Last comment, I consulted the (pun)Oracle(pun) of Wikipedia ... [2] And it provides a list of "Guest Features" that the NON-FREE "Extensions" offer. Sounds like a lot of general, guest functionality to me (e.g., USB and Display). [2a]
In any case, don't read any general term in the LPI Objectives as a vendor-specific term. I.e., The use of 'Extensions' in the objectives should not infer any vendor product with 'Extensions' in their name. Again, LPI Exam Development is free to correct my ignorance if I am, indeed, incorrect in my assumptions based on past (out-of-date?) policy. - bjs P.S. Now, 100% personal opinion here: Simply put, it's clear Oracle is practicing 'Vendor Lock-in' for features that are already in other, Upstream kernel.org capabilities, as a product differentiator. It would be one thing if it was some advanced display driver or something else, but USB and some other features are troublesome to me. Traditionally LPI does not proliferate such vendor lock-in preferences in technology coverage, and avoids such for the obvious reason. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VirtualBox#Licensing [2a] From [2] - regarding 'Extensions' and 'Guest Additions' 'The separate "VirtualBox Oracle VM VirtualBox extension pack" providing support for USB 2.0 and 3.0 devices, Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP), disk encryption, NVMe and Preboot Execution Environment (PXE) boot is under a proprietary license, called Personal Use and Evaluation License (PUEL)' On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 9:30 PM Bryan Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > Just to re-cap (for others), Objective 102.6 is for Virtualization Guests. > > The Oracle FAQ is confusing to say the least. Allegedly the base > software includes the "Guest Additions." [1a] > > The 'Extensions' are still not GPLv2, but Oracle copyrighted and > licensed NON-FREE. [1b] > > I've seen a lot of confusing information between versions and > conflicts, as well as some stating the 'Extensions' enable 'additional > guest features.' > > That all said ... > > Unless LPI's stance has changed in recent years, the 'Extensions' > cannot be a candidate for objective inclusion. I defer to LPI Staff > and corresponding Exam Development leadership on the official answer. > > - bjs > > DISCLAIMER: I speak for no one but myself, as a 'peer professional' > and fellow LPI Certified associate. > > [1] Oracle - VirtualBox - Licensing: Frequently Asked Questions > - https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Licensing_FAQ > > [1a] From [1] - regarding 'base' and 'Guest Additions' > > 'How is VirtualBox licensed? > The VirtualBox base package contains the full VirtualBox source code > and platform binaries and is licensed under the GNU General Public > License, version 2. You can distribute and modify the base package, > provided that you distribute all modifications under the GPLv2 as > well. > ... > What are “VirtualBox Guest Additions”? > The “VirtualBox Guest Additions” are a set of software drivers and > utilities that are shipped as a subset of the VirtualBox base package > and that are installed inside a virtual machine for better performance > and usability. Like the VirtualBox base package, the VirtualBox Guest > Additions are licensed under the GPLv2.' > > [1b] From [1] - regarding 'extensions' ... > > 'How is VirtualBox licensed? > ... > The VirtualBox Extension Pack is available under the VirtualBox > Extension Pack Personal Use and Evaluation License, which is a free > license for personal, educational or evaluation use, or an Enterprise > License, which is a for-fee license that allows most commercial, > non-distribution uses restricted by the PUEL.' > > On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 9:13 PM Bryan Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Sergio Belkin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Also it could be interesting be aware of conflicts between kvm and > > > virtualbox. > > > > I think you're addressing your own comment there. > > > > I.e., 'conflicts between' the Linux Kernel[.org] Virtual Machine (KVM) > > and VirtualBox. > > > > AFAIC, there are no conflicts I'm aware of between KVM and the pure, > > GPLv2 VirtualBox ... however, using a 'NON-FREE' implementation of > > VirtualBox usually causes conflicts.** > > > > E.g., Fedora ships a virtualbox-* package set that is pure GPLv2 (even > > if not completely Upstream kernel.org), but that may have conflicts > > with the separate repositories that are not considered 100% GPLv2. > > > > - bjs > > > > **P.S. Has the core of VirtualBox been accepted Upstream and is now > > in kernel.org? Both the HyperVisor and guest tools? I haven't > > tracked VirtualBox, but this has typically been an issue in the past. > > > > > > -- > > Bryan J Smith - http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith > > E-mail: b.j.smith at ieee.org or me at bjsmith.me > > > > -- > > -- > Bryan J Smith - http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith > E-mail: b.j.smith at ieee.org or me at bjsmith.me -- -- Bryan J Smith - http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith E-mail: b.j.smith at ieee.org or me at bjsmith.me _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
