Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Castle Technology UK Ripping off Kernel Code?

Posted by chrisd on from the bad-company-no-cookie-for-you dept.

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."

7 of 745 comments (clear)

  1. How dare they... by velcrokitty · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    take something that they didn't pay for...

    Sheesh...

    --
    I stick to walls...
  2. So whos gonna sue them first? linus? N/T... by visionsofmcskill · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    lol...

    --
    --Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
  3. Evidence??? by workindev · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    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).

  4. I hate to start a licensing flamewar... by meme_police · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    ...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.

    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

  5. Re:How to prove anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    Being a relatively non-hardcore geek, I wonder how it is possible to actually prove that GPL'd code was used?

    Your statement displays you don't know even the basics of how compilers, linking, name mangling, code generation and stuff like this works. This disqualifies you from speculation. Source code for specific functions do in general create the same sequence of machine code instructions, using the same or similar compiler - hence there is a "signature" available. This is an area I know very well, and have more than once laughed at the inadept developers large commercial companies apparently have used. :->

    Yes, you'd have to reverse-engineer the machine code, something that is allowed in most civilised countries, to make this obvious. Still, for anyone technically adept [in this area] it is obvious.

    Had you also bothered to read the post, you had realised the allegedly infringing company had been notified before, and their only response apparently was to remove the "function signatures". If this was done by just removing an import library or by removing debug info isn't told by the poster, but rest assured he knows what he's talking about and have a pretty good case to display "this binary is generated by this GPL'd source code".

  6. Re:Does that mean... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    No. That's not how it works.

    Actually that's exactly how it works. For better or for worse.

    --

    I write in my journal
  7. Re:It's not though by renard · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    AC, AC, what are you thinking? Please brush up a little on your background prior to your next senseless post, lest you be mistaken for a troll.

    If Castle does not accept the terms of the GPL, or the GPL is declared to be invalid, then standard copyright law applies and they are infringing. They cannot and will not be allowed, by any Court, to "cherry pick" from among the various clauses of the GPL those that they choose to accept, and those that they choose to decline.

    -renard