From reading the linked article, it read to me like the complaint asserts that VMKernel itself is a violation of the GPL. If I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me, but these statements seems to point in this direction
Conservancy discovered that VMware had failed
to provide nor offer any source code for the
version of BusyBox included in VMware's ESXi products
But ESXi is not a purely open-source product;
it also contains a proprietary component called
"vmkernel."
VMware's developers appear to have taken a
substantial amount of kernel code, adapted
it heavily, and built it directly into
vmkernel itself
If so, that would be like me finding some code on Github, changing it a little, and then including it in my own closed source application, clearly a violation of the GPL.
Obviously though, I'm not sure how to prove that without the source of VMKernel
Again, this is honestly just how I'm reading it, if I'm wrong feel free to correct it.
It’s not clear, this really is an interesting case. From the description in the comments here, it seems that the GPL code from Linux, together with the code to interface with vmkernel is published, complying with GPL for that part.
My guess is that VMware considers vmkernel to be the operating system (which it is, albeit a minimalistic one, just the barebones hypervisor) and regard it as GPL code from Linux linking with the glue layer and the vmkernel system library. Which, if it provides some generic interface that the glue uses, arguably is.
I am just guessing here, but seen like this, VMware’s position makes sense. I would be surprised if they all-out violated GPL, Linksys-style, to be honest, because some competent FLOSS folks work(ed) there.
This sounds more like Oracle vs Google regarding Java, where VMWare, like Google, is stating that APIs are not copyrightable, and the SFC, like Oracle, is claiming that even those APIs are copyrightable.
There is a huge difference: in this case the Vmware product does include linux kernel code. So there's definitely some reproduction and distribution of copyrighted parts even excluding the use of APIs.
I don't see the commonalities except that both are about copyright. Has there been any information that the kernel API is being claimed to be copyrighted, or header files, or are VMWare claiming that no copyrighted code has actually been distributed?
The above extract mention "substantial amount of kernel code". If that code is implemented algorithms, data structure or full kernel features, then this case has nothing in common with the core issue between Oracle and Google.
Obviously though, I'm not sure how to prove that without the source of VMKernel
Again, this is honestly just how I'm reading it, if I'm wrong feel free to correct it.