<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The VMware house of cards</title>
	<link>http://venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:50:08 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: user</title>
		<link>http://venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/#comment-2633</link>
		<dc:creator>user</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jul 2008 02:34:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/#comment-2633</guid>
		<description>quoute "As other posts have noted, while ESX 3i runs without Linux, it doesn’t fix the problem of past copyright issues, especially as that older software is still being distributed."

ESX 3i still has Linux inside - it uses GPL drivers wrapper in a shim layer to try and bypass the GPL</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>quoute &#8220;As other posts have noted, while ESX 3i runs without Linux, it doesn’t fix the problem of past copyright issues, especially as that older software is still being distributed.&#8221;</p>
<p>ESX 3i still has Linux inside - it uses GPL drivers wrapper in a shim layer to try and bypass the GPL</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: vmware user</title>
		<link>http://venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/#comment-2632</link>
		<dc:creator>vmware user</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 13:40:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/#comment-2632</guid>
		<description>Hmm ... I'll be writing a blog post about this on my site, to spread the word. I'll quote you on some parts but of course I'll be linking to this great article.... Open source matters !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmm &#8230; I&#8217;ll be writing a blog post about this on my site, to spread the word. I&#8217;ll quote you on some parts but of course I&#8217;ll be linking to this great article&#8230;. Open source matters !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luke</title>
		<link>http://venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/#comment-2623</link>
		<dc:creator>Luke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:18:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/#comment-2623</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;VMware came out with ESX 3i that runs without Linux, which proves that Linux kernel is used for manageability only on the ESX 3.5 or older, and that vmkernel does not need Linux kernel to function.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;
Ed:&lt;/strong&gt;As other posts have noted, while ESX 3i runs without Linux, it doesn't fix the problem of past copyright issues, especially as that older software is still being distributed.&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>VMware came out with ESX 3i that runs without Linux, which proves that Linux kernel is used for manageability only on the ESX 3.5 or older, and that vmkernel does not need Linux kernel to function.</p>
<p><em><strong><br />
Ed:</strong>As other posts have noted, while ESX 3i runs without Linux, it doesn&#8217;t fix the problem of past copyright issues, especially as that older software is still being distributed.</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Schwartz</title>
		<link>http://venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/#comment-2622</link>
		<dc:creator>David Schwartz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:34:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/#comment-2622</guid>
		<description>The logic on what makes a derivative work is precisely backwards. In reality, *functional* considerations argue *against* it being a derivative work.

Copyright protects the creative choice of one option out of millions of possible other options. Linus wrote Linux, but he could have written an OS millions of other ways. Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet, out of the millions of possible stories of star-crossed lovers.

If you need hooks from the kernel, that's clearly a purely functional consideration. That's the part that's *not* covered by copyright. The question is whether the work takes creative choices from the kernel, that is, where it could have done things millions of possible ways, it does things the way the kernel did rather than making its own creative choices.

If you're going to make a Linux network driver, that's functional. You can take whatever is needed for that function without implicating copyright.

See, for example, Lexmark v. Static Controls. Here Static Controls stole an entire program from Lexmark. But the courts held that copyright was not violated because they took only what was needed for their specific function, making a toner cartridge that was compatible with Lexmark printers.

Similarly, if vmware wants to make a module that works with Linux, they can take as much as they need to work with Linux. Copyright is only implicated when you take more than you need.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The logic on what makes a derivative work is precisely backwards. In reality, *functional* considerations argue *against* it being a derivative work.</p>
<p>Copyright protects the creative choice of one option out of millions of possible other options. Linus wrote Linux, but he could have written an OS millions of other ways. Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet, out of the millions of possible stories of star-crossed lovers.</p>
<p>If you need hooks from the kernel, that&#8217;s clearly a purely functional consideration. That&#8217;s the part that&#8217;s *not* covered by copyright. The question is whether the work takes creative choices from the kernel, that is, where it could have done things millions of possible ways, it does things the way the kernel did rather than making its own creative choices.</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re going to make a Linux network driver, that&#8217;s functional. You can take whatever is needed for that function without implicating copyright.</p>
<p>See, for example, Lexmark v. Static Controls. Here Static Controls stole an entire program from Lexmark. But the courts held that copyright was not violated because they took only what was needed for their specific function, making a toner cartridge that was compatible with Lexmark printers.</p>
<p>Similarly, if vmware wants to make a module that works with Linux, they can take as much as they need to work with Linux. Copyright is only implicated when you take more than you need.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arachnotron</title>
		<link>http://venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/#comment-2621</link>
		<dc:creator>arachnotron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:22:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/#comment-2621</guid>
		<description>You can find the details of this here:

http://www.run-virtual.com/?p=88</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You can find the details of this here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.run-virtual.com/?p=88" rel="nofollow">http://www.run-virtual.com/?p=88</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: arachnotron</title>
		<link>http://venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/#comment-2620</link>
		<dc:creator>arachnotron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:20:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/#comment-2620</guid>
		<description>If the  esx 3.5 kernel is *not* a linux kernel, why does this hack  for using a megaraid sata controller with ESX work:
ESX only supports scsi, but the megaraid driver will support the sata controller too. However, the PCI verdor ID's are not recognised in ESX. You install ESC (using an anaconda installer) and tell it to use the megairaid2 driver when is does not autodetect it. After this the installation will complete, but upon completion only the console os will run, not esx. You have to go in and add the vendor id to a file /etc/vmware/vmware-devices.map and add a line device,0x1000,0x0409,scsi,LSI Logic MegaRAID,megaraid2.o

My question: if the vmkernel is not linux, why do you need to tell it to use the magaraid2.o kernel module which clearly is a linux module?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If the  esx 3.5 kernel is *not* a linux kernel, why does this hack  for using a megaraid sata controller with ESX work:<br />
ESX only supports scsi, but the megaraid driver will support the sata controller too. However, the PCI verdor ID&#8217;s are not recognised in ESX. You install ESC (using an anaconda installer) and tell it to use the megairaid2 driver when is does not autodetect it. After this the installation will complete, but upon completion only the console os will run, not esx. You have to go in and add the vendor id to a file /etc/vmware/vmware-devices.map and add a line device,0&#215;1000,0&#215;0409,scsi,LSI Logic MegaRAID,megaraid2.o</p>
<p>My question: if the vmkernel is not linux, why do you need to tell it to use the magaraid2.o kernel module which clearly is a linux module?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: zeek</title>
		<link>http://venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/#comment-2619</link>
		<dc:creator>zeek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:01:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/#comment-2619</guid>
		<description>VMWare 3i may still be infringing by using GPL'd drivers er modules.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>VMWare 3i may still be infringing by using GPL&#8217;d drivers er modules.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Uncleremus</title>
		<link>http://venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/#comment-2614</link>
		<dc:creator>Uncleremus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:52:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/#comment-2614</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the great article. Apparently some people are nervous about this - I have no other explanation for the agressive style of some postings trying to dismiss the GPL claims.

I have been wondering for years why vmkernel was hardly ever discussed while there was an endless debate over NVidia and ATI drivers. My personal guess is that VMware is more popular than other companies in the Linux community.

The discussion won't finish with ESX 3.0 or future versions, even if they contain no single GPL'd component. VMware will have to justify what they did in 2.5, anyway.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the great article. Apparently some people are nervous about this - I have no other explanation for the agressive style of some postings trying to dismiss the GPL claims.</p>
<p>I have been wondering for years why vmkernel was hardly ever discussed while there was an endless debate over NVidia and ATI drivers. My personal guess is that VMware is more popular than other companies in the Linux community.</p>
<p>The discussion won&#8217;t finish with ESX 3.0 or future versions, even if they contain no single GPL&#8217;d component. VMware will have to justify what they did in 2.5, anyway.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carlos Miguel</title>
		<link>http://venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/#comment-2613</link>
		<dc:creator>Carlos Miguel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:11:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/#comment-2613</guid>
		<description>Matt
September 13th, 2007 21:34

In future that discussion might finish, since VMware announced a new ESX version, which will come without a service console anymore. That version just contains the vmkernel and would not violate any GPL’s anymore…

Exactly, it called VMWare ESX 3i, shipping now as an embedded product in servers of the likes of Dell, IBM, HP and Fujitsu and which will be included in the upcoming Infrastructure 3.5 product. So I guess the question regarding ESX's hability to run without the COS has been answered.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt<br />
September 13th, 2007 21:34</p>
<p>In future that discussion might finish, since VMware announced a new ESX version, which will come without a service console anymore. That version just contains the vmkernel and would not violate any GPL’s anymore…</p>
<p>Exactly, it called VMWare ESX 3i, shipping now as an embedded product in servers of the likes of Dell, IBM, HP and Fujitsu and which will be included in the upcoming Infrastructure 3.5 product. So I guess the question regarding ESX&#8217;s hability to run without the COS has been answered.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/#comment-2612</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:34:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://venturecake.com/the-vmware-house-of-cards/#comment-2612</guid>
		<description>In future that discussion might finish, since VMware announced a new ESX version, which will come without a service console anymore. That version just contains the vmkernel and would not violate any GPL's anymore...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In future that discussion might finish, since VMware announced a new ESX version, which will come without a service console anymore. That version just contains the vmkernel and would not violate any GPL&#8217;s anymore&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
