Conservancy/website
6
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
website/www/conservancy/static/copyleft-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-faq.html

691 lines
36 KiB
HTML
Raw Blame History

{% extends "base_compliance.html" %}
{% block subtitle %}Copyleft Compliance Projects - {% endblock %}
{% block submenuselection %}VMwareLawsuitFAQ{% endblock %}
{% block content %}
<h1>Frequently Asked Questions about Christoph Hellwig's VMware Lawsuit</h1>
<p><strong>Update 2019-04-02:</strong> Please
see <a href="https://sfconservancy.org/news/2019/apr/02/vmware-no-appeal/">this
announcement regarding conclusion of the VMware suit in Germany</a>. Since the suit has
concluded, any funds you donate here will support our ongoing compliance efforts. The
remaining material below is left as it was before that announcement:</p>
<p>Conservancy maintains this
<abbr title="Frequently Asked Questions">FAQ</abbr> list regarding
<a href="/news/2015/mar/05/vmware-lawsuit/">Christoph Hellwig's lawsuit against VMware
in Germany over alleged GPL violations on Linux</a> as a service to the
Free Software community, and in particular, the copyleft community. Conservancy
realizes this lawsuit generates many questions and interest
from the community. Legal counsel (both Conservancy's own, and
Christoph's lawyer, Till Jaeger) correctly advise us to limit our public
comments regarding specific details of the case while litigation remains
pending in court. Nevertheless, Conservancy, as a
non-profit charity serving the public good, seeks to be as transparent as
possible. If you have additional questions you'd like to see answered
here, please <a href="mailto:info@sfconservancy.org">email
&lt;info@sfconservancy.org&gt;</a>, but understand that we may often need
to answer: <q>We cannot comment on this while litigation is pending</q>.</p>
<dl>
<dt>Who is the Plaintiff in the lawsuit?</dt>
<dd>Christoph is one of most active developers of the Linux kernel. He has
contributed 279,653 lines of code to the latest Linux 3.19 kernel, and
thus ranks 20th among the 1,340 developers involved in that release.
Christoph also ranks 4th among those who have reviewed third-party source
code, and he has tirelessly corrected and commented on other developers'
contributions.</dd>
<dt id="court-documents">Are the court documents released?</dt>
<dd>Not currently. Court proceedings are not public by default in Germany
(unlike in the USA). Conservancy will continue to update this FAQ with
information that Conservancy knows about the case. We would all also
welcome an agreement with VMware whereby both sides would agree to publish
all Court documents. Unfortunately, VMware has explicitly asked for the
filings not to be published. Accordingly, Conservancy itself has not
even been able to review VMware's statement of defense nor Christoph's
response to that statement of defense.</dd>
<dt id="funding">Who's funding this lawsuit?</dt>
<dd>Conservancy has engaged in a grant agreement with Christoph Hellwig for
the purposes of pursuing this specific legal action in Germany.
Conservancy is funding this legal action specifically as part of
Conservancy's program activity in
its <a href="/copyleft-compliance/about.html">GPL Compliance
Project for Linux Developers</a>.</dd>
<dt id="combined-and-derivative-works">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 id="why-lawsuit">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
<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
Conservancy's compliance conclusions. Christoph then began his own
enforcement effort with legal representation from Till Jaeger. Christoph has
been unable to achieve compliance, either, through his negotiations in
2014. VMware's last offer was a proposal for a settlement agreement that VMware would
only provide if Christoph signed an NDA, and Christoph chose (quite
reasonably) not to sign an NDA merely to look at the settlement offer.</p>
<p>Thus, this lawsuit comes after years of negotiations by Conservancy to
achieve compliance &mdash; negotiations that ended in an outright refusal by
VMware's lawyers to comply. Those events were then followed by a year of
work by Christoph and Till to achieve compliance in a separate action.</p>
<p>Simply put, Conservancy and Christoph fully exhausted every possible
non-litigation strategy and tactic to convince VMware to do the right thing
before filing this litigation.</p>
</dd>
<dt>What are VMware's primary defenses for their alleged copyright
infringement?</dt>
<dd>With the guidance of counsel, Christoph was able to provide Conservancy
with a high-level summary of VMware's statement of defense, which we share
in this FAQ. Specifically, VMware's statement of defense primarily focuses
on two issues. First, VMware questions Christoph's copyright interest in
the Linux kernel and his right to bring this action. Second, VMware claims
vmklinux is an &ldquo;interoperability module&rdquo; which communicates
through a stable interface called VMK API.</dd>
<dt>How did Christoph respond to VMware's statement of defense?</dt>
<dd>Christoph's response discusses his extensive contributions to the Linux
kernel and disputes the technical merits of VMware's assertions. The
response points out that vmklinux is <strong>not</strong> an
interoperability module, but rather an arbitrary separation of the Linux
derived module from vmkernel. Specifically, vmklinux is nonfunctional
with any non-ESX OS, and vmklinux is tied intimately to a specific version
of ESXi. Vmklinux does not allow reuse of unmodified Linux drivers in
binary or source form. Christoph further points out that if the Court
allows proprietarization of an arbitrary split portion of GPL'd computer
programs, it could allow redistributors to trivially bypass the strong
copyleft terms found in the GPL. Finally, the response explains that
vmkernel and vmklinux don't &ldquo;communicate over an interface&rdquo;,
rather they run in the same process as a single computer program. Thus,
VMK API, as used by vmklinux, is not an &ldquo;interface&rdquo; as set
forth in
the <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32009L0024&from=EN">EU
Directive 2009/24/EC</a>.</dd>
<dt id="tech">Can you explain further how VMware incorporated code from Linux into
their kernel?</dt>
<dd>
<p id="diagram">
Conservancy prepared this diagram to show the technical situation as we
understand it. The diagram compares the technical architecture of a full,
running Linux kernel with a full, running VMware kernel:
<p>
<a href="/copyleft-compliance/linux-vs-vmkernel_en.png">
<img class="inside-faq" alt="[Diagram of Linux and VMware running kernels]" src="/copyleft-compliance/linux-vs-vmkernel_en_scaled.png" /></a>
</p>
<p>If you want to download the diagram, it's available
in <a href="/copyleft-compliance/linux-vs-vmkernel_en.svg">SVG
(English)</a>, <a href="/copyleft-compliance/linux-vs-vmkernel_en.png">PNG
(English)</a>, <a href="/copyleft-compliance/linux-vs-vmkernel_de.svg">SVG
(German)</a>, and <a href="/copyleft-compliance/linux-vs-vmkernel_de.png">PNG
(German)</a>.</p>
</dd>
<dt>Can you explain further in words (rather than a picture) about the central
component in ESXi that the lawsuit alleges violates the GPL?</dt>
<dd>
<p>The GPL violation at issue involves VMware's ESXi product.
Conservancy independently reviewed ESXi and its incomplete
<abbr title="complete, corresponding source">CCS</abbr>
release as part of our GPL enforcement efforts described above.</p>
<p>Conservancy's preliminary investigation indicated that the operating
system kernel of VMware ESXi product consists of three key components:
<ul>
<li> the proprietary component &ldquo;vmkernel&rdquo;, which is
released in binary form only,</li>
<li>the kernel module &ldquo;vmklinux&rdquo;, which contains modified Linux
Code, and for which (at least some) source code is provided.
<li>other kernel modules with device drivers, most of which are
modified Linux drivers, and for which (at least some) source code
is provided.</li>
</ul>
<p>Conservancy examined the incomplete CCS alongside the
binary &ldquo;vmkernel&rdquo; component. Such examination indicates that functions
in &ldquo;vmkernel&rdquo; do make function calls to Linux's kernel code
in the usual way for a single program written in C.</p></dd>
<dt>Doesn't VMware's &ldquo;shim layer&rdquo; insulate them from GPL
obligations and allow them to keep certain code in their kernel
proprietary?</dt>
<dd>
<p>Many in the media have talked about the possibility that VMware might
use some so-called &ldquo;shim layer&rdquo; between Linux code and
VMware's proprietary code. While, for decades, there has been much talk of
various mechanisms of GPL obligation avoidance, Conservancy believes that
merely modifying technical details of a combination's construction
does not typically influence the legal analysis in a combined or
derivative work scenario.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the technical details of VMware's alleged GPL violation
do not even mirror the typical scenarios that have usually been called
&ldquo;shim layers&rdquo;. Conservancy's analysis of VMware's ESXi
product, in fact, indicates that VMware rather flagrantly combined Linux
code in their own kernel, and evidence seems to indicate the work as a
whole was developed by modifying Linux code in tandem with
modifications to &ldquo;vmkernel&rdquo; in a tightly coupled manner.</p>
</dd>
<dt id="shim-meaningless">Is Conservancy proposing a &ldquo;shim
layer&rdquo; as a viable solution for GPL compliance?</dt>
<dd>No, in fact, as we say above, Conservancy doesn't think the phrase
&ldquo;shim layer&rdquo; has any meaning, despite regular use of that
phrase in the media. Conservancy generally doubts there is any
technological manipulation that changes the outcome of a
combined/derivative work analysis.</dd>
<dt id="example">Can you give a <em>specific</em> example, with code, showing how
VMware combined Linux source code with their binary-only components?</dt>
<dd><p>There are numerous examples available that show this. The
details of alleged infringement specifically relating to Hellwig's
contributions to Linux are of course the main matter of the
allegations in the litigation, and Conservancy
released <a href="#diagram">the diagram above</a> to exemplify that
issue. Conservancy continues to <a href="#court-documents">hope VMware will
agree to make public all court documents</a> as a matter of public
good, since the court documents discuss the specifics of alleged
infringement on Hellwig's copyrights.</p>
<p>However, Conservancy examined VMware's ESXi product in detail
even before Hellwig's enforcement action began. Below is one example
among many where VMware's CCS was incomplete per GPLv2&sect;2(c) and
GPLv2&sect;3(a). (One can verify these results by
<a href="#verify">downloading and installing the binary and source
packages for VMware's ESXi 6.0</a>.) Note that this
example below is not necessarily regarding
Hellwig's copyrights; VMware incorporated Linux code copyrighted by
many others as well into their kernel.</p>
<h3>Example of &ldquo;vmkernel&rdquo;'s combination with Linux code</h3>
<p>Our example begins with examination of the file
called <code>vmkdrivers/src_92/vmklinux_92/vmware/linux_pci.c</code>,
which can be found in the &ldquo;Open Source&rdquo; release for
ESXi 6.0. A small excerpt from that file, found in the
function <code>LinuxPCIDeviceRemoved()</code>, reads as follows:</p>
<pre>
#include &lt;linux/pci.h&gt;
[...]
/*
* This function [...] is modelled after pci_remove_device, the function which would
* be called in a linux system.
*/
static void
LinuxPCIDeviceRemoved(vmk_PCIDevice vmkDev)
{
LinuxPCIDevExt *pciDevExt;
struct pci_dev *linuxDev;
[...]
if (unlikely(
vmk_PCIGetDeviceName(vmkDev, vmkDevName, sizeof(vmkDevName)-1) != VMK_OK))
{
vmkDevName[0] = 0;
}
[...]
VMKAPI_MODULE_CALL_VOID(pciDevExt-&gt;moduleID,
linuxDev-&gt;driver-&gt;remove,
linuxDev);
</pre>
<h4>Combination of &ldquo;vmkernel&rdquo; code with &ldquo;vmkdrivers&rdquo;</h4>
<p>The function, <code>vmk_PCIGetDeviceName()</code> must be defined, with an
implementation, for this code above to work, or even compile.
Inside <code>BLD/build/HEADERS/vmkapi-current-all-public/generic/release/hardware/vmkapi_pci_incompat.h</code>,
found in the <code>vmkdrivers</code> package of ESXi 6.0, shows a
function header definition for <code>vmk_PCIGetDeviceName()</code>.
However, the source of its implementation is not provided there or
anywhere in the source release.</p>
<p>Further evidence that the implementation of this function occurs elsewhere
can by found by running <code>objdump -x</code> on the un-vmtar'ed
<code>vmklinux_9</code> module. Note the following output in the &ldquo;SYMBOL
TABLE&rdquo; section:</p>
<pre>
0000000000000000 *UND* 0000000000000000 vmk_PCIGetDeviceName
</pre>
<p>
&hellip;and the following lines found in the &ldquo;RELOCATION RECORDS FOR
[.text]&rdquo; section:
</p>
<pre>
0000000000032db3 R_X86_64_PC32 vmk_PCIGetDeviceName+0xfffffffffffffffc
00000000000333ea R_X86_64_PC32 vmk_PCIGetDeviceName+0xfffffffffffffffc
0000000000036644 R_X86_64_PC32 vmk_PCIGetDeviceName+0xfffffffffffffffc
000000000003986a R_X86_64_PC32 vmk_PCIGetDeviceName+0xfffffffffffffffc
</pre>
<p>The above two properties both suggest that the <code>vmklinux_9</code>
module requires: (a) a definition of the <code>vmk_PCIGetDeviceName()</code>
function to operate, but (b) that function is not defined
inside <code>vmklinux_9</code> itself.</p>
<p>The definition can however be found in binary-only software provided in
ESXi 6.0 &mdash; specifically, inside a file named <code>k.b00</code>,
which is located in partition 5 on a disk where ESXi has been installed (or
in the ESXi 6.0 installer ISO image). Running <code>file</code>
after <code>gunzip</code> on this file yields &ldquo;ELF 64-bit LSB shared
object&rdquo;. Meanwhile, <code>file k.b00</code> reports &ldquo;gzip
compressed data, was &lsquo;vmvisor64-vmkernel.stripped&rsquo;&rdquo;.
These findings strongly suggests this is an image of the
&ldquo;vmkernel&rdquo; component. An <code>objdump -x</code> yields this
&ldquo;SYMBOL TABLE&rdquo; section:</p>
<pre>
000041800033193c g F .text 000000000000012e vmk_PCIGetDeviceName
</pre>
<p>&hellip; which indicated these binary file contains the function body
for <code>vmk_PCIGetDeviceName</code>.</p>
<p>Furthermore, after detailed searching, Conservancy found no evidence that any
other code (other than modified Linux code) makes calls
to <code>vmk_PCIGetDeviceName</code>. This provides a strong indication
that this function's primary purpose is to combine Linux code with
&ldquo;vmkernel&rdquo;. Conservancy also found other functions where similar analysis
yields similar results as above.</p>
<h4>Linux's <code>struct pci</code> combined with <code>LinuxPCIDeviceRemoved()</code></h4>
<p>Having established the direct and close combination
of <code>vmk_PCIGetDeviceName</code>
and <code>LinuxPCIDeviceRemoved()</code>, focus now on the
quoted code from <code>LinuxPCIDeviceRemoved()</code>. That code, note
that one of the local variables is <code>struct pci_dev *linuxDev;</code>.
A definition of <code>pci_dev</code> is found in
<code>vmkdrivers/src_92/include/linux/pci.h</code> (which
is <code>#include</code>'d above) reads:</p>
<pre>
struct pci_dev {
[...]
#if defined(__VMKLNX__)
/* 2008: Update from Linux source */
u8 revision; /* PCI revision, low byte of class word */
#endif /* defined(__VMKLNX__) */
[...]
struct pci_driver *driver; /* which driver has allocated this device */
[...]
struct pci_driver {
struct list_head node;
char *name;
[...]
void (*remove) (struct pci_dev *dev); /* Device removed (NULL if not a hot-plug capable driver) */
[...]
};
</pre>
<p>These structures, and based on those from Linux itself
(<a href="http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/include/linux/pci.h?v=2.6.24">a
similar version of this file can be seen in Linux 2.6.24</a>), and as can
be seen above, have been modified to work with &ldquo;vmkernel&rdquo;.</p>
<p>In <code>LinuxPCIDeviceRemoved()</code>, we saw a macro called with a
variable, <code>linuxDev</code> which was of type <code>struct pci</code>.
Thus, the combination of code from Linux's <code>pci.h</code>
and VMware's <code>vmware/linux_pci.c</code> is very tightly coupled and
interdependent.</p>
<h4><code>VMKAPI_MODULE_CALL_VOID</code> macro calls driver's code</h4>
<p>The
file <code>BLD/build/HEADERS/vmkapi-current-all-public/generic/release/base/vmkapi_module.h</code>
contains the macro definition of <code>VMKAPI_MODULE_CALL_VOID</code>,
which is quoted below (with debug lines removed):
<pre>
#define VMKAPI_MODULE_CALL_VOID(moduleID, function, args...) \
do { \
vmk_ModInfoStack modStack; \
vmk_ModulePushId(moduleID, function, &amp;modStack); \
(function)(args); \
) \
vmk_ModulePopId(); \
} while(0)
</pre>
<p>When the macro is expanded, it means that <code>(function)(args)</code> is
actually expanded to <code>linuxDev-&gt;driver-&gt;remove(linuxDev)</code>.
Therefore, we see <code>LinuxPCIDeviceRemoved()</code> makes directs calls
to a driver's remove() function, by combining with Linux's <code>struct
pci</code>, and by VMware's introduction of this new calling code.
Conservancy has confirmed many drivers from Linux are incorporated via
these mechanisms; one specific example is discussed next.</p>
<h4>Combination of the tg3 driver with &ldquo;vmkernel&rdquo;</h4>
<p>VMware includes a file <code>vmkdrivers/src_9/drivers/net/tg3/tg3.c</code>
in their source release. This file appears to be Linux's tg3 driver. It
includes a definition of the <code>struct pci_dev</code> for this device,
which reads:</p>
<pre>
static struct pci_driver tg3_driver = {
[...]
.remove = __devexit_p(tg3_remove_one),
</pre>
<p>Therefore, when the code in <code>LinuxPCIDeviceRemoved()</code>
calls <code>linuxDev-&gt;driver-&gt;remove(linuxDev)</code>, the code
ultimately called (in the case where a tg3 card is driven by the kernel)
is <code>tg3_remove_one()</code>, which is found in <code>tg3.c</code> and
comes directly from Linux.</p>
<p>(Note: <code>__devexit_p</code> is a straightforward macro found
in <code>vmkdrivers/src_92/include/linux/init.h</code> (which also comes
from Linux) that will simply expand to its first argument in this
case.)</p>
<h4>VMware distribution of binary version of <code>tg3.c</code></h4>
<p>VMware furthermore distributes a modified version of <code>tg3.c</code> in
binary form. This can be found in <code>usr/lib/vmware/vmkmod/tg3</code>,
which is extracted by un-vmtar'ing the file <code>net_tg3.v00</code> (found
on the ESXi 6.0 installer ISO image). Conservancy has confirmed that
file is a compiled version of <code>tg3.c</code>.</p>
<h4>Conclusions</h4>
<p>Given this evidence and related contextual clues, the only logical
conclusions are:</p>
<ul><li><code>vmklinux_9</code>, a binary object, dynamically links with
the binary objects: <code>k.b00</code> and <code>tg3</code> (the
driver built from <code>tg3.c</code>'s source). These three binary
objects together form a single running binary (likely along with many
other binary objects as well).</li>
<li>That single running binary contains code licensed under the GPLv2
&mdash; namely the code derived from <code>tg3.c</code>
and <code>pci.h</code>. Thus, the single running binary may be
distributed in binary form only under permissions provided under GPLv2
&mdash; in
particular <a href="https://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html#section2">GPLv2&sect;2</a>
and <a href="https://gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html#section3">GPLv2&sect;3</a>.</li>
<li>GPLv2&sect;3(a&ndash;b) requires that <q>complete corresponding
machine-readable source code</q> must accompany binary
distributions such as these. GPLv2&sect;3 further states
that <q>for an executable work, complete source code means all the
source code for all modules it contains</q>.</li>
<li>The binary work in question contains modules from <code>k.b00</code>,
<code>vmlinux_9</code> and <code>tg3</code>.</li>
<li>VMware did not provide source code for any modules found in
<code>k.b00</code>.</li>
<li>Therefore, VMware failed to comply with the GPLv2, as such
compliance requires source code (or an offer therefor) for the material
in <code>k.b00</code>.</li>
</ul>
<p>The above is but one piece of evidence among many, but hopefully it helps
to explain some of the &ldquo;combined work&rdquo; violations found in
VMware's ESXi product. Conservancy did a similar analysis for ESXi 5.0
as well as ESXi 5.5 Update 2 and found nearly identical results.</p>
<dt id="verify">How can I verify Conservancy's technical findings above?</dt>
<dd><p>The binary and source packages mentioned above are available
on VMware's website. These packages contain the
previously-mentioned <code>linux_pci.c</code>,
<code>vmkapi_pci_incompat.h</code>, and <code>k.b00</code> files, as well as
<code>vmklinux_9</code> and the source code that builds the latter.</p>
<p>To speed up the process, Conservancy has provided
a <a href="https://git.sfconservancy.org/?p=vmkdrivers;a=summary">Git
repository that we built that includes the source components that VMware
released</a>, and which are discussed above in our examples. However, one
can also obtain the source components directly from VMware, by following
these steps (no login is required):</p>
<ol>
<li>Visit <a href="https://my.vmware.com/web/vmware/details?downloadGroup=ESXI600_OSS&productId=491">https://my.vmware.com/web/vmware/details?downloadGroup=ESXI600_OSS&productId=491</a>.</li>
<li>Click the &ldquo;Download&rdquo; button beside the text that reads
&ldquo;Open source software accompanying ESXi&rdquo;.</li>
<li>Confirm that the SHA-1 hash matches the published one
(35811b981470abe8b606d8a7a97c9795ce570597), found under &ldquo;Read
More&rdquo; on that web page.</li>
<li>Mount (or otherwise open) the
downloaded <code>VMware-ESXI-600-ODP.iso</code>.</li>
<li>Extract <code>vmkdrivers/src_92/vmklinux_92/vmware/linux_pci.c</code>
and <code>BLD/build/HEADERS/vmkapi-current-all-public/generic/release/hardware/vmkapi_pci_incompat.h</code>
from <code>vmkdrivers-gpl/vmkdrivers-gpl.tgz</code> with tar and gzip.</li>
<li>Generate <code>vmklinux_9</code> by following the steps
in <code>vmkdrivers-gpl/BUILD.txt</code> in the ISO.
(Note: <code>vmklinux_9</code> is also available pre-built on a running
ESXi system; <a href="#vmklinux">see below for instructions on how to access it</a>).</li>
<li>You may need the &ldquo;Open source software disclosure package for
toolchain&rdquo; file from the above download page to
complete the build &mdash; upon downloading you will find it is named
<code>VMware-TOOLCHAIN-600-ODP.iso</code> and has a SHA-1 hash of
9a68df4cbeb645c25002a02f11b1923f98d3d5b5.</li>
</ol>
<p>To obtain the binary components, follow these steps (a login is required):<p>
<ol>
<li>Register for an account at <a href="https://my.vmware.com/web/vmware/registration">https://my.vmware.com/web/vmware/registration</a>.</li>
<li>Click the &ldquo;Activate Now&rdquo; link in the follow-up email. Enter
the password used at registration time. Click &ldquo;Continue&rdquo;.</li>
<li>Visit <a href="https://my.vmware.com/web/vmware/evalcenter?p=free-esxi6">https://my.vmware.com/web/vmware/evalcenter?p=free-esxi6</a>.</li>
<li>Click &ldquo;Register&rdquo; (under the text that reads &ldquo;You have
not registered for this product&rdquo;).</li>
<li>Enter the number of servers you plan to install on (e.g., 1). Click
&ldquo;Continue&rdquo;.</li>
<li>If the &ldquo;VMware vSphere Hypervisor 6.0 &ndash;
Binaries&rdquo; section is not expanded, click the plus sign next to it.</li>
<li>Click the &ldquo;Manually Download&rdquo; link that's beside &ldquo;ESXi
ISO image (Includes VMware Tools)&rdquo;.</li>
<li>Confirm that the SHA-1 hash matches the published one (a38a9d37ea529329338de049679c1dd1687d3860).</li>
<li>Mount (or open via some other means) the
downloaded <code>VMware-VMvisor-Installer-6.0.0-2494585.x86_64.iso</code>.</li>
<li>Find the <code>k.b00</code> file in the root directory. Extract it
using <code>zcat k.b00 &gt; vmvisor64-vmkernel</code> (or a similar command).
Repeat the steps described above using <code>objdump -x
vmvisor64-vmkernel</code>.</li>
<li id="vmklinux">To retrieve <code>vmklinux_9</code> you will need to install
ESXi on your system by booting the ISO and following the instructions. Once
booted, you can then enable SSH access using &ldquo;Customize System/View Logs -&gt;
Troubleshooting Options -&gt; Enable SSH&rdquo;. Login to the system with SSH
and then run <code>find /vmfs -name misc_dri.v00 -print</code>. On the
resulting file, run <code>zcat misc_dri.v00 &gt; misc_dri.vmtar</code> then
<code>vmtar -x misc_dri.vmtar -o misc_dri.tar</code>. You can then extract
<code>misc_dri.tar</code> using the usual <code>tar</code> to extract
<code>usr/lib/vmware/vmkmod/vmklinux_9</code>. The <code>misc_dri.v00</code>
file is also available next to <code>k.b00</code> in the root directory of
the ISO (mentioned above), but the <code>vmtar</code> command itself is only
available when logged into an ESXi system. <code>vmtar</code> can be found
at <code>bin/vmtar</code> inside
<code>sb.v00</code> on the ISO, but one needs <code>vmtar</code> to open
<code>sb.v00</code>, similar to <code>misc_dri.v00</code> above.</li>
</ol>
<p>Note that VMware may present you with <abbr title="End User Licensing Agreement">EULA</abbr>s and <abbr title="Terms of Service">ToS</abbr> when you download
software from VMware's website. Conservancy strongly suggests that you review these
terms in great detail with the assistance of your own legal counsel before
downloading the software and/or engaging in the process that Conservancy
discusses above.</p>
<dt id="similarity-analysis">How do you know Christoph's code is present in
VMware's work?</dt>
<dd>Conservancy
published <a href="/copyleft-compliance/vmware-code-similarity.html">its
comparison analysis between Christoph's code and VMware's code</a>. This
particular analysis uses a two step process: (a) use Linux's public Git logs
to find Christoph's contributions from Christoph, and (b) use a widely
accepted and heavily academically cited tool, CCFinderX, to show that VMware
copied Christoph's code into their product.</dd>
<dt id="appeal">I heard that Christoph's case was dismissed. Is that
true?</dt>
<dd>There was a ruling in July 2016 in the Hamburg District Court, which
dismissed Christoph's case against VMware. The ruling concerned German
evidence law and the Court did not rule on the merits of the case. The
ruling centered around German evidentary rules related to documenting
Christoph's contributions that appear in VMware's product.
In <a href="http://bombadil.infradead.org/~hch/vmware/2016-08-09.html">a
statement on his website</a>, Christoph Hellwig announced that he will
appeal the ruling. Christoph also published
(in <a href="http://bombadil.infradead.org/~hch/vmware/Urteil_2016-07-08.pdf">German</a>
and <a href="http://bombadil.infradead.org/~hch/vmware/Judgment_2016-07-08.pdf">English)
the Court's ruling</a> which explains why the materials submitted did not
satisfy German evidence rules &mdash; despite publicly available
information in Linux's Git repositories. In addition, the Court chose not
to seek expert testimony.</dd>
<dt id="statements-of-support">Have others issued statements of support about this action?</dt>
<dd>Various individuals and groups have publicly stated their support for
Conservancy's and Hellwig's actions in this matter. They include:
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.april.org/en/statement-support-software-freedom-conservancy-and-christoph-hellwig-gpl-enforcement-lawsuit">APRIL</a></li>
<li><a href="https://fsf.org/news/conservancy-and-christoph-hellwig-gpl-enforcement-lawsuit">Free
Software Foundation</a></li>
<li><a href="https://fsfe.org/news/2015/news-20150331-01.en.html">Free
Software Foundation Europe</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.gnome.org/news/2015/03/gnome-supports-gpl-compliance-through-vmware-suit-2/">GNOME Foundation</a></li>
<li><a href="http://opensource.org/node/739">Open Source Initiative</a></li>
<li><a href="https://samba.org/samba/news/announcements/2015-03-06_vmware_lawsuit.html">The
Samba Team</a></li>
<li><a href="http://sourceforge.net/p/swig/news/2015/03/defending-the-gpl/">The
SWIG Project</a></li>
<li><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170911061201/https://plus.google.com/104877287288155269055/posts/cHgyreA76yY">Dave Airlie, Linux Developer</a></li>
<li><a href="https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/573530001758294016">Matthew Garrett, Linux Developer</a></li>
<li><a href="/news/2015/mar/05/vmware-lawsuit/#glikely">Grant Likely, Linux Kernel Engineer</a></li>
<li><a href="http://mina86.com/2015/03/11/the-time-has-come-to-stand-up-for-the-gpl/">Michal Nazarewicz, Linux Developer</a></li>
<li><a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/635624/">Luis R. Rodriguez (aka mcgrof), Linux Developer</a></li>
<li><a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/635855/">Wolfram Sang, Linux Developer</a></li>
<li><a href="https://twitter.com/josh_triplett/status/573543072929198083">Josh
Triplett, Linux Developer</a></li>
<li><a href="https://lwn.net/Articles/635617/">Rik van Riel, Linux Developer</a></li>
</ul>
</dd>
<dt>I
see <a href="https://fsf.org/news/conservancy-and-christoph-hellwig-gpl-enforcement-lawsuit">FSF's
statement of support</a>, but why
isn't <a href="https://www.fsf.org/licensing/compliance">FSF enforcing</a> in
this case?</dt>
<dd>While FSF are the authors and license steward of the GNU GPL, it's up to
the copyright holder to enforce GPL. VMware created an operating system by
combining parts of the kernel named Linux with their own proprietary code,
and then added BusyBox to provide the userspace operating system components.
As such, ESXi is not
a <a href="https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">traditional GNU/Linux
system</a>. FSF has many copyrights of its own, but these are almost
exclusively on various parts of the GNU system, not on the kernel, Linux. As
such, FSF probably does not have copyright interests available to directly
enforce the GPL regarding the primary issue in this case.</dd>
<dt><em>I</em> care about copyleft and the GPL. How can I help?</dt>
<dd>Conservancy needs <a href="#donate-box" class="donate-now">your immediate financial
support to proceed with this litigation</a>. Litigation costs are
unpredictable, and this lawsuit may take years to resolve. Conservancy is
prepared to fund this case through its conclusion, but we can only do so
with <a href="/supporter/"><em>your</em> support</a>. If you are an
individual who supports copyleft and wants to see it defended, please
donate now. And, if you make a public statement of support, please email the
URL
to <a href="mailto:info@sfconservancy.org">&lt;info@sfconservancy.org&gt;</a>,
as we'd like to include representative selection of supportive statements above.</dd>
<dt>Why is the case in Germany?</dt>
<dd>Copyright infringement claims can be brought anywhere that distribution
of the copyrighted works occur. VMware distributes ESXi throughout the
world, but Germany is close to Christoph's home and his lawyer was
available to do the litigation work there. Finally, historically,
Mr. Jaeger's cases in Germany have usually achieved worldwide compliance on
the products at issue in those cases.</dd>
</dl>
{% endblock %}
<!-- LocalWords: Christoph Hellwig VMware vmkernel Linux's GPLv VMware's
-->
<!-- LocalWords: ESXi CCS Christoph's Jaeger NDA SVG PNG vmklinux vmk un
-->
<!-- LocalWords: Hellwig's PCIGetDeviceName vmvisor vmkDev vmkDevName UND
-->
<!-- LocalWords: sizeof VMKAPI pciDevExt moduleID linuxDev vmtar'ed LSB ec
-->
<!-- LocalWords: xfffffffffffffffc gzip login vSphere SHA fd cef pre ffb
-->
<!-- LocalWords: Toolchain bbc Hypervisor cafc cb fae ToS Airlie mcgrof
-->
<!-- LocalWords: Rik userspace Jaeger's endblock
-->
Reference in a new issue View git blame Copy permalink