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."
Being a relatively non-hardcore geek, I wonder how it is possible to actually prove that GPL'd code was used?
Once compiled and linked and what-know-I, the source would be rather obscure, and after all, other products seem to do the same tasks, yet not using GPL code..
Please enlighten me!
- rnger
Here is a question... Most OSS, and this kernel, specifically, is created by the contibutions of many individuals. So, who in the world can file a lawsuit over matters like this?
Would it be the many individuals? (They're probably not that rich) Would it be some benefactor, like Mitch Kapor/FSF? (He's rich, but has to pick his battles) Or perhaps a money hungry lawyer working for a fat contingency... Who files the lawsuit and pays the fees?
Have cases like this gone to court in the past?
I have a question, perhaps it does not pertain to this situation... but where do you draw the line about code being stolen?
For example, if lets say I stole a simple 3 line chunk of code that converts a date from one format to another, and threw it in my multi-thousand line project (which is all original except for those 3 lines), would it really be breaking the GPL? I understand that it of course technically is.. but at what point would the 'borrowing' of code be of such basic elements that really, there is no other way to solve a particular problem?
Sure my above example sucks (it's friday afternoon, brains already gone)... 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..."...???
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Actually, what's much more important than any money involved is that a case like this could provide a precedent that would prove that the GPL is legally enforceable - something that has not occurred to date, AFAIK. For this reason it might be a good thing if Castle is (a) guilty and (b) obstinate about it and Linus sues. (I just love the thought of Microsoft quivering.) It would have to be appealed a level or two for the precedent to be strong and widely binding.
IIRC, RMS has actually been anticipating for a serious GPL breach to rear its head, so it can provide an actual legal acid test of the GPL. I don't believe any organization/company has ever gone to court over GPL violations. Winning any courtroom legal victory would be a huge boon to for the GPL, as it would demonstrate it's legal resiliance. IANAL, of course.
make world, not war
Acorn Computers is the daddy of all UK computing. While the rest of the geeky kids were using Ti's the UK kids were hacking away on BBC Micros.
:
:
I still have mine here.
The ARM processor is one of the best CPUs in existence.
how ironic that on on this page
http://www.castle.uk.co/castle/rpcalt.htm
the fish in the picture is clearly too big for the inadequate bowl.
They might find that their GPL rip-off is equally dead in the water.
It's a sad day all round. Time to flush them down the toilet.
whoring
if anyone lives nearby maybe they could pop in on Monday and get the sourcecode
Castle Technology Ltd
Ore Trading Estate
Woodbridge Road
Framlingham
Suffolk
IP13 9LL UK
Sales Telephone Line: 01728 723 200
Lines Open: Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00
Sales Fax Line: 01728 727 427
Lines Open: 24hrs every day
Support Line: 01728 727 424
Lines Open: Monday-Friday 9:00-12:00
Email: sales@castle.uk.co
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Actually, I'd prefer that they be forced to open source their code instead. Have you looked into RiscOS? It fits into something like a 4meg (yes four megabyte) rom, boots in two seconds, and screams on any old piece of junk processor. I can only imagine how it would run on my AthlonXP. A tad faster than Mandrake no doubt.
I believe the FSF's stance on this is, the later that the first GPL case goes to court, the better. The thinking is that there is the potential of the judges (and the media, and the public in general) becoming more tech savvy as time goes on; as well as the hope that traditional copyright laws will be adapted to software issues more fully by then.
sic transit gloria mundi
I would add that another reason for many developers is the knowledge that the code they contribute will remain covered under the GPL and not go towards lining the pockets of a closed-source company. Otherwise they'd use the BSD license, right?
So a GPL copyright violation also robs Linux of a portion of its' users goodwill to develop. Wonder if that would persuade in court...
Wah!
Well IANAL but I expect each one of the copyright holders for the code could individually seek damages for the infringement. Alternatively they could probably all work together on a single suit.
2 .html 3 .html
That is why the poster to lkml mentioned the sections since all the copyright holders of those sections are affected.
As to comments that have or are going to be made regarding the GPL getting its day in court, the reason that this has not happened already is not because the GPL is weak, but because it is strong.
Much murmuring...to the supposed effect that the absence of judicial enforcement, in US or other courts, somehow demonstrates that there is something wrong with the GPL, that its unusual policy goal is implemented in a technically indefensible way, or that the Free Software Foundation, which authors the license, is afraid of testing it in court. Precisely the reverse is true. We do not find ourselves taking the GPL to court because no one has yet been willing to risk contesting it with us there.
Eben Moglen
In fact he has written two papers on the specific issue of GPL enforcement.
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-1
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-1
My expectation is that this company will buckle as soon as their lawyers get a look at the GPL in detail and what their developers/management did. The fact that the company actually took steps to hide their infringement is also going to look very bad in court. They are only making it worse for themselves. They should do themselves a favour and work out an agreement with the kernel developers before they really get burned.
Like others have said.. violations of the GPL have to be fought. If you fail to enforce the license then it soon becomes meaningless and you loose the ability to enforce it later.
Having an enforceable GPL is important. Many of the programmers who choose to use the GPL license or work on GPL licensed code would be lost if GPL turned out to be un-enforceable.
Personally I have no interest in spending a few hundred hours working with a group of programmers writing code only to see a company come around, grab it up, change a few things and perhaps change the output to a proprietary format. Then they start selling it and it becomes very popular but they keep the code to themselves.
Wouldn't that be great? Now not only are they making money off our original effort, but we can't even take advantage of the new product without paying. Heck, we can't even make our original program use their file format without risking breaking the law (DMCA.)
So even though we did nearly all the work we all would have to pay someone else in order to be compatible with the version that "everybody else" was using.
With GPL (if it is enforceable,) the company would have to release their changes back as GPL as well. Now we don't have to worry about suddenly needing to pay for what we worked on and gave to the world as free.
As far as wasting time fighting instead of coding goes... that is exactly why a lot of GPL programmers have assigned copyright of their software to third parties like the FSF.
Huh? That question doesn't make sense. Violating standard copyright law is the entire legal mechanism the GPL operates by. Duplicating the code is illegal, but the copyright holder has agreed to give copying permission to anyone who obeys the GPL.
Like the GPL says:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.
A theoretical "test" of the GPL might find that the license text is all correct and legal. Or, maybe a court would declare the license invalid. This could mean that every user of Linux and other GPL software is in violation of copyright (until the authors work up another way to give out permission). That would be a major news story, and is why people get excited when the possibility of a "test" arises.
RISC OS is actually owned by Pace Microtechnologies Plc. They acquired it from Acorn Computers Plc when Acorn was broken up. RISC OS is developed by RISC OS Ltd who licence it from Pace and develop it for the desktop machines. Castle Technologies obtained the rights to manufacture and distribute Acorn's Risc PC in the break up but have since started developing their own products.
From the details it's not clear whether Castle are the culprits or RISC OS Ltd. It is unlikely to be Pace as they are not interested in the desktop products. Knowing some of the parties concern I know where my suspicions lie but I'm not saying.