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."
...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)
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
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?
-- People who think they know it all, really annoy those of us who do!
there are three perfectly good sets of BSD code to copy from with zero repercussions that do the exact same thing.
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.
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.
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