago
  So, i actually don't think that's the case. This seems more a case of "they screwed up, and as a result got asked to open source something they need to, but business-wise think would be a huge monetary loss". So they are going to court because the worst that can happen is pretty much what they were already asked to do - open source vmkernel, etc. The copyright infringement money damages are probably minimal or nothing (Disclaimer: I only know US copyright law). So they have literally nothing to lose
  - rosser 12y ago
    They have a great deal to lose. The consequences of being found to have violated the GPL include having your license to use GPL'ed code revoked.
    - DannyBee 12y ago
      Again, no, it doesn't in the case of GPLv2 code (which is what we are talking about). See my other comment. The second they came back in compliance, they could redownload the exact source they copied, from wherever they got it, and they'd have a fresh, brand new license, with no problems. GPLv3 fixed this "loophole". In fact, you can see what others have attempted (and failed) to do to try to prevent this "loophole" from functioning. Look at: www.ximpleware.com (they were involved in GPL litigation against Versata) It says, at the bottom "All licenses to any parties in litigation with XimpleWare have been expressly terminated. No new license, and no renewal of any revoked license, is granted to those parties as a result of re-downloading software from this or any other website" This is there because they know of this exact problem, and didn't want versata to be able to avoid the lawsuit. Of course, this text does not override the GPL in any way, and since it was given to them under the GPL, they can't now go back and say "those copies you have are retroactively under a different license". So it's pointless text, but hopefully this gives you an idea that what i said is not just "random lawyer kibitzing".
      - hugoroy 12y ago
        You're making this "loophole" up. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9156539 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9156539
        DannyBee 12y ago
        No, i'm not. Shocking: heavy GNU contributor doesn't like this viewpoint :)
        hugoroy 12y ago
        full disclosure: I have exactly 0 copyright in GNU software.
        tptacek 12y ago
        Interesting. Is that an argument you've seen confirmed by a lawyer, or are you yourself actually a open-source software licensing lawyer, like 'DannyBee is?
        hugoroy 12y ago
        Yes, I am a lawyer.

tbrownaw 12y ago

VMWare is insane to continue violating it after being informed Or maybe, they don't agree that they are?

oldmanjay 12y ago
That could be why there's a court case! My god, it's so simple...
DannyBee 12y ago
So, i actually don't think that's the case. This seems more a case of "they screwed up, and as a result got asked to open source something they need to, but business-wise think would be a huge monetary loss". So they are going to court because the worst that can happen is pretty much what they were already asked to do - open source vmkernel, etc. The copyright infringement money damages are probably minimal or nothing (Disclaimer: I only know US copyright law). So they have literally nothing to lose
- rosser 12y ago
  They have a great deal to lose. The consequences of being found to have violated the GPL include having your license to use GPL'ed code revoked.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    Again, no, it doesn't in the case of GPLv2 code (which is what we are talking about). See my other comment. The second they came back in compliance, they could redownload the exact source they copied, from wherever they got it, and they'd have a fresh, brand new license, with no problems. GPLv3 fixed this "loophole". In fact, you can see what others have attempted (and failed) to do to try to prevent this "loophole" from functioning. Look at: www.ximpleware.com (they were involved in GPL litigation against Versata) It says, at the bottom "All licenses to any parties in litigation with XimpleWare have been expressly terminated. No new license, and no renewal of any revoked license, is granted to those parties as a result of re-downloading software from this or any other website" This is there because they know of this exact problem, and didn't want versata to be able to avoid the lawsuit. Of course, this text does not override the GPL in any way, and since it was given to them under the GPL, they can't now go back and say "those copies you have are retroactively under a different license". So it's pointless text, but hopefully this gives you an idea that what i said is not just "random lawyer kibitzing".
    - hugoroy 12y ago
      You're making this "loophole" up. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9156539 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9156539
      - DannyBee 12y ago
        No, i'm not. Shocking: heavy GNU contributor doesn't like this viewpoint :)
        hugoroy 12y ago
        full disclosure: I have exactly 0 copyright in GNU software.
      - tptacek 12y ago
        Interesting. Is that an argument you've seen confirmed by a lawyer, or are you yourself actually a open-source software licensing lawyer, like 'DannyBee is?
        hugoroy 12y ago
        Yes, I am a lawyer.