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."
It depends on who holds copyright to the associated pieces of code. Best bet is that it's been assigned to the EFF, but it could also be Linus and/or some of the people who wrote the bulk of the code.
It'll actually be rather interesting (in ~200 years) when it comes time to determine when the code's copyright expires. Just who's lifetime does each piece of code expire in relation to?
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
No, it means that they are commiting willful copyright infringement for commercial gain. The penalties for that are severe and include the larger of statutory and actual damages. The statutory damages can be up to $100K, iirc. Actuals include any revenue which results from the infringement.
I hope somebody tears them a new sphincter, if this is true.
Copyright law allows for something called "statutory damages", which means that if someone infringes on your (registered) copyright you can collect a fixed amount without having to document monetary loss.
"Nobody lost anything", except control over their creations.
Copyright grants a partial legal monopoly on distribution of the copyrighted work. The owner can make people pay for it (the usual approach), or make them accept the GPL, or even prevent circulation of the work altogether (the way Sinatra pulled the movie "Suddenly" off the market after the Kennedy assassination).
During the discovery phase of the trial, the defendent would have to produce the complete source code and build instructions for their product. The plaintiff would have an expert follow the build instructions and verify that they result in the exact exectuable that the defendent ships. Then the expert would examine the source code for "substantial similarity" to the copyrightable elements of the linux kernel code. A judge would hear this testimony and rebuttals and examine the evidence it was based on.
Legal arguments on affirmative defences of fair use and licence compliance could be made. The judge would rule on infringement, then if the plaintiff prevails, he would rule on damages. Factors influencing damages would be willfulness of the infringement and the presense or absense of commercial gain as a result of the infringement.
Nope. Consider the physical-property equivalent: I steal something from you. Do you have the right to come steal it back? No. Similarly, if they "steal" GPL'd code, we don't have a right to steal it back; the legally correct course of action is to file suit, get an injunction against distribution of the stolen code, and recoup losses from the infringer.
You are confusing the conditions for complying with the licence with the penalties for infringing the copyright.
The judge *could* order compliance with the licence as part of the penalty phase, but it is much more likely that he would award monitary damages.
The interesting thing is that each patch to the linux kernel could be viewed as separately copyrighted by whoever the author of that particular patch is. The statutory damages can reach $100K per violation if the judge wants it to.
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).
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.
I think you should read that GPL again. It does not give someone the right to distribute the code (or parts of the code) in binary form, but then requires whomever distributes it to also offer the sources as well - and give credit to the original authors. They are also prohibited from not extending these same distribution rights and obligations to who get their software. So that company can use parts from the kernel, but they have to give out the sources of their software and give credit where it's due - as well as the permission to redistribute the software under the GPL. If I understand correctly, they have failed to do this.
In other words, yes, you were wrong, and have now been corrected. GPL does not mean Public Domain (even though the two share some similarities). It seems you're going to keep waiting a looong time for whatever gripe you have with the GPL to materialize.
Reminder: find a new sig