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."
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
...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)
The FSF vigorously defends its copyright on code it owns; it does not own Linux. It will be up to Linus and gang to defend their own copyright, though the FSF might offer to assist.
And no, RMS is not a lawyer. The FSF's lawyer and chief enforcer is Eben Moglen.
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..."...???
That is a pretty good question.. If the GPL was enforced as some corporate IP agreements are - successfully - ever working on GPL'd code would forbid you to do even mildly related non-GPL work, at least for a year or so..
I mean.. I you work in any sort of development or engineering, your company owns any related thought you might have off the job, and you'll get in trouble working for a competitor within a period of time after leaving that job.
- Ranger
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.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The two camps are ideologically different. That doesn't make one more right then the other. Misusing the GPL like this is akin to me taking your BSD project and forcing you to GPL it. I don't think you'd be happy.
Quack, quack.
there are three perfectly good sets of BSD code to copy from with zero repercussions that do the exact same thing.
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!
But what about their ISP? Is that fair to them?
Are you sure that it makes the GPL irrelevant? You may not be violating copyright law by using the code, but you are violating the terms of your license. As such, you are bad, and can be reasonably sued, and compelled to do what the judge tellys you to do if you lose.
Violating the terms of the licence is only illegal if it results in copyright infringement. Fair use is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. One factor (of four) in determining whether fair use applies is the quantity of work copied. For three lines of code, that would be small.
The most important factor, however, is commerical impact. If those three lines add a feature that fills a marketing gap, then the result of the copying is unfair competition and thus improperly obtained revenue.
Interesting point but only hypothetical and not relevant in this case. The very nature of the BSD license is that if you issue your code under it, you more or less grant anyone else the right to do whatever the hell they want with it (as long as they keep your name on it).
On the other hand, If you choose GPL, you are aiming to restrict people's rights, so you need to be ready to be a policeman if people try and operate outside those restrictions.
To stretch a historical point, the BSD license is somewhat like Gandhi's passive resistance and refusal to fight, a strategy that eventually overturned the aggressor (ie Britain) more effectively than fighting ever could have done.
[x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful
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
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.
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.
Oh, I dunno - some of us really like those sort of uptime numbers ...
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.
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.
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.
You run a hardware store, and I steal some nails from you. I use them to build a house. Do you have the right to take the whole house?
If I take a subroutine or two illegally from a GPL project, do the original authors have the right to my entire derivative program?
I believe the answer is "no" in both cases...