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."

8 of 745 comments (clear)

  1. Test for the GPL by Picass0 · · Score: 4, Funny


    Let's see if the goat has teeth!

  2. They've recieved one warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  3. Yeah and they even intend to make YOU buy it by HanzoSan · · Score: 3, Funny


    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
  4. KING writes about CASTLE? by monadicIO · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is this for real?

    --

    The law of excluded middle : Either I'm foo or I'm foobar

  5. Re:Pirates! by wcmcgr · · Score: 4, Funny

    isn't it a little ironic a messanger titled "IntegrityMessenger" ripping off someone elses code?

  6. What's really stupid... by Wntrmute · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...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. :-)

  7. Get a life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    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).

  8. reminds me of a story... by newsdee · · Score: 3, Funny

    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