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

How to prove anything?

[dk.r*nger]

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

Re:How to prove anything?

[Ark42]

As I understand it, there were function signatures (linking information) indendical to all the functions from certain pieces of Linux kernel code. After their first request for source under GPL, they removed that information but the rest of the binary code remained unchanged. I would consider that pretty strong proof that they are knowingly stealing from the Linux kernel.

Re:How to prove anything?

[boots@work]

Here's a step-by-step walkthrough proving that a scumbag called Stephen Kapp wripped off some GPL'd code that I wrote.

You can see that the functionality is very similar, and that by using some simple tools to compare the binaries we can see they're the same on the inside. What we see here is mostly the names of functions which carry through from the source to the binary, to support debugging, run-time-linking, and similar things. The LKML post said that these strings were also found to be the same, and then Castle removed them, which is clearly evidence that they knew they'd been caught stealing.

Basically we're looking for patterns and similarities. Although somebody could (legally) write a program that had the same user interface, it's astronomically unlikely that they'd call their functions the same thing and have the exact same design.

Stephen Kapp crawled back under his rock once this was published. I expect Castle will do something similar: just continue to deny that it ever happened, but remove the code.

Similar things have happened to other major open-source projects. It hasn't been to court yet because, as far I know, every case has either been an honest misunderstanding, or an intentional violation but the perpetrator skulked away when challenged. I suppose in both cases it's not worth the FSF's time&money to take it further, but the drawback is that there's no clear example to others.

I really hope the FSF does help the copyright owners bring a lawsuit, it's time for a demonstration and I'd certainly throw in a hundred bucks to help fund it.

This isn't just a free software problem though: people who publish proprietary reusable code (development libraries, ...) have lots of trouble preventing copyright infringement. I don't think I've ever seen a Windows developer's machine that didn't have pirated, or at least unregistered-shareware, software.

Hold on.

[Quasar1999]

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..."...???

Re:Sue them

[JamPonyXpress]

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.

Re:Sue them

[wass]

RMS and other folks at GNU typically respond to issues such as these. That is, when people/companies have not followed the licencsing of GPL'd software. I believe the offending party has usually changed their policies and was never actually taken to court.

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.

Re:Sue them

[glwtta]

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.