OK, no real technical data and some absurd claims here.

First all-digital transceiver? No. There have been others. Especially if you allow them to have a DAC and an ADC and no other components in the analog domain, but even without that, there are lots of IoT-class radios with direct-to-digital detectors and digital outputs directly to the antenna. You might have one in your car remote (mine is two-way).

And they have to use patented algorithms? Everybody else can get along with well-known technology old enough that any applicable patents are long expired.

It would be nicer if there was some information about what they are actually doing. If they really have patented it, there's no reason to hold back.

The thing is, there are so many consequences for being the first to go nuclear it actually detracts from the threat.

OTOH, big deck guns can pound away for days for less than the cost of a single missile.

The continuous nature of it wears on the enemy in the way a single missile doesn't.

Yes, I made factual claims ABOUT THE DIAGRAM.

I have no opinion on the facts of the situation. I only know what the diagram clearly claims.

And according to the diagram, parts of the linux kernel are incorporated INTO the hypervisor. That, I imagine, is what has lead to a legal dispute.

The diagram remains clear. It shows what I said it does. Your question is more about if the diagram shows reality or not.

I note though that the Linux kernel is at the bare metal level itself.

Actually, he said the same thing I said, in different words.

For example, he points out that using the defined API, such as system calls is not a derived work, but digging into the internals is.

If it's a non issue, they should release the modified source and be done with it. They've had 3 years to do so and flatly refuse, so the law suit.

I'm just waiting for the first computer virus that makes the user sick. M.D.s will have to get used to diagnosing patients with a bout of BarfOrama 2.6.

But then they MUST offer the modified source to anyone they distribute a binary to. They also get to field all of the support issues since the kernel maintainers won't touch a bug report if the kernel is tainted by a non-free module (for good reason).

That's more akin to extradition. You broke a N.J. law while in N.J.

And he spent significant time in foreign jail far from home anyway. Far too much time considering that the charges were obviously inappropriate.

The diagram was fairly clear that various large parts of the Linux kernel are modified and incorporated into the vmkernel. It doesn't say exactly what parts but at least one of them is the SCSI subsystem.

The deciding factor is whether or not it is using the defined API. If so, it is mere use and not derivation.

If the kernel has to be modified to add an API, there would be a clear violation. If the driver is digging underneath the public API, it is on very shaky ground.

In the case of the Linux kernel, the line has been made very clear for modules. The module declares it's license and the kernel decides based on that what will or will not be linked.

That may have started it, but keep in mind, talks have been ongoing for several years now. They have had every opportunity to correct the problem. The suit didn't happen until VMware made it clear that they have no intention of remedying the situation.