Slashdot Mirror
Castle Technology UK Ripping off Kernel Code?
Jonathan Riddell writes "`It would appear that Castle Technology Limited, UK, have taken some of the Linux 2.5 code, and incorporated it into their own product, "RISC OS", which is distributed in binary ROM form built into machines they sell. This code is linked with other proprietary code.' Full details from Russell King on lkml."
I bet they steal movies from Kazaa too.
-Jack
You are all pirates, plain and simple.
Let's see if the goat has teeth!
They should know better than to do this, they deserve to get sued and the money should go back to kernel development.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
if you make any code opensource, you should be prepared for other's to copy it.
Now let us see what GPL does.....
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
Lets /. them.
Corperate Piracy is ok, its only when people share without profiting that its Piracy.
This is why Linux is bad but Shared source is ok.
Just call Michael Robertson for more info.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
take something that they didn't pay for...
Sheesh...
I stick to walls...
Stallman's a lawyer? GPL is his baby? Tell him.
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant
And apparantly it just resulted in them trying to better hide the incriminating code in later versions of the product.
Okay, then. Let's get everybody forming into single-file lines; you'll receive your pitchforks on the left, torches on the right. Please, no shoving, there will be plenty for everyone.
And post a link to it? That'd be interesting. (And that way the guy wouldn't end up with 10000000 of /.'ers all asking him for it).
They want to sell you stuff they stole, they should be raided by the RIAA!!! Get Em Hilary Rosen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Is this for real?
The law of excluded middle : Either I'm foo or I'm foobar
what damages? How can show they were hurt in any way by this? What would be the basis of the lawsuit? As you may have heard around here, nothing was stolen. Nobody lost anything.
Does that mean that we can take their binaries and distribute them for free? After all, if they used GPL code, then their code is also under the GPL.
How about a public execution!
Being a relatively non-hardcore geek, I wonder how it is possible to actually prove that GPL'd code was used?
Once compiled and linked and what-know-I, the source would be rather obscure, and after all, other products seem to do the same tasks, yet not using GPL code..
Please enlighten me!
- rnger
This is the kind of stuff that really gets under my skin. One of the most important aspects of the kernel code is that it is Free. If it wasn't free, it wouldn't be what it is and no one would want to use it at all. Greedy bastards. Forget suing them, I'll fight them myself.
--Mark.
Would Linus sue as himself, or would the FSF or the EFF take the case? If so, would it have to be on his behalf? IANAL, AY?
I don't know what is more disturbing: Somebody disgracing the sacred GPL for profit (GASP!), or the fact that somebody else actually examined a binary ROM looking for the binary signatures of Linux kernel functions.
One of the two needs to get a life (I'll leave it up to you to decide who).
Here is a question... Most OSS, and this kernel, specifically, is created by the contibutions of many individuals. So, who in the world can file a lawsuit over matters like this?
Would it be the many individuals? (They're probably not that rich) Would it be some benefactor, like Mitch Kapor/FSF? (He's rich, but has to pick his battles) Or perhaps a money hungry lawyer working for a fat contingency... Who files the lawsuit and pays the fees?
Have cases like this gone to court in the past?
... buy the product: it must be good!
;-)
Place your orders at sales@castle.uk.co
I have a question, perhaps it does not pertain to this situation... but where do you draw the line about code being stolen?
For example, if lets say I stole a simple 3 line chunk of code that converts a date from one format to another, and threw it in my multi-thousand line project (which is all original except for those 3 lines), would it really be breaking the GPL? I understand that it of course technically is.. but at what point would the 'borrowing' of code be of such basic elements that really, there is no other way to solve a particular problem?
Sure my above example sucks (it's friday afternoon, brains already gone)... but what amount of code warrants a "you're stealing you son of a b*tch" title, and what warrants a "meh... it's not rocket science, hell, there's no other way to do it, even if he hadn't looked at the code, this is the logical solution anyone with half a brain would come to..."...???
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Why don't Brits write their own OS?
Because they haven't figured out how to make them leak oil!
Go ahead and moderate me down as flamebait for my heretical thoughts, but I fail to see how fighting these battles is at all productive.
The meme police, They live inside of my head
This would be like going after people who steal copyrighted material, like movies or songs. Oh yeah. What is the difference again?
I guess the only rules/laws worth protecting are the ones you agree with. This is typical free software propoganda.
See subject.
Tis the folks at FSF that challenge GPL violations. Of course not folks at GNU, since GNU ain't no place or organization.
make world, not war
Acorn Computers is the daddy of all UK computing. While the rest of the geeky kids were using Ti's the UK kids were hacking away on BBC Micros.
:
:
I still have mine here.
The ARM processor is one of the best CPUs in existence.
how ironic that on on this page
http://www.castle.uk.co/castle/rpcalt.htm
the fish in the picture is clearly too big for the inadequate bowl.
They might find that their GPL rip-off is equally dead in the water.
It's a sad day all round. Time to flush them down the toilet.
whoring
if anyone lives nearby maybe they could pop in on Monday and get the sourcecode
Castle Technology Ltd
Ore Trading Estate
Woodbridge Road
Framlingham
Suffolk
IP13 9LL UK
Sales Telephone Line: 01728 723 200
Lines Open: Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00
Sales Fax Line: 01728 727 427
Lines Open: 24hrs every day
Support Line: 01728 727 424
Lines Open: Monday-Friday 9:00-12:00
Email: sales@castle.uk.co
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Should anything actually happen. Which I whole-heartily agree that something should happen. Maybe even the bigger distributions and users could actually back up Linus and other writers (i.e. redhat, mandrake, debian, IBM, sgi etc). After all they have a vested interest in the continuing development of code to support marketed products, which can only decline if people feel ripped off and there enthusiasm declines. And then such companies i) have loss of profits, ii) have to put money back into the funding they have tryed to save on by using linux. The main reasoning here, is without decent backing you lose, just because you can't fund any action.
--+> Life, is there any?
platform reminds me of the LART project. Anyone else more knowledgable about this care to comment?
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
which is worse... stealing non-free code, or selling free code?
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
...that Linux is somewhat unique here. If I steal your copyrighted book and sell it, I'm taking revenue from your potential customers. You lose money and customers.
If I steal Linux, I sell it and make money. But "Linux" doesn't lose any money (I'm personifying Linux here, bear with me) because Linux is free.
However, Linux does suffer damages. The thing of value to Linux is its user base. The only reason somebody improves Linux is because he's a user. If I take away a potential user by offering the same feature by stealing Linux, I'm eroding its user base, future development potential, and therefore value.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I don't get it, someone enlighten me: Any program that uses the GPL'd code HAS to be available for free in both binary and source form? What about Lindows? You can get their source for free but you can't download the OS (binaries) for free. Are they disregarding the GPL too?
VC on your front porch, all radioactively tagged, with a sign that says,"Please help yourself to some capital, but if you make any money put something back in."
Oh, and this is magical VC, so as soon as you take something out it's still got the same amount in the box. Nifty, huh?
So, there's no real harm in taking out. No one "loses" anything. But if you take out, make money, and don't put back in you become what is technically known as a "shit head."
And even the law has been known to formally uphold what it is generally refered to as the "social contract."
Now the only question is what are armed South Vietnamese dissidents are doing on the front porch in the first place.
KFG
...Is that they could have borrowed code from a BSD instead, and no one would care, as the license specifically permits it.
:-)
If these allegations are true, not only are they violating the GPL, they're morons to boot.
If you look at their conditions of trading, condition 17 seems to lay claim to the copyright of the product (admittedly this does not explicitly mention the software, though it is arguably implicit). It appears they have not only used the code, they are claiming it is their own.
This needs to be defended very quickly otherwise they could turn the tables and actually sue any Linux distributors for copyright violation by claiming the Linux kernel has copied their copyrighted code.
perhaps you are thinking of the Chevy Vega?
Would he insist on calling it a GUN/Linux kernel?
All my previous sigs now look like this one, I wish they were permanetly recorded when used.
You don't know what your talking about. Microsoft isnt winning. In 10 years linux will have all the servers and will be half the desktops. Linux will win because it is free. Its wrong to steal from free software, so people will boycott this company and they will go out of business. Stupid Asshole.
on second thoughts, i didn't laugh on this one. But that first thought made me laugh. I dig laughing, so I guess I'm ok.
Why cant the yanks get on with the arab world?
Because they can't get used to their back passages being lubed up with oil!
Obviously, the above argument is absurd, but points out that Slashdot has a double standard. On one hand, it is ok when a 14-year-old violates the copyright of a RIAA or MPAA-owned company. On the other hand, it is not OK when a company releases GPL under terms not compatible with the GPL.
So, what is it going to be? Do we respect both the RIAA's copyright and the copyright which GPL programs have, or do we respect neither?
If you want the GPL to be respected, respect other people's copyrights.
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
Lindows only 'sells' subscriptions to GNU software and won't give out any of their code, even the GNU code, saying they don't have to or they won't even respond at all, I've read all the discussions on this, and I know how it goes, but that's still kind of f'cked up don't you think? I mean, they are doing it blatently, this company just hid it, why haven't they been sued?
Stallman...hahaha...
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Bring in RMS
According to ESR's Jargon File, a LART (Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool) is a large, blunt object used to smack some sense into people who do offensive (or offensively stupid) things. Could be just the thing here...
So - what if a company does make a product but masks the GPL code in a masked rom and bonds the bare die onto a circuit board [think cheap consumer electronics] what good does the GPL do then? Can you actually make use of it and modify it to make it work? If you did - you would have to have a new masked rom, bare die and a bonding machine.
This is very tall order for most people.
I'm not talking about flash - flash is expensive - bare die masked roms are cheap - pennies not nickles.
Totally.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
That's a truly revolutionally design for an operating system. Most people base their operating systems on silly things like memory management, process scheduling, and hardware drivers. Basing your operating system on windows and and mice is so revolutionary it's stupid!
Search 2010 Gen Con events
I don't know what is more disturbing: Somebody disgracing the sacred GPL for profit (GASP!), or the fact that somebody else actually examined a binary ROM looking for the binary signatures of Linux kernel functions.
One of the two needs to get a life (I'll leave it up to you to decide who).
I don't know what is more disturbing: a hacker mentioned on slashdot who needs to get a life, or somebody posting to slashdot on a Friday evening saying the hacker needs to get a life.
One of the two needs to get a life (I'll leave it up to you to decide who).
Castle seems to admit as much on this page:
http://www.iyonix.com/32bit/PCI_API.shtml
which says:
"Note that the source code for many of the Linux PCI device drivers is publicly available on the Internet and may be useful in developing the corresponding RISC OS device driver."
IMHO, it should be a easy court case to win. So does this mean that they must release the source to the RISC OS, or at least any part that is linked with the PCI code?
Let's let them know how much we appreciate them ripping off of people's good will:
Castle Technology Ltd
Ore Trading Estate
Woodbridge Road
Framlingham
Suffolk
IP13 9LL UK
Sales Telephone Line: 01728 723 200
Lines Open: Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00
Sales Fax Line: 01728 727 427
Lines Open: 24hrs every day
Support Line: 01728 727 424
Lines Open: Monday-Friday 9:00-12:00
Email: sales@castle.uk.co
Who is Network Tech Man?
Under UNIX, use "file foo " to try to determine the type of contents in foo. It uses pattern information in the file /etc/magic to make its guess.
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
Before everyone starts clamoring for all out war against these horrible, horrible GPL violators, I would advise you at least give it a few days for the dust to settle. Slashdot, after all, is hardly known for responsible reporting, and has quite often reported such violations erroneously and caused quite a bit of damage to the reputations of various corporations.
--sdem
Hey, they sure know how to put together an HTML form processor that doesn't allow me to hijack it and bomb the hell out of their mail server with polite messages about the GPL.
Do they?
<INPUT TYPE='hidden' NAME='recipient' value="weborders@castle.uk.co">
Hmmm...
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well the first thing to say is that if you're just programming for yourself and not for distribution to others, then you can cut & paste GPL'd code to your heart's content, develop your own kernel branch with your own proprietary extensions, whatever you like. It's only when you try to distribute your program that you're going to run up against the "share and share alike" provisions of the GPL.
Programming for distribution, you will find yourself in one of the big legal gray areas (County of IP; City of Copyright Law). Consider music sampling - where even taking one note can get you busted - or the "fair use" and "parody" exceptions to copyright law - where you can get away with snippets of the original but will get spanked if you take "too much".
How much is too much for programming? Almost certainly any given line is not going to get you in trouble - and how is anyone going to know you cut & pasted it in, anyway? - but by the time you're copying nonobvious functions wholesale - or even obvious functions byte for byte - you should think again.
If King's claims are accurate then this case would be in the "way egregious" category.
-renard
They even steal the food from the mouths of the little babies of kde workers!
Liberty.
I don't remember who it was (probably somebody here does), but there was once this company suing another for stealing their source.
:-)
Of course the defendants blatantly denied everything and asked for proof. So in front of the judge and the rest of the audience, one of the programmers nonchalantly typed a sequence of keys on the defendant's software and... a huge easter egg showing the name of the original programmers appeared on the screen.
Too bad they changed the function signatures, such a definite victory may not be obtainable in court this time. But I sure hope a good precedent comes out of this.
The ENIAC Demo Competition
GPL'd code is generally not for profit, and people are usually more sympathetic towards these types of organizations than corporate ones, and for good reason.
The practices of corporate institutions such as the RIAA tend to seek to remove freedoms from customers, while the GPL seeks to give freedom. It really is no mystery why there seems to be a contradiction, but there really isnt, once you put things in their proper context.
It looks to me like Castle Technologies just happens to sell machines which have RISC OS on them. One of many companies in the UK.
Wouldn't the company in violation be RISCOS Ltd?
...dumbass...
It's irrelevant that the people end up buying the albums they like anyhow. And it's also irrelevant whether or not the MP3's are downloaded for profit.
Technically swapping MP3's that you don't own the copyright to, is a violation of the copyright law. By design, most laws are set up in a very black and white manner. Intent is or at least should be totally irrelevant generally. This is allowed, that isn't is cut and dried, once you start letting the intent of actions be subject to interpretation, the law is basically meaningless.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
UK mail addresses are normally .co.uk and NOT .uk.co - that just looks like a typo...
/.ers could be in for a lot of mail undeliverable messages...
Lots of
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There weren't any details, and I forgot how this one goes exactly.
You know what I mean. Radio. King. Dead in Maine home. No details. American icon.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
there are three perfectly good sets of BSD code to copy from with zero repercussions that do the exact same thing.
I cannot possibly defend this kind of action - even those of you trying to play devil's advocate to some sort of "slashdot hypocripsy" theory. This is stealing and they are stealing from the public. If they want this code so badly then why can't they abide by the terms that it comes with. I'm all for making a test case of the GPL go through the motions. Prove that the GPL can stand on its own - make these corporations who are constantly hounding computer users that they are loosing their intellectual property to any slight amount of internet "fair use" see what its like to be on the other side of the fence. There geediness is unbounded and they will never be looking out for the best interest of our software so why should we be allowing them to compete with us. I mean - when they put in their own website that their competing against linux - using Linux code is like "The Generic Cola Beverage Company" ripping off Coke in the middle of the night of their formula and then opening up business the next day with an identical product - it bet Coke wouldn't stand for it and neither should we. The only way that we have for a free software utopia is to stand up for ourselves now!
If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
I believe I read somewhere that the general convention is twenty lines of code. Take that much, and you've crossed the line. YMMV, of course.
Dunno, but I'm wondering if the BSA will be kicking their doors in any time soon.
DDOS'ed by the /. effect. Too bad it doesnt seem to have worked.. :)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If that were Microsoft that released an operating system that used significant chunks of the Linux kernel, there would already be a paypal donation site already set up to fund the legal battle to get them to comply with the GPL.
Copyright violations by individuals at home for private use are quite debatable...a company violating a copyright in order to make a profit is not debatable in the least...it is PRECISELY in the spirit of copyright and why it was invented in the first place.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
ok, i've seen a lot of posts on people being hypocrits about complaining the kernel being ripped off vs downloading some crappy boy band music off kazaa.
1st. When someone downloads some crappy song off kazaa, they arent claiming they made the song, or that they "own" the song, they just want to listen to the damn thing. Same thing goes for someone installing that warezed copy of office xp. They arent claiming that they coded office, or that they have the right to resell it, they just want to write documents.
2nd. If this company was merely using the modified kernel for internal purposes only , that would be kosher imho. If they wanted to modify it and sell the product, as long as they gave credit (and the modified code), that would be kosher too.
On a strictly personal level, i believe that when some large ass company (i.e. Microsoft, Riaa, Adobe ) commits multiple henious crimes against the people (i.e. DMCA, Sklyarov, Monopolistic abuses), that the company no longer is worthy of copyright protection. Thats why i have ZERO problem with people downloading music, burning off copies of Windows and Office, etc, for their friends and family, and giving the above companies a giant middle finger. Its civil disobienace at its best.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
I'm wondering who's responsible for suing for GPL infringements... the copyright holders are numerous and it's doubtful they'd all have enough money to fight that kind of legal battle with any kind of big software company. It seems so odd to imagine the EFF suing for a copyright infringement. FSF maybe?
My Blog
They may hang by that statement in court, since it shows intent to compete with Linux. You generally don't have a strong argument for fair use when you lift code from your competitors. Moreover, it makes it much more likely that the infringement was "willful", in which case we are talking big bucks in damages.
Fear won't be all they'll smell...
If we know for sure that the code is GPL'ed and they are stealing the source code to build their components, if we inform the customer that the component they are using is illegally created, the company would balk at using them. Why? Because now that company knows that the OS is illegal, the company might be held liable for knowingly using the illegal component. Anyone here a true lawyer to verify if this mechanism would work?
But invariably the guilty corporations are violating copyright law first before they are violating the GPL. This makes sense, because the GPL is actually more permissive than copyright law. And copyright law has been tested, many times - and it does have teeth.
If someone can present an argument why Castle in this case is violating the GPL, and not violating standard copyright law in the process, then I would like to hear it.
-renard
Double standards...gotta love it.
Speaking of which, I've been spending the last 40 hours debugging LAM-MPI with threads, and it has been quite the bitch.
Allow me to rephrase on your behalf:
Imagine a beowulf cluster of beowulf clusters that don't segfault!
Was the inherent bias of the average slashdot audience.
In general the audience here believes that copyrights are evil, and horrible. And that it's absolutely unconscionable for anyone to restrict what happens to their creations, once they are released to the public.
Unless those creations are GPL. In that case the license should be completely inviolate, and absolute.
You can't have your cake, and eat it too guys. The same laws that state that the GPL is valid, and that you can control what is done with your source code, are the same laws that allow a commercial concern to limit what you can do with their creation.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
They could have adapted code from netBSD's PCI and IO subsystem and integrated it in their binary only roms in total legality.
There are 2 kinds of people in this world: Those who write in decimal and those who don't
No.. the GPL ONLY gets it's strength from copyright law. IF copyright law allows it, the GPL can be IGNORED.
The GPL is the set of terms under which you can do things OTHER than what you are allowed to do under standard copyright.
It is not a use license, you don't agree to it in order to use said software; it is a license that grants you extra rights beyond what copyright does should you CHOOSE to use it (abide by it's terms).
Write to all their User Groups, and let them know about this theft. If we can get the users to know that they are being part of a crime, it would open a few more eyes and RiscOS dump would suffer.
Of course, if anyone is still using the current kernel in 200 years, that's sad. But then that kind of thinking led to the Y2K industry.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
When large numbers of people are commiting heinous crimes against media companies (Napster, Kazaa, MP'3 swapping in general, Software Piracy, etc) then those people are no longer worthy of wide open "fair use" rights. They have proven that they are children who are incapable of accepting responsibility for their actions, and are incapable of following the generous rules that were previously deeped sufficient, so sterner measures are in order.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Yeah lots of things are like that. Like this cousin I have... she's a little bit pregnant. And this post is kind of in plain text. And the "flamebait" moderation has sorta been applied to me, but only just a little bit...
The law doesn't say anywhere that you're allowed to acquire copyrighted material without paying for it, as long as it's not for commercial purposes.
The law says that it's a violation of copyright law to participate (as sender or recipient) in copying the property of another entity.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
I just thought of something reading this article. Most people (including myself) seem to have a lot of problems with EULAs. Primarily because they limit what you can do with your software/hardware whatever.
But isn't the GPL more or less the same thing? It's trying to control what you do with something after it is in your possession?
Not trying to troll, trying to come up with the distinction.
castle.uk.co. 86400 IN MX 20 b.mx.netlink.co.uk. castle.uk.co. 86400 IN MX 10 a.mx.netlink.co.uk. ;; ->>HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;castle.co.uk. IN MX
As if Linux were a paperclip-and-rubberband based operating system...
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
mess with, not even the evil empire.
LET'S R U M B L E!
Let's see:
Microsoft has a EULA indicating what you can and can't do (e.g. resell). This is bad. Bad Microsoft. We hates's Microsoft, they tricksies.
GLP has a EULA (you have to do this or that to use this code). Good GPL. They'ss our friendss. Nice GPL.
Good lord. Make up your mind, people.
This isn't a multi-national were talking about here. Things are a little different here in the UK.
I'll quite gladly take the 'lads' round their 'yard' for a word in their ear and It'll all be sorted in no time >;)
But seriously, I think this is quite a small company who may have rights to the old BBC>Acorn RiscOS PCs. A good thing on its own. But now that they have decided to rip-off OSS code, I feel quite dissapointed. Especially as I like to think of my fellow countrymen being decent.
Come on, how much pain is there in providing the effing source??
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
This is a tiny company producing a niche computer for a minor audience. Yes they've messed up, yes they shouldn't have done it. But the disgraceful wolfish behaviour of the Linux community (as exhibited on slashdot) makes me ashamed to have ever promoted or used linux.
Shame on you!
Instead of pointing out that you've caught them and then offering help in the struggle against the dark side you kick them in the balls and slam them into the wall.
I am so glad to have found OSX on Apple. At least I don't have to suffer the embarassment of having only Linux to promote as an alternative OS.
As far as I'm concerned this spells the final death of the old helpful, caring, concened Linux community.
Its worth remembering here again that as you make legal comment, that it is largely dependant on which country a case is tried in as to what will stand.
:)
There is so such thing as a legal proceeding outside the U.S.A. you know
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Actually, speaking as the webmaster of www.riscos.org, that quote is mine, and I have no link to Castle Technology at all. If you're going to call someone names, at least check your facts to see who you're accusing.
www.riscos.org is completely independent and in no way affiliated to ANY RISC OS hardware manufacturers.
Verbatim code, you're a thief.
If you see some code, think "so *that's* how it's done" and write similar code using the same algorithm, then it's yours. Unless it's patented of course.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
So I was dating this girl in a sorority for awhile. And things were going OK, but then we broke up. Now, there are a LOT of hot girls in this sorority, and once we broke up, I was pretty much barred from dating any of them. Oh, well. Now just gotta look in other places for booty. ;]
/. is kind of becoming an online version of this. "Oh no Microsoft is so bad or listen to this evil thing Apple did", and then hundreds of people go out there and flame these companies without ever having heard from them first. A bit blind, don't you think?
The thing that's disturbing is that after we broke up, it's kind of this sorority rule that they'll go out of their way to be mean to you, because you hurt one of their poor sisters. So now, not only am I barred from dating anyone else in that sorority, but odds are that if I try to talk to them, they'll just be total jerks to me for no reason and be just generally mean to me because of my ex-girlfriend.
Now, instead of dealing with problems like this on our own, a whole sorority of unthinking and unquestioning people can somehow get involved in a situation like this and leap down my throat for no good reason, and WITHOUT ever having heard my side of the story. Sound a bit familiar?
Seems like
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
im sure they be running scared after theyr ecieve all 3 emails
It seems this companies sell slow, ARM desktops with a proprietry OS (apart from that in article) with about four software packages at a very hefty price. You're going to pay for the browser??? Pay over $1000 for a 300MHz machine?
I don't think they have much of a footing to stand on financially, which may explain why they used GPL code in the first place. I actually feel sorry for them, because it looks very much like a move of desperation to me.
In my country, I am not allowed to make backups of music that I have purchased or load them onto an MP3 player. I am not allowed to rip a copy to listen to in the car. I am not allowed to copy my vinyl to CD because I don't own it, yet I cannot get replacement CD media for the vinyl because apparently I do own it.
I think copyright has many benefits to society and is a great way to protect creators from being ripped off and having their work stolen, but that it is being used by some as an excuse to gouge soociety unreasonably.
I shouldn't be allowed to steal a cake, but once I have bought it, how I eat it should be my own business.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
my sincere advise to OSS, GPL advocates would be not to go after these small firms. they are doing their best to avoid MS and using OSS code (although not legally). what do we have to lose? what are we going to do even if their code is open? on the other hand, by allowing this kind of piracy, we are effectively gaining more linux users which is a nice thing. note that, many commercial firms allow piracy deliberately when making money is harder in that market segment. when they grow big, go after them and force them to release source code. so if Sun uses 1000 lines of GLP code, keep quiet. once they use 1000,000 lines of code, go after them. at this point, they won't have much choice but to release the source code.
a case like this could provide a precedent that would prove that the GPL is legally enforceable - something that has not occurred to date,
That's right, it hasn't. And violations are regular and frequent (dozens of times a year, according to Eben Moglen, the FSF General Counsel). But so far, no one has been stupid enough to take it to court. But Eben keeps hoping someone will. From an essay on his website: "'Look,' I say, 'at how many people all over the world are pressuring me to enforce the GPL in court, just to prove I can. I really need to make an example of someone. Would you like to volunteer?'"
Maybe this will finally be the time. But I'm not going to hold my breath. No one has had the proper combination of balls and stupidity yet. Frankly, I find that as persuasive, if not more so, than an actual court ruling on the matter.
http://www.castle.uk.co/ you muppet.
http://riscos.com/ is for RISC OS 4 also, not
the one with the GPL violations.
You figure they somehow retroactively changed the signatures on copies already distributed?
:-)
;)
If it's only the OS, an "important security patch" may be all it takes.
But no doubt that there are other ways to prove the wrongdoing. It's just not as spectacular.
The ENIAC Demo Competition
It's got a Unique ID in the form of a MAC address!
Zounds! I'd never have thougth if that!
-Pete
The GPL is not an EULA. It extends copyright, where the average EULA disallows you from doing things that would be legal under copyright provisions (disassembly is a key example).
...of Linux's press machine. Everybody's heard of Linux; how often do you hear about BSD? I mean, if you want to "rip off" a *NIX kernel, why would you mess with Linux when BSD is there for the taking without any hassle like this?
I can picture it now:
New hire/IT Wannabe We should use embedded Linux for that. It's free.
PHB Free. And I heard about it at the last junket.
Asok (thinking to himself) I wonder if I should inform them of the implications, or just lock in job security for myself when we have to do a re-write.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
we got rooked
if you were truely "ashamed to have ever been a promoter" you wouldnt be posting anonymously: You're afraid of losing a status you never had.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
It's perfectly ok to take GPL code, use it in a website (web app), modify it even, and never provide the source or even give credit. You only need to provide source when you redistribute binaries.
Little wonder open source only got big after the web took off, and is still floundering on the client side...
If it runs parts of Linux...
Then it must be GNU/RISC OS!
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Plus, how many 32-bit, multitasking graphical, multimedia OSes run out of ROM these days?
How about the operating systems for game consoles? (It depends on the definition of multitasking; I have been told that Xbox OS does support threads.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
there are two other replies, but what they said can be put a lot more simply:
Copyright is already there. What copyright says is that you can't redistribute the code or anything made from it.
The GPL removes copyright, provided you dont try to put it back into play. That's what the term "Copyleft" is about.
In effect, it's an anti-EULA.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Isn't that an unpossible email addy?
Ralph
Fangs? Well, basically, it means that anything anyone uses and releases must be released with the source. This means that once proven that they used Linux source, they can sue to have the source code for their "RISC OS" released to the GPL.
That basically gives is a WHOLE LOT of interesting stuff... or a lot of bad code to look at. Given than their people can't code their own stuff, it seems reasonable that their RISC OS isn't worth what is paid for it. In any case, it means they can lose what they worked on. The fact that they made an attempt to cover their tracks proves wilful intent... (or that their programmers have betrayed their leaders pretty badly)
Thanks to the GPL, a whole lot of RISC OS is vulnerable to public disclosure. It should make a nice trophy anyway.
You don't own the SW after you buy it.
Then what about the Adobe v. Softman precedent, stating that if it looks like a sale of a copy and quacks like a sale of a copy, it's a sale of a copy?
A consumer of mass-market software surely doesn't own the copyright on the program, but unless there's a specific rental agreement between the consumer and the copyright owner, the consumer does own a copy of the program. (A "copy" is defined as the medium in which the program is fixed.) And if the consumer owns a copy, then the defenses in 17 USC 109 and 17 USC 117 become available, but the right to distribute modified versions is not among them.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I've been called as an expert witness before in Silicon Valley. The DA here (or at least used to - a few years ago) set the bar at 1500+ lines of code in order to consider filing criminal charges.
Now, YMMV. And in part it depends on what they are dealing with. But that's what they were using. I'd imagine in this case here they are using far more than 1500 lines of code, and it's fair game for cival prosecution.
Someone is infringing on the GPL and our copyrighted Linux code!
We cannot stand for this!
I'm going to write my congressman right after this Kazaa download queue finishes!
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
If they are found to violate ordinary copyright, then they also have to be found to be violating the GPL for the rather obvious reason that the GPL is more permissive. The GPL is enforced by standard copyright (follow this liscense or face copyright violation), so it is impossible to violate the GPL without violating copyright.
Russell King has posted a followup to his LKML posting. Perhaps all is not as it seems.
I would say this is a test case. The folks involved have concluded that there is no one party that owns Linux, thus WHO is going to SUE? That, of course, is assuming one can come up with the proper juristiction for such an action. Licenses are only as strong as the enforcement mechanism, and this is the inevitable test of the claims contained within the GPL given there really is no OWNER of the software that is supposedly being licensed.
Linux code is not sacred. Its just another form of the old public domain software that has been out there since the beginning of computing. The only difference is that there is some text referencing the GPL, but never has it been demonstrated to be a valid and enforceable license.
I'd rank it even less enforcable that those non-compete clauses we all sign upon starting employment with every one of the software houses that pay our bills.
This is what we've all been waiting for ladies and gents.
If those folks have indeed violated the GPL, the will be the most strenuous test the GPL could go through.
We'll see how enforeceable the GPL really is, so it will either make it or break it.
/. Where the truth
If Castle Technology Limited were an US company, CTL would just countersue Russell King for circumventing ROM BIOS 'protection'. As a result, Linux is screwed and CTL lives happily ever after. Nobody will care about GPL anymore because someone can screw the system with this low down dirty trick.
Don't believe it won't happened in UK, because EUCD is going to pass in there pretty soon.
can we hit them with it for a change? Just because the law is inherantly evil doesn't mean that we can't use it to our advantage, for bloody once!
Here's a pertinant quotation:
Sig:Why copyright isn't a fundamental human right
If they used FreeBSD, they wouldn't have this problem.
A note on a previous link posted
According to a rumour on top 'geek' web site Slashdot, Castle have been accused of using GPL'd code in RISC OS 5. The rumour was originally posted by ARMLinux developer Russell King and there is already a healthy debate running as to the possible implications of GPL breach. Please note that www.riscos.org is NOT affiliated to ANY RISC OS hardware manufacturers, so if you're a GPL geek, please don't bother inundating me with emails as I don't have time to reply to them all. www.riscos.org is and will always remain impartial regarding public news items.
http://www.riscos.org/cgi-bin/news?ref=08022003_00 2404_4
The GPL license needs a good test in a court of law to see if it will stand. I plan on thanking these people for offering to spend the many thousands of dollars that it will take to conduct this test.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
please dont steal my code i gave to everyone and use it for yourself!
dont want this to happen? dont give away source code.
You steal my tires. Can you come and steal them back? I dunno, most people would say you could.
But that dosn't mean you could steal my whole car...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
"I steal something from you. Do you have the right to come steal it back?"
There's no such thing as "stealing back." If someone steals something you own, you still own it. If you find it where it's not supposed to be, and you move it, you're just moving your property, the same as if you had done so before it was stolen.
Stealing something doesn't transfer legal ownership.
I agree 100%. Contrast not only that, but also notice how much effort is put toward punishing the offenders. When was the last time you saw that much go toward people who've violated the copyrights, of those they disagree with? Their own actions say what their mouths will not confess.
I have sigs that's somehow appropriate.
"-- Poho
"People's morality is like water going down hill - it takes the shortest path to reach its goals""
&
""Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
-- Winston Churchill"
as long as you don't distribute the changes. It says that on like the 3rd line of the damn thing!
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
From their web pageh tml
...
....
http://www.iyonix.com/32bit/opportunities.s
Most developers are now porting their software to the IYONIX pc and charging a small upgrade fee per product as well as considering new applications and some suggestions for USB, PCI and software products are shown below.
Third parties are encouraged to develop drivers and applications to use PCI cards. In the past it was sometimes difficult to justify developing specialist expansion cards for a relatively small market, but the existence of a wide range of low-cost PCI cards provide a ready solution and the source code for many device drivers is already freely available thanks to Linux.
No mention of open source software or GPL, just freely available.
The idea that plagiarism is wrong, and sharing is not, is not hypocritical.
Also, if there was no copyright, there would be no need for the GPL.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Lots of people here seem to think that Castle own RISC OS, or that RISC OS Ltd own it. This is not true. After Acorn Computers finished in 1998, the set-top box division of it was bought by Pace Micro Technology in June 1999 (Acorn Computers itself changed name to Element 14). This sale included RISC OS.
Pace still owns the copyright to RISC OS. RISCOS Ltd was set up and licenced the code, which has been released as RISC OS 4. This is what you can buy to upgrade Acorn RISC PC computers (and other Archimedes machines, like the A7000).
Castle Technology recently also licenced RISC OS from Pace, completely separate from RISCOS Ltd. This version of RISC OS is being developed for the Iyonix computer and is called RISC OS 5.
This could be an interesting situation, as Castle Technology do not own RISC OS, they only licence it.
I couldn't agree more!
When the linux community breaks copyright and software liscensing, not much is said. When another company does it, holy shit, grab the pitch forks.Linux people should just chill for awhile.
what with all the hype about linux and "truly free" software on slashdot.org, they probably got the two confused and thought linux was truly free software!
:)
they should've just used freebsd.
(and if you thought that was a troll - why the hell anyone would deliberately use linux code instead of freebsd's is beyond me...)
They used the GPL-licensed software, and with that, indicated they accept it. They made a derived work from it, and distributed this as a whole, in binairy form. With selling a product that contains it, they distribute this derived work.
Consequences:
The GPL also applies to their modification, UNLESS the GPL-covered part and their part are seperate, or can easily be told apart. Hmmm, binairy form? Incorporated as a whole inside a product? Distributed? I'd say, that results in the GPL extending to their modification. The license they indicate to have agreed to, says so.
Thus: you can regard their addition as included in that product, as covered by the GPL as well.
My suggestion:
Find out what they added, reverse engineer that, turn it into source code, and publish/distribute that as a new piece of GPL-covered code. Thank you very much!
If they don't like it, and try to sue, their use of the GPL-covered code would not leave much (if any) legal ground for them to stand on.
Oh, and of course, you could offer any buyer of that product the source code for all that's inside it, under the GPL, regardless of whether the company likes it. (And you might try to force the company to do that for their customers)
This is the first Slashdot story in over a year that has prompted me to actually register in order to post a response.
A programmer by trade, I grew up on the Acorn RISC machines. To see that the phrase "RISC OS" needs double-quotes makes me wince... My high school prizes were spent on books about ARM assembley language, and to this day x86 assembler seems retarded by comparison. I spent a whole summer working shit jobs in order to buy the RISC OS Programmer's Reference Manuals and Acorn's ANSI C compiler. I know it sounds like a typical Slashdot takeoff but it's true!
So I read this story with disgust and a sense of betrayal, it's like my own father has been had up for peddling drugs to schoolkids! Honestly Acorn (sorry, "Castle Technology Ltd" now), how low can you stoop? A lot of young British geeks owe their IT literacy to the company you once were, but if this story is true then you will find no sympathy from even your staunchest fans.
I am really sad to see this happening.
to boot!
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
This is the first Slashdot story in over a year that has prompted me to actually register in order to post a response.
A programmer by trade, I grew up on the Acorn RISC machines. To see that the phrase "RISC OS" needs double-quotes makes me wince... My high school prizes were spent on books about ARM assembley language, and to this day x86 assembler seems retarded by comparison. I spent a whole summer working shit jobs in order to buy the RISC OS Programmer's Reference Manuals and Acorn's ANSI C compiler. I know it sounds like a typical Slashdot takeoff but it's true!
So I read this story with disgust and a sense of betrayal, it's like my own father has been had up for peddling drugs to schoolkids! Honestly Acorn (sorry, "Castle Technology Ltd" now), how low can you stoop? A lot of young British geeks owe their IT literacy to the company you once were, but if this story is true then you will find no sympathy from even your staunchest fans.
I am really sad to see this happening.
I doubt MS would care one way or another about a high profile enforcement of the GPL. Believe it or not, MS' Services for Unix contains some GPLed utilities and they offer the source for them the way they're supposed to. Don't get me wrong, I think MS is run by a lot of scum sucking weasels but they aren't STUPID weasels.
Microsoft has an army of developers and pool of cash that let's them buy pretty much any commercial codebase they want. They have nothing to gain by ripping off GPLed code and quite a lot to lose.
MS whinges about GPLed code not because they can't steal it but because their Embrace Extend Extinguish and FUD tactics are largely useless when it is a competitor.
Obviously, the above argument [GPL si, copyrighted music no] is absurd, but points out that Slashdot has a double standard.
No it does not.
Because Slashdot does not have any standards. It has a broad population of individual posters, who have their individual standards.
Some of them disagree with some aspect of how copyrights are used in the music industry, and some of them support the way copyright is used by the GPL. These are not necessarily the same people.
Now if you want to argue that those PARTICULAR SLASHDOT POSTERS who disagree with the music industry's use of copyright but agree with the GPL's use have a double standard, you might have a point worth discussing.
But to claim that SLASHDOT has a double standard is to propagate the same lie the media does when it says that an American family has 3.2 children of which 2.1 are illegitamate.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Nothing wrong with that. But if they want to use GPL code, they need to follow the license, and GPL their drivitives. Then they are perfectly free to do so. And they only need to release the code to their customers. But the code, itself, must be under the GPL.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
If only we cold discover linux source being used by microsoft. The war would be won.
I know this is a complete what if, but here it goes.
What if i was the owner of a company like Castle. A small shop of 30 or so people writing a commercial OS. Now say it was the task of three of the programmers to write some part of some IOKit. Now say they were under deadline and feared being fired, and couldn't keep up and stole a couple of pages of source from a GPL OS of your choice. Now say no one realizes this for 18 months and then the door is suddenly blow open and the execs of the small company are totally against this violation, and fire the employees in question and remove the code in question from the OS. Should the rest of the OS have to be GPLed? I would hope not!
Jon Hess
And they can do whatever they like with the source - that is fine. The fact that they are not releasing modifcations they have made, that is the issue...
You are barking up the wrong tree here. There is no similarity at all between someone selling GPL code for profit (fine, as long as they release changes) and someone copying music.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The Partition Expert product from http://www.acronis.com uses a modified Red Hat kernel, gpm and XFree86 (as far as I can identify), but NOWHERE mentions the GPL, does not contain a copy of the license, does not inlcude the source code (nor provide it on their site), and provides just binaries. All clearly violations as described at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html. To make make matters worse, Acronis has received a Linux Journal award (http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5525) . Their OS Selctor is, I beleive, also now distributed with SuSE. It looks as if they are taking unfair advantage of the GPL.
Linux is a VT-220 time sharing operating system.
On steroids, mind you.
Before throwing this kind of accusation onto the Slashdot frontpage and having all the American pinguinista Linux-geeks go nuts over it, please check your facts. Going berko at Castle because of possible GPL code in RISC OS is like going mad at Dell because of what's in Microsoft Windows. Castle sells Acorn-clone computers which run RISC OS: they do not make RISC OS, they're a reseller in much the same relation with RISCOS Ltd/Pace who makes RISC OS, as Dell is with Microsoft who makes Windows.
If I was Castle, I'd be considering legal action against Slashdot right now, as this is one heck of an unfair slam to their company.
...pretty much sums it up.
Not to stereotype or anything. But yeah you're pretty much right.
James
" ...but who cares? People who license their code under the BSD License don't waste time and energy investigating these types of issues. Instead, they keep coding. "
;)
I care. That doesn't mean I want to mod you down either. It just proves that people don't understand the spirit of the GPL. Why it exists. Why it's important to defend.
Part of the point of the GPL isn't so much the technical aspect of the license - there's RELIGION there also. It is the unspoken belief (well, I think RMS has said something to this effect), that many coders contribute to the GPL codebase to make it better (and therefore save the universe from oppression or something like that)
When one steals from the GPL codebase, their contribution - which if sold is REQUIRED, must be returned to the whole. To not do so, to take the accomplishments of others who build on this license diminishes us all. It's as simple as that. Now, it is apparent (at least to what I've heard) that what this company (Castle) has STOLEN the work of others. Of course it should be looked at.
Hell, since many of us are now paying the "assumed CD-R piracy" fees everytime we buy blanks, this at least is a blatent violation of a legally enforceable license.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
I assume you mean copyright infringement?
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
That You all slashdotters write a polite email to the company and ask if they are violatin GPL.
I just did that, and I think it would be very good thing if the companys email-box would be filled with similar emails.
That falls cleanly into the "circumstantial evidence" category in my opinion. It could be hard to find real evidence for this. One would need to get a good witness or subpoena their source.
nuff said.
Most RiscOS machines have their OS on non-flashable ROM. It would be difficult changing the core binaries on a RiscOS machine.
-Tez
Haskell, the static-typed, lazy, polymorphic, programming language.
For example, if you steal my CD player, I can take it back without offering you physical violence, or breaking into your home.
However, these are dealing with tangible property. I don't think I can take posession of illegal copies of copyrighted material, because the copies, while illegal, are not mine.
To sue the infringers, the copyright should (must? IANAL) be assigned to the FSF. I as a GNU GPL developer and copyright owner may not want my code assigned to FSF for personal reasons. How then does the FSF sue on my behalf? Can they legally do so?
It would be a great example of testing the GPL without running into the copyright argument.
An even better situation would be to write code, release the code under the GNU GPL, give it to a friend, sign a legal contract offering him use of the copyrighted code if and only if it is used under the terms of the GNU GPL, and then have him violate the terms of the GPL for either (A) release of derived source, (B) distribution, or (C) both.
Take each other to court, represent yourselves (in propia persona), and have a judge resolve the issue. Sue for enough over the small claims limitations, and when done, release him from legal liability if the suit is successful.
You set precedent, appeals potentials, and all without the FSF's involvement (or political backwash).
--Matt
Ah! A sane post amoungst the weeds. Now your correct that the two groups are seperate. But if you look back at every RIAA,MPAA post on this site you'll notice two things. One is the larger proportion[1] that is pro-copyright violations vs against. Two you'll also notice as I pointed out up above. The degree of reaction to the GPL copyright violation, verses the lacking of reaction to the pro copyright violation stance prominant here. In other words the squeaky wheels get heard, while little complaint is raised from those irritated by the noise. One thing of note as well. Two wrongs don't make a right. That's true of life, and the law. I wish all the people advocating civil disobediance would keep that in mind. Because they make life harder for those who do play by the rules, and they not only make it harder to change the situation. They make it worse.[2] Also as far as the GPL not being sound. As one person pointed out, there's the individual copyright to fall back on, unless copyright itself can be shown to be faulty, and that would be a disaster of monumental porportions, for all.
[1] Complete with a justification that runs the gamut from stupid to crafty.
[2] There's also no proof that their disobediance amounts to more than a "feel good" measure.
i'M DRunk. but these people are bastards. FUK EM IN TE ARSS!!!
That everyone on slashdot is pro-kazza sharing copyright violation but when it comes to the GPL, whooaa! better watch out! The lawyers are coming!
This place is the biggest double standard in the world. Just because y'all want your music for free...
The EFF are not lobbyists. They are a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. It is illegal for them to lobby congress. Their role in influencing public policy is limited to educating the public, and challenging the law through the courts.
RISC OS is actually owned by Pace Microtechnologies Plc. They acquired it from Acorn Computers Plc when Acorn was broken up. RISC OS is developed by RISC OS Ltd who licence it from Pace and develop it for the desktop machines. Castle Technologies obtained the rights to manufacture and distribute Acorn's Risc PC in the break up but have since started developing their own products.
From the details it's not clear whether Castle are the culprits or RISC OS Ltd. It is unlikely to be Pace as they are not interested in the desktop products. Knowing some of the parties concern I know where my suspicions lie but I'm not saying.
and this proves it. BSD license all the way.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
because we travel in miles
American dollars are the last thing we try and collect. Even mentioning the money is vulgar, as we'd expect from our American cousins, so getting a kick in the teeth seems rather appropriate.
This Castle bunch are not the Acorn people. My guess is that they are some fly-by-nights.
Acorn were original and innovative, I expect they will be as annoyed about this as the Linux kernel people.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
The BBC were really keen to get computers to the people. They made a magazine TV programme aimed at non-geeky people presented in a non-patronising way. They'd show you computers being used in the field, have a bit of a discussion and show you some source code and explained how it worked.
They also used the Teletext system to distribute free BASIC source code, even before they released their computer they were supplying source for the Acorn Electron. You needed a teletext adapter to get it into your machine. When I was 10 or 11 I used to sit there with a pencil and graph paper copying down the source from the screen. I hadn't even used a computer by then, let alone owned one. I had no idea what I was writing down at first but gradually I got some sort of idea of what was going on. It was made more difficult by the fact that in order to maximize the bandwidth the newlines were tokenized so one line ran into another like this (I'm using ! as newline):
10 INPUT "Hello, what is your name?",name!20 IF name "DrSkwid" THEN 50!30 PRINT "Agghhh Doctor I've been expecting you"!40 GOTO 60!50 PRINT "Daleks, kill ",name!60 PRINT "bye"
happy days
glad you made it to Berkeley
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
A brief history lesson, that might help to make one or two things clearer. Its as accurate as I can manage, but don't sue me for slipups, right? Years ago there was Acorn Computers Ltd; they produced the BBC Micro, BBC Master etc. They then set about designing their own 32 bit cpu for their next generation of computers, and the ARM chip was born. ARM Limited was formed as a spin off and carries on administrating the architecture today. Acorn went on to use the ARM chip in various computers; its first OS was called Arthur, which later developed into RISC OS. Acorn used RISC OS both in desktop targetted machines and increasingly in a range of set top box like products and other embedded devices. The first bunch of ARM chips developed ran in what was called '26 bit mode' (don't worry about it), and the OS largely depended on some custom support chips. Eventually Acorn took the decision to drop out of the desktop market; when it did so, it granted a license to a new company (RISC OS Ltd) to the latest version (4) of its software. RISC OS Ltd carried on developing this OS and continue to do so today as part of their Select scheme. Shortly after granting the license, Acorn split into 2 sections; one became element 14, and the other was taken over by Pace. Pace carried on developing RISC OS in house, and produced a 32 bit hardware independent version of RISC OS. Later, AIUI, Pace stopped RISC OS development work, and shortly afterwards Castle announced that it was bringing desktop machines to market using the Pace version of RISC OS. Some sort of license deal had been made between Pace and Castle - my understanding is fuzzy here, I don't know if its a direct license or whether Castle have a license through another third party. It is this latest version of RISC OS that the accusation of use of GPL'd code has been made against. RISC OS Ltd, ARM Ltd, and Element-14 (AIUI now subsumed by Broadcom) are *not* implicated in any way - don't send them hate mail! riscos.org are *not* implicated in any way - thats a web site run by enthusiasts. Its not clear to me at which point the GPL'd code got introduced into the source tree; it could have been at any point after the RISC OS Ltd tree was forked from Acorns original source. Also, for those that don't know, Russell King was one of the prime instigators of ARM Linux, so together with Linus himself is probably one of the most significant opinions on this matter. FWIW: I'm an independent software contractor, who has worked under contract for Acorn, Pace, e-14, and RISC OS Ltd (though not on the portion of the code under discussion). I have no axe to grind here - this post is purely intended to sort out who the players in this particular drama are (and aren't!)
Pointy Haired Boss
Or:
Can't locate Common/Sense.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /usr/local/lib/managers /usr/local/lib/perl/5.6.1 /usr/local/share/perl/5.6.1 /usr/lib/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 /usr/lib/perl/5.6.1 /usr/share/perl/5.6.1 /usr/local/lib/site_perl .).
BEGIN failed--compilation aborted.
The difference between ignorance and apathy? I sure don't know, and I don't care either.
The sad thing is that I had really heard nice things about RISCOS... if it were possible to get an old machine inexpensively in the US, I would have tried it.
That's a bit like saying that you would not buy a second hand 486 with MS DOS on, because a different PC manufacturing company ripped off some GPL code last year to get part of their new system working.
I think a lot of people are getting Castle confused with RISC OS, and in this case even Acorn, who don't exist any more - the code being discussed is for the new Castle Iyonix machine, released just before Christmas 2002. It is the first 32 bit RISC OS machine, and as such needs a 32 bit OS. Castle have released RISC OS 5, which is based on RISC OS which is licensed by Pace, who bought it from Acorn just before they were closed down (about 5 years ago I believe).
It is RISC OS 5 that has the alleged GPL breach; previous versions of RISC OS have nothing to do with Castle, apart from Castle's machines run RISC OS.
As a general comment, it would be nice if people on slashdot spent a little more time looking into the facts before posting.
On a separate note, if you really are interested in getting an old Acorn machine, there are a lot of second hand Acorn machines available at extremely reasonable prices if you're willing to spend a little time looking for it - for example, newsgroups, community websites, magazines (such as Archive, which has a small ads section), or companies which sell second hand RISC OS machines, like CJE Micros.
I'm dangerous when I know what I'm doing
I remember seeing his name on the credits of a WW2 newsreel and couldn't believe it but there it was in black and white. The news attributed to "Joe King"
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
GNU/Linux reads any filesystem anyway
That simply isn't true.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
.. as opposed to what, exactly?
You started it.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
When you actually look at one person's beliefs, it's quite easy to see how someone can believe that abusing the GPL license like Castle has done is naughty, and at the same time believe that the RIAA, MPAA, and CSS are evil also.
I'll burn karma just to agree.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
reminds me of the movie "Pirates in silicon Valley"..
"Good artists copy, great artists _steal_!"
fscking wankers, chop their nuts of and feed them to the bulldogs!!!
Castle Technology has gained revenue by selling someone else's product. Apart from the license violations, there ought to be a case to answer that Castle have charged for a product that isn't legally theirs to sell
IANAL...
their whole website has a .uk.co suffix so I guess it works.
I have mailed them and urge everyone else to do so....
Well it looks like the broad brushing of the mob mentality has taken yet another victim to the hot, steamy pit of collateral damage.
And since mine was the hand that wielded this brush, I must extend my apology.
But let me say this to all of you GPL violators out there, cut out all of that evil!
Ssssppppoooooonnnnn!!!!!
Seeing as how my belly isn't big enough to crush them to death :P
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
Just installed an HP printer and the following came up with the EULA. I wonder, if it ever turned out that they infringed on Open Source (e.g. GPL), if it would effect the entire license, making it null and void, i.e. letting me disassemble until my hearts content (clause 4).
8. U.S. Government Restricted Rights. The Software has been developed entirely at private expense. It is delivered and licensed, as defined in any applicable DFARS, FARS, or other equivalent federal agency regulation or contract clause, as either "commercial computer software" or "restricted computer software", whichever is applicable. You have only those rights provided for such Software by the applicable clause or regulation or by these License Terms.
All your base are belong to us!
Any attempt at suing them will fail simply because of the way RISC OS works. Its highly modular, to the point that users can effectively dynamically substitute bits of the OS whilst it runs. This means what they've done is most likely only creating programs that run on the system. In order to not violate the GPL they simply point you to the original source. Its no different from compiling a GPL app under RO and running it.
With double-m.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Someone mod this up.
I must say, it is an absolute pleasure to see
a post that is concise, accurate, and carefully
considered.
I wish I had some mod points.
*sigh* back to work...
Hm, you mention this on your website.
> www.riscos.org is and will always remain impartial regarding public news items.
So, which sort of news items are you not impartial to?
And don't you feel bad AT ALL that your beloved RISC steals code? And after many requests to stop stealing, it responds by "removing the function references".
And perhaps even encourages you to "find publicly available code from the internet" (read: Steal GPL) to write more RISC os drivers?
If you code you've met them. They do it because they can, and because they suck.
I'm sure of the last part, because if I ever have to work with one, he gets stuck on
the simplest stuff. They have years experiences (supposedly) but the code you actually see them write is first-year stuff. And the bugs are first year stuff. They hoard code, lots of code, basically like it's pron.
They are the code thieves. And it's all too common.
They''ll steal from anything, linux or you, cut and paste and claim its theirs. And the worst part is that they suck, can't fix anything by themselves, the simplest bugs over, and over again.
Recently, I've begun to think there is some code thief black market, where someone sells
a system backup tape for a university to some sorry software contractor corp.
And they get all kinds of code, and all kinds of bugs, ands its wierd that this huge corp. multimillion dollar corp, was insisting the problem was on our end -when in fact, its a bug on their end that anyone could have made as a first-year in CS unix programmer: that I remember making (and fixing), and its so wierd that this was a stumper for them.
Which made me conjure up visions of someone stealing a server backup tape from campus, and meeting on some foggy bridge to make the 'drop'. A snapshot of all that student code, with all those student bugs, but not the student brains to fix them.
(*shakes head with wry grin*)
https://secure.castle.org.uk/cgi-bin/ctlor.pl
;)
their order page only requires that the cardholder's name and e-mail addresses be filled out. i can only imagine how many computers bill gates could afford.
You are not enforcing the GPL because it's not in play.
What you are enforcing is copyright. Period.
You can't violate a license you never agreed to.
Obviously I meant "use the code in your own product" or "in a manner that copyright doesn't allow". Not "use the product".
If I think you are using my code in your product, that's illegal. If you turn around and point out that you have a license to do so via the GPL, I am wrong. If, on the other hand, you ignored the GPL, you ARE using it illegally. Copyright law says so.. and I can seek restitution... that's pretty straightforward.
The GPL is not a use license; you aren't required to accept it in order to use or play with the code or the software; it is merely a way you can gain the legal right to re-distribute the code or derivitive works, something that standard copyright law would forbid.
Nice troll.
Just sue them the first time round. Don't give them any chance to take away the "signature".
Posting as AK, yes, I realise that.
> And don't you feel bad AT ALL that your beloved RISC steals code?
FFS, get your facts straight. RISC is a type of computer architecture. Computer architectures cannot steal code. Many different companies have licensed RISC OS and it is one particular flavour that is currently involved in this dispute. It has _not_ been proven that Castle Technology Ltd have done anything wrong. Show us otherwise.
It is not stealing to read Linux code and to learn how to write drivers, then go off and create your own, unless the code in question is patented, which it isn't. Copyright protects significant portions of code from being plagiarised.
It is not stealing to release a RISC OS driver under the GPL. A driver is a separate and distinct piece of code from the operating system.
Fool.
When you buy a SW package - you may or may not own it, but not the rights to the actual code (unless specified).
The typical EULA states that "You own the disc in which the Program is fixed, but the Author retains title to the Program itself."
17 USC 101, which defines terms used throughout copyright law, states:
So in other words, the disc purchased from the publisher is a copy of the program, and the person who buys a software package from the store is an "owner of a copy" unless the software is part of a rental or lease agreement. By stating that "You own the disc in which this Program is fixed", the copyright owner disclaims any rental agreement.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a copyright lawyer. Nothing you read on Slashdot is legal advice.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Fair use means they can publish an article which contain quotes from the code, not that they can use it in their products without permission.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
Thank you. Obviously, I can't speak for the people who are hypocrites on this site, so I'll simply agree that it is a bit annoying to see the imbalance when you are reading at a high mod filter. (I swear, if you can stand the chaff, you get some very reasonable comments at 0 and -1).
Civil disobediance is, I believe, perfectly warranted behavior when the rationalle is just. Agreed, defending copyright in the digital age is not as earth-shatteringly important in the grand scheme as issues like racial equality, but I would argue that even if the DeCSS code very existance is considered illegal, I would still wear the T-shirt proudly! Your statement was "two wrongs don't make a right": in the majority of civil disobediance cases, the "wrong" committed by the rights activist is intentional, to show the ludirous nature of the illegality of the act, to show that it was not "wrong" at all.
Finally, on the GPL. My point was not that copyright itself would be found to be faulty (which I actually don't believe would be that massive a disaster for everyone, but guaranteed would be for existing big business interests). My point was that the licence that modifies the default copyright restrictions may be struck down. Yes, this would screw up the legality of Linux distros in the short term, as everyone who wrote code would have to be contacted for permission. But more to the point, it would be open season on challenges to EULA licences as well.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
The key point is that you do something to _all_ the monkeys, not just the one that goes for the banana.
Usually a firehose - all primates dislike being hosed with cold water.
So later, when the new monkey comes in, sees breakfast and goes to climb up and get it the _other_ monkeys stop him.
Next time a monkey is replaced, he joins in.
Iterate...
After a while no monkey has been hosed down with a firehose, but all know that you don't go after those bananas.
I've usually seen the story used as an illustration of management rumours propagating, in fact as an explanation for why the NHS is so bad at getting IT into action - mention Wessex Regional Health AUthority and see managers develop prior engagements.
...BSD is dying!
Heh.
A troll a day keeps the karma away.
From the press release:
It looks like the HAL does use GPLed Linux code, and that they are, in fact, complying with the GPL by making the source available via postal delivery.RISC OS has a fairly unusual design, heavily derived (due to funding shortages, apparently), from the MOS of the BBC Micro. Part of that design was based on the concept of 'Sideways ROM' (and later Sideways RAM), a simple mechanism that allowed extension of the operating system.
RISC OS uses modules, the design being *heavily* based on the old BBC Sideways ROM design (extended with various new features, most notably support for the SWI system). Most modules can be removed temporarily with *RMKILL, and ROM modules can be removed permanently with *UNPLUG. Last I used RISC OS (version 3.6), it consisted of about 186 modules, one of which (UtilityModule) contained the kernel, and was just about the only one that couldn't be removed.
Now, the press release is not that clear, but it does imply that Castle have used the GPL code in a module seperate from the main kernel (which would be consistent with RISC OS design). It's quite likely, therefore, that it can be *RMKILLed to unload it or *UNPLUGged to stop it from loading. If so, this is *in no way* a GPL violation: the GPL provides a specific exception for external programs that merely link to operating system code. That's why cygwin can distribute binaries without owning the rights to Windows source code. There would also be a strong case to argue in that case that the code is a seperate work from the RISC OS kernel. Modules can also be soft-loaded from disk, which allows a considerable portion of RISC OS to be upgraded 'in the field': it's likely that this module could be saved out from ROM and loaded from disk as required (which implies that it is seperate. The GPL doesn't apply to everything that's stored on the same storage medium, whether that medium is magnetic disk or ROM)
(I could be more sure if I could actually get a look at the code in question, but Castle do seem to be doing the bare minimum required to comply with the GPL, if they are at all). It's likely that the code intercepts OS calls and replaces them with its own (if it interacts with the kernel at all).
An important question with the GPL is where its influence ends. In order that GNU software could be run on proprietary operating systems such as those it was originally written on, it has an exemption to allow a GPL binary to contain operating system code (with a fairly broad definition of what constitutes operating system code) without that code itself being covered by the GPL.
A few points:
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
A certain monk had a habit of pestering the Grand Tortue (the only one who
had ever reached the Enlightenment 'Yond Enlightenment), by asking whether
various objects had Buddha-nature or not. To such a question Tortue
invariably sat silent. The monk had already asked about a bean, a lake,
and a moonlit night. One day he brought to Tortue a piece of string, and
asked the same question. In reply, the Grand Tortue grasped the loop
between his feet and, with a few simple manipulations, created a complex
string which he proferred wordlessly to the monk. At that moment, the monk
was enlightened.
From then on, the monk did not bother Tortue. Instead, he made string after
string by Tortue's method; and he passed the method on to his own disciples,
who passed it on to theirs.
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...