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."

Comments

Sue them

[HanzoSan]

They should know better than to do this, they deserve to get sued and the money should go back to kernel development.

Re:Sue them

[mindstrm]

I'm not sure which part everyone thinks needs to be enforced. If it's "release your code", it's being looked at backwards.

One thing copyright is clear on: You need permission to use other's copyrighted works.

If you are taking someone's code, which is available under the GPL, and using it in your own product... the only way you have legal grounds to use it is if you either a) abide by the GPL, or b) get permission from the author.

If the author goes and says "They are using my code illegally", the company would have to prove they have a license to do so. It's not about the enforceability of the gpl.

Some may argue...

[bill_mcgonigle]

...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.

Re:Hmm...

[JoeBuck]

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.

Information wants to be free

[Kiwi]

Information wants to be free! Let Castle Technology do what they want to with the kernel code. The GPL, after all, is juat another form of copyright. Copyrights only exist to create artifical monopolys that do not exist!

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

Re:Information wants to be free

[RoyBoy]

Ok, to begin with you've managed somehow to completely misunderstand that the spirit of the GPL is to produce a COPYLEFT - in other words, it exists as a product of ridiculous copyright laws in a attempt to circumvent them through their own application (that's why MS likes to call it viral).

In any event, the comparison is obviously flawed because in the case of GPL code theft, you're talking about someone knowingly violating the license under which they acquired a product in order to PROFIT from a derivative product.

Most 14-year olds who pirate MP3s and DVDs are interested in FAIR USE of the products in question, or at worse in depriving the copyright owners of proceeds that they could have directly collected. I have not hear of any real cases where gangs of 14-years old pirates have set-up conterfeit CD and DVD rings to sell the products on FOR PROFIT. If you really doubt this, just ask the P2P companies when their huge profits fro residuals are gonna start rolling in.

Amazing how hard it is to see right from left, huh?

Re:Information wants to be free

[oasisbob]

The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.

No, the secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it isn't a single consciousness with only one viewpoint. It has 450,000+ users, many of whom think differently than one another. If you get caught up in believing that everyone here thinks the same thoughts and believes the same things, you're missing the point.

Sure, there are tons of copycat thinkers here; however, even they are feeding from different schools of thought.

For example: I have no problem with the concept of copyright. It has a valid purpose. I have problems with infinite congressional extensions of copyright: they destroy this purpose. I have problems with technology being used in combination with law to restrict my rights on my own hardware to inforce copyright and restrict fair use.

The GPL gives *more* rights than you would normally have as far as software goes. I'm not an expert on the GPL, you won't see me arguing the finer points of OS licenses, however I do understand the basics and have come to my own opinion based on my understanding.

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.

Give it a couple of days

[I Am The Owl]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

why is anyone that stupid

[Splork]

there are three perfectly good sets of BSD code to copy from with zero repercussions that do the exact same thing.

Re:Hold on.

[bwt]

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.

It's not though

[renard]

Every time we see one of these GPL-violation cases, people start talking about "testing the GPL".

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

Re:EULA vs GPL

[orthogonal]

But isn't the GPL more or less the same thing [as an End User License Agreement]? It's trying to control what you do with something after it is in your possession?

I don't think so. After all, companies with EULAs impose whatever conditions they impose, and the conditiuon that you can't modify (or generally even see) their code.

All the GPL says you can't do is to use the code in your own work without also making your own work available under the GPL. Sure, it's a restriction, but it's a restriction on coders who would use GPL'd code.

A EULA is a restriction on all users, not just coders who want to create derivative works.

The GPL does not restrict my use of the software it licenses -- I can use it as I see fit--, nor does it restrict me to a relationship with the author for the term of use (e.g., giving the author the right, as in the latest Microsoft EULAs, to modify software on my system without even so much as prior notification).

Re:EULA vs GPL

[ctid]

The SW isn't "in your possession" in a typical commercial EULA. What you get is a "licence" to use the software, under certain conditions. You don't own the SW after you buy it.

In a sense, the GPL is the same, as you don't "own" the SW either (the copyright remains with the author(s)); the difference is what you're allowed to do with it. A commercial EULA usually adds a lot of restrictions to standard copyright arrangements. The GPL takes away restrictions; the simplest thing it does is to allow you to copy the SW without restriction. It also guarantees you access to the sourcecode if you've only got the binary. In exchange for these extra rights, you agree to some duties, namely to distribute the source code to whoever you distribute the binary to.