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."
Let's see if the goat has teeth!
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
if you make any code opensource, you should be prepared for other's to copy it.
Now let us see what GPL does.....
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
Corperate Piracy is ok, its only when people share without profiting that its Piracy.
This is why Linux is bad but Shared source is ok.
Just call Michael Robertson for more info.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Pretty popular thing to do. IntegrityMessenger.com stole Psi's code (psi.sourceforge.net) not too long ago. All you have to do is run 'strings' on the binary and you can still see word Psi in there.
And apparantly it just resulted in them trying to better hide the incriminating code in later versions of the product.
Okay, then. Let's get everybody forming into single-file lines; you'll receive your pitchforks on the left, torches on the right. Please, no shoving, there will be plenty for everyone.
And post a link to it? That'd be interesting. (And that way the guy wouldn't end up with 10000000 of /.'ers all asking him for it).
They want to sell you stuff they stole, they should be raided by the RIAA!!! Get Em Hilary Rosen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Is this for real?
The law of excluded middle : Either I'm foo or I'm foobar
Does that mean that we can take their binaries and distribute them for free? After all, if they used GPL code, then their code is also under the GPL.
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
This is the kind of stuff that really gets under my skin. One of the most important aspects of the kernel code is that it is Free. If it wasn't free, it wouldn't be what it is and no one would want to use it at all. Greedy bastards. Forget suing them, I'll fight them myself.
--Mark.
I can make the same argument about ANY kind of copyright . . .
Sure, say the GPL is not defendable, but then ALL copyrights are not defendable.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Would Linus sue as himself, or would the FSF or the EFF take the case? If so, would it have to be on his behalf? IANAL, AY?
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.
isn't it a little ironic a messanger titled "IntegrityMessenger" ripping off someone elses code?
Even more ironic is that they are a "Christian Messenging Service". What happened to thou shall not steal...
Who can bring suit? Who gets any awarded money? Stallman? The FSF? Anybody who touched the code?
I never quite understood how the GPL was supposed to operate when push came to shove. I guess I'm going to find out.
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
We should be just as able to sue them for profitting off of something that is copyrighted in order to be free.
Ask them for the code. Sue them for the value of said code. They have stolen it from all of us.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Copyright law allows for something called "statutory damages", which means that if someone infringes on your (registered) copyright you can collect a fixed amount without having to document monetary loss.
"Nobody lost anything", except control over their creations.
Copyright grants a partial legal monopoly on distribution of the copyrighted work. The owner can make people pay for it (the usual approach), or make them accept the GPL, or even prevent circulation of the work altogether (the way Sinatra pulled the movie "Suddenly" off the market after the Kennedy assassination).
See subject.
Tis the folks at FSF that challenge GPL violations. Of course not folks at GNU, since GNU ain't no place or organization.
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
Hah, I remember that. Before someone complained to them, they had even copied the text from Jabber.org's website word for word, and called the messenger it their own proprietary messaging protocol (patent pending!), when all it was just a stolen jabber client and the default jabber server. What a bunch of losers.
Should anything actually happen. Which I whole-heartily agree that something should happen. Maybe even the bigger distributions and users could actually back up Linus and other writers (i.e. redhat, mandrake, debian, IBM, sgi etc). After all they have a vested interest in the continuing development of code to support marketed products, which can only decline if people feel ripped off and there enthusiasm declines. And then such companies i) have loss of profits, ii) have to put money back into the funding they have tryed to save on by using linux. The main reasoning here, is without decent backing you lose, just because you can't fund any action.
--+> Life, is there any?
platform reminds me of the LART project. Anyone else more knowledgable about this care to comment?
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
which is worse... stealing non-free code, or selling free code?
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
hahah.. That is even better.. I didn't notice that.. wonder if god made them do it?
...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.
I don't get it.
VC on your front porch, all radioactively tagged, with a sign that says,"Please help yourself to some capital, but if you make any money put something back in."
Oh, and this is magical VC, so as soon as you take something out it's still got the same amount in the box. Nifty, huh?
So, there's no real harm in taking out. No one "loses" anything. But if you take out, make money, and don't put back in you become what is technically known as a "shit head."
And even the law has been known to formally uphold what it is generally refered to as the "social contract."
Now the only question is what are armed South Vietnamese dissidents are doing on the front porch in the first place.
KFG
...Is that they could have borrowed code from a BSD instead, and no one would care, as the license specifically permits it.
:-)
If these allegations are true, not only are they violating the GPL, they're morons to boot.
Would he insist on calling it a GUN/Linux kernel?
All my previous sigs now look like this one, I wish they were permanetly recorded when used.
Of course its good! Its British! On a more serious note, RISCOS is actually pretty good. Its sitting on the inside of a lot of Pace STBs, as Acorn figured out how to do decent onscreen graphics on low-end TVs. The software wound up in Pace boxes as a result. Plus, how many 32-bit, multitasking graphical, multimedia OSes run out of ROM these days?
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.
According to ESR's Jargon File, a LART (Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool) is a large, blunt object used to smack some sense into people who do offensive (or offensively stupid) things. Could be just the thing here...
Totally.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
That's a truly revolutionally design for an operating system. Most people base their operating systems on silly things like memory management, process scheduling, and hardware drivers. Basing your operating system on windows and and mice is so revolutionary it's stupid!
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Or make them overheat when Yanks use them.
Or load a browser everytime you hit the reboot key sequence, but reboot everytime you use the "h" key.
But hey, at least they've still got warm beer.
KFG
I don't know what is more disturbing: Somebody disgracing the sacred GPL for profit (GASP!), or the fact that somebody else actually examined a binary ROM looking for the binary signatures of Linux kernel functions.
One of the two needs to get a life (I'll leave it up to you to decide who).
I don't know what is more disturbing: a hacker mentioned on slashdot who needs to get a life, or somebody posting to slashdot on a Friday evening saying the hacker needs to get a life.
One of the two needs to get a life (I'll leave it up to you to decide who).
The point is that the Linux kernel is under the GPL, not the BSD license. Thus, you cannot copy from the kernel code without releasing your code under the GPL as well. Castle, however, is selling a product and not releasing the code...major violations of the GPL.
This could be a major legal test for the GPL, since it never has actually been reviewed in litigation.
ph34r teh p0w3r 0f th3 c0w
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
No, if the binary is distributed for a fee, then the source must be available, even if it's for a nominal fee. Charging you for the media and shipping is perfectly acceptable. However, charging you $40 for the binaries and $200 for the source is NOT acceptable, as the source fee is clearly not reasonable, compared to the charge for the binaries.
Charging for GPL code is not forbidden. You only need to provide the source.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well the first thing to say is that if you're just programming for yourself and not for distribution to others, then you can cut & paste GPL'd code to your heart's content, develop your own kernel branch with your own proprietary extensions, whatever you like. It's only when you try to distribute your program that you're going to run up against the "share and share alike" provisions of the GPL.
Programming for distribution, you will find yourself in one of the big legal gray areas (County of IP; City of Copyright Law). Consider music sampling - where even taking one note can get you busted - or the "fair use" and "parody" exceptions to copyright law - where you can get away with snippets of the original but will get spanked if you take "too much".
How much is too much for programming? Almost certainly any given line is not going to get you in trouble - and how is anyone going to know you cut & pasted it in, anyway? - but by the time you're copying nonobvious functions wholesale - or even obvious functions byte for byte - you should think again.
If King's claims are accurate then this case would be in the "way egregious" category.
-renard
They even steal the food from the mouths of the little babies of kde workers!
Liberty.
I don't remember who it was (probably somebody here does), but there was once this company suing another for stealing their source.
:-)
Of course the defendants blatantly denied everything and asked for proof. So in front of the judge and the rest of the audience, one of the programmers nonchalantly typed a sequence of keys on the defendant's software and... a huge easter egg showing the name of the original programmers appeared on the screen.
Too bad they changed the function signatures, such a definite victory may not be obtainable in court this time. But I sure hope a good precedent comes out of this.
The ENIAC Demo Competition
It looks to me like Castle Technologies just happens to sell machines which have RISC OS on them. One of many companies in the UK.
Wouldn't the company in violation be RISCOS Ltd?
It's irrelevant that the people end up buying the albums they like anyhow. And it's also irrelevant whether or not the MP3's are downloaded for profit.
Technically swapping MP3's that you don't own the copyright to, is a violation of the copyright law. By design, most laws are set up in a very black and white manner. Intent is or at least should be totally irrelevant generally. This is allowed, that isn't is cut and dried, once you start letting the intent of actions be subject to interpretation, the law is basically meaningless.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
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.
People who license their code under the BSD License don't waste time and energy investigating these types of issues. Instead, they keep coding.
... which had been sort of noisy, hadn't it ?
This reminds me of the story of the "borrowing" of the IP Stack by Microsoft
theefer
there are three perfectly good sets of BSD code to copy from with zero repercussions that do the exact same thing.
I fail to see how fighting these battles is at all productive.
It not necessarily how productive fighting these battles is, but how damaging ignoring them can be. If every case such as this that comes up in the future gets ignored, the GPL pretty much loses all credibility. If that happens, coders may lose motivation to code, knowing that some company is just going to steal it and sell it for their own gain. Open source would wouldn't be the great ideal that it is now.
Also, since the GPL has yet to be tested this would be a monumental case that would help prevent this from happening in the future.
I cannot possibly defend this kind of action - even those of you trying to play devil's advocate to some sort of "slashdot hypocripsy" theory. This is stealing and they are stealing from the public. If they want this code so badly then why can't they abide by the terms that it comes with. I'm all for making a test case of the GPL go through the motions. Prove that the GPL can stand on its own - make these corporations who are constantly hounding computer users that they are loosing their intellectual property to any slight amount of internet "fair use" see what its like to be on the other side of the fence. There geediness is unbounded and they will never be looking out for the best interest of our software so why should we be allowing them to compete with us. I mean - when they put in their own website that their competing against linux - using Linux code is like "The Generic Cola Beverage Company" ripping off Coke in the middle of the night of their formula and then opening up business the next day with an identical product - it bet Coke wouldn't stand for it and neither should we. The only way that we have for a free software utopia is to stand up for ourselves now!
If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
I believe I read somewhere that the general convention is twenty lines of code. Take that much, and you've crossed the line. YMMV, of course.
Dunno, but I'm wondering if the BSA will be kicking their doors in any time soon.
DDOS'ed by the /. effect. Too bad it doesnt seem to have worked.. :)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I am replying to a flamebait, but...
"Stealing" copyrighted materials is not the
issue.... Stealing GPL'ed stuff AND selling it AND NOT allowing free redistribution is...
S
If that were Microsoft that released an operating system that used significant chunks of the Linux kernel, there would already be a paypal donation site already set up to fund the legal battle to get them to comply with the GPL.
Copyright violations by individuals at home for private use are quite debatable...a company violating a copyright in order to make a profit is not debatable in the least...it is PRECISELY in the spirit of copyright and why it was invented in the first place.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
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?
I'm wondering who's responsible for suing for GPL infringements... the copyright holders are numerous and it's doubtful they'd all have enough money to fight that kind of legal battle with any kind of big software company. It seems so odd to imagine the EFF suing for a copyright infringement. FSF maybe?
My Blog
yeah, I agree completely.
My friend doesn't waste time and energy investigating people who steal his money. Instead, he just earns more money.
Go ahead and mod me down as flamebait for my heretical thoughts, but I fail to see how catching robbers is at all productive.
----
I bit.
Yeah, of course there are people who license code under the BSD, and that's their choice. It's a basic philosophical diference between the BSD and GPL. But the existence of the BSD shouldn't limit the ability of copyright holders (GPL licensors included) to uphold their rights.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
They may hang by that statement in court, since it shows intent to compete with Linux. You generally don't have a strong argument for fair use when you lift code from your competitors. Moreover, it makes it much more likely that the infringement was "willful", in which case we are talking big bucks in damages.
Hmm, you mean they figured out how to make it leak?
If we know for sure that the code is GPL'ed and they are stealing the source code to build their components, if we inform the customer that the component they are using is illegally created, the company would balk at using them. Why? Because now that company knows that the OS is illegal, the company might be held liable for knowingly using the illegal component. Anyone here a true lawyer to verify if this mechanism would work?
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
Double standards...gotta love it.
It's probably more like somebody happened to be looking for the ROM for some other purpose, noticed a bunch of symbols that looked familiar, and started poking around the Linux kernel to compare. (They may have even seen "Linux" or similar strings.) In this case, the affected code is PCI setup code, so maybe the person who noticed was debugging some problem on their particular system that uses this product, or were developing a PCI driver.
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
now look where linux is.
There are lies and then there are damned lies, and then there are statistics.
You could just as well say "Look at apache (BSD)...and then look at the GPL web servers (OK, none come to mind, but thats my point)."
[x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful
Was the inherent bias of the average slashdot audience.
In general the audience here believes that copyrights are evil, and horrible. And that it's absolutely unconscionable for anyone to restrict what happens to their creations, once they are released to the public.
Unless those creations are GPL. In that case the license should be completely inviolate, and absolute.
You can't have your cake, and eat it too guys. The same laws that state that the GPL is valid, and that you can control what is done with your source code, are the same laws that allow a commercial concern to limit what you can do with their creation.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
They could have adapted code from netBSD's PCI and IO subsystem and integrated it in their binary only roms in total legality.
There are 2 kinds of people in this world: Those who write in decimal and those who don't
No.. the GPL ONLY gets it's strength from copyright law. IF copyright law allows it, the GPL can be IGNORED.
The GPL is the set of terms under which you can do things OTHER than what you are allowed to do under standard copyright.
It is not a use license, you don't agree to it in order to use said software; it is a license that grants you extra rights beyond what copyright does should you CHOOSE to use it (abide by it's terms).
Ever worked on a British car?
Jason
"FORMAT C:" - Kills bugs dead!
GPL says that any redistribution of a GPL'd work or derivative must include an offer of source. It doesn't say you need to make binaries available or installable ISOs available.
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
Of course, if anyone is still using the current kernel in 200 years, that's sad. But then that kind of thinking led to the Y2K industry.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
When large numbers of people are commiting heinous crimes against media companies (Napster, Kazaa, MP'3 swapping in general, Software Piracy, etc) then those people are no longer worthy of wide open "fair use" rights. They have proven that they are children who are incapable of accepting responsibility for their actions, and are incapable of following the generous rules that were previously deeped sufficient, so sterner measures are in order.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
No. Because nowhere did they agree to a license.
The GPL is a set of terms you can choose to accept that grants you permission to do certain things above and beyond what standard copyright allows. If you don't abide by the GPL, you have no license, and only standard copyright applies, and using the code is a violation of standard copyright.
Please understand the distinction; it's important.
They are in violation of copyright by using code without permission; no judge would force them to release code.. ALTHOUGH they may suggest it as a possible remedy.
As long as you can download the source code or get it on a floppy/CD/whatever, it's all good.
Program Intellivision!
The law doesn't say anywhere that you're allowed to acquire copyrighted material without paying for it, as long as it's not for commercial purposes.
The law says that it's a violation of copyright law to participate (as sender or recipient) in copying the property of another entity.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
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.
I wouldn't have thought Pace STBs, whether satellite or cable, were a good advert for anything. Horrible, badly designed GUI running on underpowered hardware. Probably nothing bad about the underlying OS but how can you tell ?
My friend doesn't waste time and energy investigating people who steal his money. Instead, he just earns more money. ...
I guess you have not understood what GNU and GPL is all about
theefer
As if Linux were a paperclip-and-rubberband based operating system...
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
You can't stand on the principle that some licensing restrictions on things that people want is ok to steal, but the stuff with other licensing restrictions isn't ok to steal.
Either give it all away for free, or stand by all the licenses, whether you like them or not. You can't have it both ways and stand on any moral high-ground when you don't agree with something that happens like this.
Like I said in a previous post. I hope this company goes down for it. It's just plain wrong.
You mean someone that makes something, and then protects it with a license so no one can violate the intentions of the person/people that made it?
This isn't a multi-national were talking about here. Things are a little different here in the UK.
I'll quite gladly take the 'lads' round their 'yard' for a word in their ear and It'll all be sorted in no time >;)
But seriously, I think this is quite a small company who may have rights to the old BBC>Acorn RiscOS PCs. A good thing on its own. But now that they have decided to rip-off OSS code, I feel quite dissapointed. Especially as I like to think of my fellow countrymen being decent.
Come on, how much pain is there in providing the effing source??
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
I think my point is relevant. It seems BSD users have a certain pride regarding their license of choice (of course GPL'er can relate to that). I would imagine BSD users might even protect their chosen license should it be abused (its permissive, but its still a license, right?). So this could easily be either of us defending our chosen camp.
Is just bait and I wont bite.
Thanks for you response though.
Quack, quack.
No, the BSD is just Public Domain except for the name.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Its worth remembering here again that as you make legal comment, that it is largely dependant on which country a case is tried in as to what will stand.
:)
There is so such thing as a legal proceeding outside the U.S.A. you know
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
The SELLING part.
Prior to just a scant few years ago, this distinction existed in the law as well and no amount of non-commercial piracy was considered criminal.
If you would like to whine about copyright philosphies being inconsistent, you should first start with copyright law itself rather than individuals.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
Actually, speaking as the webmaster of www.riscos.org, that quote is mine, and I have no link to Castle Technology at all. If you're going to call someone names, at least check your facts to see who you're accusing.
www.riscos.org is completely independent and in no way affiliated to ANY RISC OS hardware manufacturers.
Verbatim code, you're a thief.
If you see some code, think "so *that's* how it's done" and write similar code using the same algorithm, then it's yours. Unless it's patented of course.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
It seems this companies sell slow, ARM desktops with a proprietry OS (apart from that in article) with about four software packages at a very hefty price. You're going to pay for the browser??? Pay over $1000 for a 300MHz machine?
I don't think they have much of a footing to stand on financially, which may explain why they used GPL code in the first place. I actually feel sorry for them, because it looks very much like a move of desperation to me.
In my country, I am not allowed to make backups of music that I have purchased or load them onto an MP3 player. I am not allowed to rip a copy to listen to in the car. I am not allowed to copy my vinyl to CD because I don't own it, yet I cannot get replacement CD media for the vinyl because apparently I do own it.
I think copyright has many benefits to society and is a great way to protect creators from being ripped off and having their work stolen, but that it is being used by some as an excuse to gouge soociety unreasonably.
I shouldn't be allowed to steal a cake, but once I have bought it, how I eat it should be my own business.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
my sincere advise to OSS, GPL advocates would be not to go after these small firms. they are doing their best to avoid MS and using OSS code (although not legally). what do we have to lose? what are we going to do even if their code is open? on the other hand, by allowing this kind of piracy, we are effectively gaining more linux users which is a nice thing. note that, many commercial firms allow piracy deliberately when making money is harder in that market segment. when they grow big, go after them and force them to release source code. so if Sun uses 1000 lines of GLP code, keep quiet. once they use 1000,000 lines of code, go after them. at this point, they won't have much choice but to release the source code.
I don't agree, actually. This is a company that wants to sell things for money. If I was buying something from a company, I would assume that they had checked that what they were doing was legal. I'd be pretty surprised if I bought a PC and the supplier said, "Windows is installed, but we downloaded a warez copy of Office".
There is nothing this company can say that makes it OK to breach the terms of the GPL. The article states that they were informed about the breach and they simply took steps to make it harder to spot. Even if they did not know that what they did was wrong (which seems unlikely), it would still be OK to blame them. Surely it's not too much to ask that they read the licences of the code they are planning to use?
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
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.
You figure they somehow retroactively changed the signatures on copies already distributed?
:-)
;)
If it's only the OS, an "important security patch" may be all it takes.
But no doubt that there are other ways to prove the wrongdoing. It's just not as spectacular.
The ENIAC Demo Competition
It's got a Unique ID in the form of a MAC address!
Zounds! I'd never have thougth if that!
-Pete
You just wanted to tell everyone that you dated a girl from a hot sorority, didn't you! That can be the only reason for this post...
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
...of Linux's press machine. Everybody's heard of Linux; how often do you hear about BSD? I mean, if you want to "rip off" a *NIX kernel, why would you mess with Linux when BSD is there for the taking without any hassle like this?
I can picture it now:
New hire/IT Wannabe We should use embedded Linux for that. It's free.
PHB Free. And I heard about it at the last junket.
Asok (thinking to himself) I wonder if I should inform them of the implications, or just lock in job security for myself when we have to do a re-write.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
My friend doesn't waste time and energy investigating people who steal his money. Instead, he just earns more money
>>>>>>>>>>
Where does he live? Specific street address please. Maybe some landmarks nearby, you know, so I can find it. Thanks...
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Oh please, the momentum behind Linux has hardly anything to do with whether it is licensed under the GPL or not. It has everything to do with receiving favorable press at the right time in it's development.
The meme police, They live inside of my head
if you were truely "ashamed to have ever been a promoter" you wouldnt be posting anonymously: You're afraid of losing a status you never had.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
The GPL places no restrictions whatever on use. In fact, as long as you don't redistribute you need not accept the GPL. The GPL allows all rights that come with legal possession of a copyrighted work and then grants _additional_ rights. This is the exact opposite of what Microsoft's EULA does.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Plus, how many 32-bit, multitasking graphical, multimedia OSes run out of ROM these days?
How about the operating systems for game consoles? (It depends on the definition of multitasking; I have been told that Xbox OS does support threads.)
Will I retire or break 10K?
there are two other replies, but what they said can be put a lot more simply:
Copyright is already there. What copyright says is that you can't redistribute the code or anything made from it.
The GPL removes copyright, provided you dont try to put it back into play. That's what the term "Copyleft" is about.
In effect, it's an anti-EULA.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
nowhere did they agree to a license.
GPL section 5:
by modifying or distributing the Program, you indicate your acceptance of this License
So one can argue that they've agreed to it.
I don't usually like clauses of the form "by XYZ, you agree to this license". (XYZ is usually "clicking OK"). Allowing the means to enter someone into a contract to expand to include behaviors very different from "an adult signing her name".
If clicking the button means agreement, why stop there? Can a used-car salesman take my $7000, and then yell out "by turning the ignition key, you agree to give me $175 more dollars"? Of course not, even though that's a necessary part of operating my own property, just like clicking "Accept" in InstallShield. It doesn't make sense, and this is why (if the courts were competent), EULAs would be unenforcable.
However, back to topic, if the XYZ "activity which indicates agreement" is something that would normally be a criminal violation of the other party's rights (something that no law-abiding person would do without special permission), then the case for interpreting it as a willful indication of acceptance is much stronger.
It's unlikely, but a judge could decide to make the case about violation of contract, rather than copyright infringment.
Fangs? Well, basically, it means that anything anyone uses and releases must be released with the source. This means that once proven that they used Linux source, they can sue to have the source code for their "RISC OS" released to the GPL.
That basically gives is a WHOLE LOT of interesting stuff... or a lot of bad code to look at. Given than their people can't code their own stuff, it seems reasonable that their RISC OS isn't worth what is paid for it. In any case, it means they can lose what they worked on. The fact that they made an attempt to cover their tracks proves wilful intent... (or that their programmers have betrayed their leaders pretty badly)
Thanks to the GPL, a whole lot of RISC OS is vulnerable to public disclosure. It should make a nice trophy anyway.
I take it all coders who publish under the GPL only code because they know that no one will profit off of their work?
And I agree that GPL licensors should pursue their rights, in a court of law if need be.
The meme police, They live inside of my head
You don't own the SW after you buy it.
Then what about the Adobe v. Softman precedent, stating that if it looks like a sale of a copy and quacks like a sale of a copy, it's a sale of a copy?
A consumer of mass-market software surely doesn't own the copyright on the program, but unless there's a specific rental agreement between the consumer and the copyright owner, the consumer does own a copy of the program. (A "copy" is defined as the medium in which the program is fixed.) And if the consumer owns a copy, then the defenses in 17 USC 109 and 17 USC 117 become available, but the right to distribute modified versions is not among them.
Will I retire or break 10K?
It's called blackballing or blacklisting, and it's one of the most important powers we have as a community. Yes, we should be careful when we wield it, but we should be be afraid to strike when the violation is clear. From the evidence presented, it's very clear.
Find one post here that is actually making an articulate argument presenting evidence in defense of Castle. I sure don't see one. It's a pretty flagrent violation.
Someone is infringing on the GPL and our copyrighted Linux code!
We cannot stand for this!
I'm going to write my congressman right after this Kazaa download queue finishes!
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
charging you $40 for the binaries and $200 for the source is NOT acceptable, as the source fee is clearly not reasonable
What's reasonable is charging as much for the source as it costs for shipping and handling. If for some reason a company has been selling copies of the same binary CDs for 2 years, but has committed the source to an unlabelled DLT tape in distant offsite storage, then they are quite justifying in asking for enough to cover their retrieval costs.
There's many practical and public-relations reasons that a company won't want to behave this way, but comparing dollar signs on source vs binaries isn't valid. (A source-code price of greater than $30 is a strong sign they may be padding the expense, but consideration must be made only on the difficulty of delivering code, not the nominal product price)
This is what we've all been waiting for ladies and gents.
If those folks have indeed violated the GPL, the will be the most strenuous test the GPL could go through.
We'll see how enforeceable the GPL really is, so it will either make it or break it.
/. Where the truth
If Castle Technology Limited were an US company, CTL would just countersue Russell King for circumventing ROM BIOS 'protection'. As a result, Linux is screwed and CTL lives happily ever after. Nobody will care about GPL anymore because someone can screw the system with this low down dirty trick.
Don't believe it won't happened in UK, because EUCD is going to pass in there pretty soon.
Here's a pertinant quotation:
Sig:Why copyright isn't a fundamental human right
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.
The principle we cheerfully rip off music on is that of "fair use". We believe that we should have the right to back up and recover from others music that we paid for, and do so. We believe we have the right to listen to music to see if it's worth the purchase price, and do so. However, we don't believe Castle has the right to violate reasonable restrictions on linking and source release placed by the GPL on their use of Linux source code. For a counter-example, let's say that the head of the ARM Linux project (who I'm sure would never actually do such a thing) notices Castle is using the source code in fully GPL-compliant ways in their commercial RISC OS distribution. He promptly flies into a rage and demands royalties for the use of his GPLed code. Castle refuses, and a big stink is created in which most reasonable Slashdotters ought to be on the corporation's side for once.
--
est modus in rebus
Umm, ahem, we?
http://www.riscos.org/cgi-bin/news?ref=08022003_00 2404_4
Definitely a stretch. What does BSD passively resist (besides accusations of being dead for 10 years)? Gandhi had a problem with Britain, and basically protested in a peaceful manner. How is BSD doing anything like this at all? Maybe if Gandhi said, "Hey, who am I to tell the gov't what to do?" then you'd have a point. Seems more like Gandhi was saying that people have basic rights to certain things that ought not be violated, even by big, evil greedy governments. Hmmm. I'm gonna resist the temptation of making a historical stretch as well.
COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
The GPL license needs a good test in a court of law to see if it will stand. I plan on thanking these people for offering to spend the many thousands of dollars that it will take to conduct this test.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
You steal my tires. Can you come and steal them back? I dunno, most people would say you could.
But that dosn't mean you could steal my whole car...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
as long as you don't distribute the changes. It says that on like the 3rd line of the damn thing!
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
From their web pageh tml
...
....
http://www.iyonix.com/32bit/opportunities.s
Most developers are now porting their software to the IYONIX pc and charging a small upgrade fee per product as well as considering new applications and some suggestions for USB, PCI and software products are shown below.
Third parties are encouraged to develop drivers and applications to use PCI cards. In the past it was sometimes difficult to justify developing specialist expansion cards for a relatively small market, but the existence of a wide range of low-cost PCI cards provide a ready solution and the source code for many device drivers is already freely available thanks to Linux.
No mention of open source software or GPL, just freely available.
The idea that plagiarism is wrong, and sharing is not, is not hypocritical.
Also, if there was no copyright, there would be no need for the GPL.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Lots of people here seem to think that Castle own RISC OS, or that RISC OS Ltd own it. This is not true. After Acorn Computers finished in 1998, the set-top box division of it was bought by Pace Micro Technology in June 1999 (Acorn Computers itself changed name to Element 14). This sale included RISC OS.
Pace still owns the copyright to RISC OS. RISCOS Ltd was set up and licenced the code, which has been released as RISC OS 4. This is what you can buy to upgrade Acorn RISC PC computers (and other Archimedes machines, like the A7000).
Castle Technology recently also licenced RISC OS from Pace, completely separate from RISCOS Ltd. This version of RISC OS is being developed for the Iyonix computer and is called RISC OS 5.
This could be an interesting situation, as Castle Technology do not own RISC OS, they only licence it.
just fyi, apache is released under the apache license :-) http://httpd.apache.org/docs/LICENSE
whether or not it's bsd-like is stupid, it's either bsd licensed or it isn't and... it isn't.
-- "Put on your big girl panties and lift!"
I know, don't feed the trolls, but..
Microsoft's EULA adds restrictions onto the restrictions already created by copyright.
GPL removes or lessens the restrictions created by copyright.
Big difference, and no conflict.
They used the GPL-licensed software, and with that, indicated they accept it. They made a derived work from it, and distributed this as a whole, in binairy form. With selling a product that contains it, they distribute this derived work.
Consequences:
The GPL also applies to their modification, UNLESS the GPL-covered part and their part are seperate, or can easily be told apart. Hmmm, binairy form? Incorporated as a whole inside a product? Distributed? I'd say, that results in the GPL extending to their modification. The license they indicate to have agreed to, says so.
Thus: you can regard their addition as included in that product, as covered by the GPL as well.
My suggestion:
Find out what they added, reverse engineer that, turn it into source code, and publish/distribute that as a new piece of GPL-covered code. Thank you very much!
If they don't like it, and try to sue, their use of the GPL-covered code would not leave much (if any) legal ground for them to stand on.
Oh, and of course, you could offer any buyer of that product the source code for all that's inside it, under the GPL, regardless of whether the company likes it. (And you might try to force the company to do that for their customers)
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.
to boot!
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Please give the specifics of where/when/how the FSF has "vigorously defends it's copyright on code it owns." I have never heard of any case where the FSF has ordered a company to cease distribution. For example, Dell/Red Hat continued to violate the GPL another 3 months after the FSF was informed. All they seemed to do was advise Dell what they expected and then left it up to Dell when to get around to it. You better believe if I was violating the Dell license that they would be issuing a cease and desist letter that Dell would expect honored immediately. Vigorously defending should not allow for "whenever you get around to it please follow these things which where told to you in the license in the first place" type attitude.
Obviously, the above argument [GPL si, copyrighted music no] is absurd, but points out that Slashdot has a double standard.
No it does not.
Because Slashdot does not have any standards. It has a broad population of individual posters, who have their individual standards.
Some of them disagree with some aspect of how copyrights are used in the music industry, and some of them support the way copyright is used by the GPL. These are not necessarily the same people.
Now if you want to argue that those PARTICULAR SLASHDOT POSTERS who disagree with the music industry's use of copyright but agree with the GPL's use have a double standard, you might have a point worth discussing.
But to claim that SLASHDOT has a double standard is to propagate the same lie the media does when it says that an American family has 3.2 children of which 2.1 are illegitamate.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Nothing wrong with that. But if they want to use GPL code, they need to follow the license, and GPL their drivitives. Then they are perfectly free to do so. And they only need to release the code to their customers. But the code, itself, must be under the GPL.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
If only we cold discover linux source being used by microsoft. The war would be won.
how would the kernel devs steal code from a closed source app?
My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
I know this is a complete what if, but here it goes.
What if i was the owner of a company like Castle. A small shop of 30 or so people writing a commercial OS. Now say it was the task of three of the programmers to write some part of some IOKit. Now say they were under deadline and feared being fired, and couldn't keep up and stole a couple of pages of source from a GPL OS of your choice. Now say no one realizes this for 18 months and then the door is suddenly blow open and the execs of the small company are totally against this violation, and fire the employees in question and remove the code in question from the OS. Should the rest of the OS have to be GPLed? I would hope not!
Jon Hess
And they can do whatever they like with the source - that is fine. The fact that they are not releasing modifcations they have made, that is the issue...
You are barking up the wrong tree here. There is no similarity at all between someone selling GPL code for profit (fine, as long as they release changes) and someone copying music.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Linux is a VT-220 time sharing operating system.
On steroids, mind you.
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.
...pretty much sums it up.
Not to stereotype or anything. But yeah you're pretty much right.
James
" ...but who cares? People who license their code under the BSD License don't waste time and energy investigating these types of issues. Instead, they keep coding. "
;)
I care. That doesn't mean I want to mod you down either. It just proves that people don't understand the spirit of the GPL. Why it exists. Why it's important to defend.
Part of the point of the GPL isn't so much the technical aspect of the license - there's RELIGION there also. It is the unspoken belief (well, I think RMS has said something to this effect), that many coders contribute to the GPL codebase to make it better (and therefore save the universe from oppression or something like that)
When one steals from the GPL codebase, their contribution - which if sold is REQUIRED, must be returned to the whole. To not do so, to take the accomplishments of others who build on this license diminishes us all. It's as simple as that. Now, it is apparent (at least to what I've heard) that what this company (Castle) has STOLEN the work of others. Of course it should be looked at.
Hell, since many of us are now paying the "assumed CD-R piracy" fees everytime we buy blanks, this at least is a blatent violation of a legally enforceable license.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Reminds me of that anecdote about the monkeys. IIRC it goes something like this.
Put six monkeys in a room, and hang some bananas from the ceiling. Then, put a ladder directly under the bananas. Wait until one of the monkeys tries to get a banana, and shock him with some electricity. Replace this monkey with a new monkey, and wait for another to go for the fruit, and get shocked.
Pretty soon, all of the monkeys will have been replaced, and none will go for the bananas. Without ever having been shocked, they'll know not to go for the fruit.
Well, maybe it went a little different than that, but you get the idea.
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
I assume you mean copyright infringement?
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
That falls cleanly into the "circumstantial evidence" category in my opinion. It could be hard to find real evidence for this. One would need to get a good witness or subpoena their source.
Since when are money and principles opposite? They aren't even mutually exclusive, an entity can have both or neither. They're completely orthogonal concepts.
That said, it is the principle which is important in this case, money being only tangentially relevant (i.e. Castle is selling the code, but it's the distribution itself and not its motivation which is important).
Let's see:
Microsoft has a EULA indicating what you can and can't do (e.g. resell). This is bad. Bad Microsoft. We hates's Microsoft, they tricksies.
GLP has a EULA (you have to do this or that to use this code). Good GPL. They'ss our friendss. Nice GPL.
Good lord. Make up your mind, people.
What you're missing here is that Microsoft's EULA RESTRICTS your use of their product further than standard copyright law, while the GPL actually GRANTS you rights additional to those guaranteed by law.
Think about it.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Most RiscOS machines have their OS on non-flashable ROM. It would be difficult changing the core binaries on a RiscOS machine.
-Tez
Haskell, the static-typed, lazy, polymorphic, programming language.
Since the code was not used as per the GPL, it was indeed stolen. The fact that the author was not selling it at a fixed-rate makes this an even better case, as he could simply say: "I wouldn't have sold this code to them for less than $10 million dollars per-copy."
Your statement (that open source software has no value) would be like saying that, since you weren't using that car parked in your front yard, that you have no claim against the criminal that stole it.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
For example, if you steal my CD player, I can take it back without offering you physical violence, or breaking into your home.
However, these are dealing with tangible property. I don't think I can take posession of illegal copies of copyrighted material, because the copies, while illegal, are not mine.
To sue the infringers, the copyright should (must? IANAL) be assigned to the FSF. I as a GNU GPL developer and copyright owner may not want my code assigned to FSF for personal reasons. How then does the FSF sue on my behalf? Can they legally do so?
It would be a great example of testing the GPL without running into the copyright argument.
An even better situation would be to write code, release the code under the GNU GPL, give it to a friend, sign a legal contract offering him use of the copyrighted code if and only if it is used under the terms of the GNU GPL, and then have him violate the terms of the GPL for either (A) release of derived source, (B) distribution, or (C) both.
Take each other to court, represent yourselves (in propia persona), and have a judge resolve the issue. Sue for enough over the small claims limitations, and when done, release him from legal liability if the suit is successful.
You set precedent, appeals potentials, and all without the FSF's involvement (or political backwash).
--Matt
The EFF are not lobbyists. They are a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. It is illegal for them to lobby congress. Their role in influencing public policy is limited to educating the public, and challenging the law through the courts.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's not stealing - that's _sharing_, and it's what Jesus, your Lord and saviour, told us all to do!
Now, where's my crack pipe.
YAW
Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
because we travel in miles
American dollars are the last thing we try and collect. Even mentioning the money is vulgar, as we'd expect from our American cousins, so getting a kick in the teeth seems rather appropriate.
This Castle bunch are not the Acorn people. My guess is that they are some fly-by-nights.
Acorn were original and innovative, I expect they will be as annoyed about this as the Linux kernel people.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
For definitions of multitasking that include System 7, Windows 3.1, and other festering piles.
I loved the UI of RiscOS 2 and 3, but the underpinnings were crap. Memory management, multitasking, file systems, you name it. Rubbish.
The BBC were really keen to get computers to the people. They made a magazine TV programme aimed at non-geeky people presented in a non-patronising way. They'd show you computers being used in the field, have a bit of a discussion and show you some source code and explained how it worked.
They also used the Teletext system to distribute free BASIC source code, even before they released their computer they were supplying source for the Acorn Electron. You needed a teletext adapter to get it into your machine. When I was 10 or 11 I used to sit there with a pencil and graph paper copying down the source from the screen. I hadn't even used a computer by then, let alone owned one. I had no idea what I was writing down at first but gradually I got some sort of idea of what was going on. It was made more difficult by the fact that in order to maximize the bandwidth the newlines were tokenized so one line ran into another like this (I'm using ! as newline):
10 INPUT "Hello, what is your name?",name!20 IF name "DrSkwid" THEN 50!30 PRINT "Agghhh Doctor I've been expecting you"!40 GOTO 60!50 PRINT "Daleks, kill ",name!60 PRINT "bye"
happy days
glad you made it to Berkeley
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
"Nobody lost anything", except control over their creations.
;)
This is not ture, they have been denied the money that castle would needed to pay the copywrite owner to licence the code in a form that castle could use it in there produce.
Just because the copywrite owner has licenced it under the GPL it dosen't stop them selling the same code under a non GPL licence, though may not get many uptakes of this offer.
A brief history lesson, that might help to make one or two things clearer. Its as accurate as I can manage, but don't sue me for slipups, right? Years ago there was Acorn Computers Ltd; they produced the BBC Micro, BBC Master etc. They then set about designing their own 32 bit cpu for their next generation of computers, and the ARM chip was born. ARM Limited was formed as a spin off and carries on administrating the architecture today. Acorn went on to use the ARM chip in various computers; its first OS was called Arthur, which later developed into RISC OS. Acorn used RISC OS both in desktop targetted machines and increasingly in a range of set top box like products and other embedded devices. The first bunch of ARM chips developed ran in what was called '26 bit mode' (don't worry about it), and the OS largely depended on some custom support chips. Eventually Acorn took the decision to drop out of the desktop market; when it did so, it granted a license to a new company (RISC OS Ltd) to the latest version (4) of its software. RISC OS Ltd carried on developing this OS and continue to do so today as part of their Select scheme. Shortly after granting the license, Acorn split into 2 sections; one became element 14, and the other was taken over by Pace. Pace carried on developing RISC OS in house, and produced a 32 bit hardware independent version of RISC OS. Later, AIUI, Pace stopped RISC OS development work, and shortly afterwards Castle announced that it was bringing desktop machines to market using the Pace version of RISC OS. Some sort of license deal had been made between Pace and Castle - my understanding is fuzzy here, I don't know if its a direct license or whether Castle have a license through another third party. It is this latest version of RISC OS that the accusation of use of GPL'd code has been made against. RISC OS Ltd, ARM Ltd, and Element-14 (AIUI now subsumed by Broadcom) are *not* implicated in any way - don't send them hate mail! riscos.org are *not* implicated in any way - thats a web site run by enthusiasts. Its not clear to me at which point the GPL'd code got introduced into the source tree; it could have been at any point after the RISC OS Ltd tree was forked from Acorns original source. Also, for those that don't know, Russell King was one of the prime instigators of ARM Linux, so together with Linus himself is probably one of the most significant opinions on this matter. FWIW: I'm an independent software contractor, who has worked under contract for Acorn, Pace, e-14, and RISC OS Ltd (though not on the portion of the code under discussion). I have no axe to grind here - this post is purely intended to sort out who the players in this particular drama are (and aren't!)
a single message would be enough, if everybody here would do the same. Besides, any email that is on their website isn't very secret dont you think? they will be spammed a lot anyhow, so why care about some coming from slashdot readers.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
Pointy Haired Boss
Or:
Can't locate Common/Sense.pm in @INC (@INC contains: /usr/local/lib/managers /usr/local/lib/perl/5.6.1 /usr/local/share/perl/5.6.1 /usr/lib/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 /usr/lib/perl/5.6.1 /usr/share/perl/5.6.1 /usr/local/lib/site_perl .).
BEGIN failed--compilation aborted.
The difference between ignorance and apathy? I sure don't know, and I don't care either.
The sad thing is that I had really heard nice things about RISCOS... if it were possible to get an old machine inexpensively in the US, I would have tried it.
That's a bit like saying that you would not buy a second hand 486 with MS DOS on, because a different PC manufacturing company ripped off some GPL code last year to get part of their new system working.
I think a lot of people are getting Castle confused with RISC OS, and in this case even Acorn, who don't exist any more - the code being discussed is for the new Castle Iyonix machine, released just before Christmas 2002. It is the first 32 bit RISC OS machine, and as such needs a 32 bit OS. Castle have released RISC OS 5, which is based on RISC OS which is licensed by Pace, who bought it from Acorn just before they were closed down (about 5 years ago I believe).
It is RISC OS 5 that has the alleged GPL breach; previous versions of RISC OS have nothing to do with Castle, apart from Castle's machines run RISC OS.
As a general comment, it would be nice if people on slashdot spent a little more time looking into the facts before posting.
On a separate note, if you really are interested in getting an old Acorn machine, there are a lot of second hand Acorn machines available at extremely reasonable prices if you're willing to spend a little time looking for it - for example, newsgroups, community websites, magazines (such as Archive, which has a small ads section), or companies which sell second hand RISC OS machines, like CJE Micros.
I'm dangerous when I know what I'm doing
I remember seeing his name on the credits of a WW2 newsreel and couldn't believe it but there it was in black and white. The news attributed to "Joe King"
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
GNU/Linux reads any filesystem anyway
That simply isn't true.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
.. as opposed to what, exactly?
You started it.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
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.
I'll burn karma just to agree.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I guess the question would be: What did you do to make her dislike you so much?
In MS and Apple's cases, I can point directly to those issues. Having a negative bias towards an organization (or an individual) as punishment for an offense is perfectly normal, IMHO.
Castle Technology has gained revenue by selling someone else's product. Apart from the license violations, there ought to be a case to answer that Castle have charged for a product that isn't legally theirs to sell
IANAL...
Well it looks like the broad brushing of the mob mentality has taken yet another victim to the hot, steamy pit of collateral damage.
And since mine was the hand that wielded this brush, I must extend my apology.
But let me say this to all of you GPL violators out there, cut out all of that evil!
Ssssppppoooooonnnnn!!!!!
umm.... NO. Microsoft's EULA specifically removes the rights you as a consumer are guaranteed(fair use, etc). The GPL grants you extra rights -- such as allowing you to copy and distribute derivative works, if you follow a set of conditions. This is not a EULA, and it does not infringe your rights. So, no -- there is no connection between the two. Read the GPL before you attempt to comment on it -- it's really pretty easy to read and understand.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
Seeing as how my belly isn't big enough to crush them to death :P
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
EULAs takes away rights, the GPL grants rights. See the difference?
OMG, lets slashdot them now!
Just installed an HP printer and the following came up with the EULA. I wonder, if it ever turned out that they infringed on Open Source (e.g. GPL), if it would effect the entire license, making it null and void, i.e. letting me disassemble until my hearts content (clause 4).
8. U.S. Government Restricted Rights. The Software has been developed entirely at private expense. It is delivered and licensed, as defined in any applicable DFARS, FARS, or other equivalent federal agency regulation or contract clause, as either "commercial computer software" or "restricted computer software", whichever is applicable. You have only those rights provided for such Software by the applicable clause or regulation or by these License Terms.
All your base are belong to us!
Any attempt at suing them will fail simply because of the way RISC OS works. Its highly modular, to the point that users can effectively dynamically substitute bits of the OS whilst it runs. This means what they've done is most likely only creating programs that run on the system. In order to not violate the GPL they simply point you to the original source. Its no different from compiling a GPL app under RO and running it.
With double-m.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
I'm sure they don't expect it, but since for all I know their script has already been used by spammers to bomb the hell out of MY server, I was simply pointing out that they should be more responsible.
Troll indeed! Would I be a troll if I pointed out that somebody should stop smoking at he petrol station?
If I were a troll, I would post anonymously - like you in fact. Not called Anonymous Coward for nothing it seems.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
Someone mod this up.
I must say, it is an absolute pleasure to see
a post that is concise, accurate, and carefully
considered.
I wish I had some mod points.
*sigh* back to work...
It is not public domain software!!!!!
;-)
If the license is NOT valid, then you would have no right to distribute or use under copyright law!
Only the license grants you additional rights, rights that copyright law would normally strip.
Copyright law does not prohibit modifying code, just distributing it.
The whole point of GPL is to keep copyright, and keep the good parts of PD software.
Forth had a history of PD software, and a few cases of corporations claiming copyright on the PD software then suing the orginal authors who had placed the code in public domain on purpose.
RMS was a lisper not a forther, but I imagine he was aware of the problems, hence GPL.
(At least I'm not aware him of hacking forth, but I don't know I'm not an oldtimer, just a student of computer folklore
If you code you've met them. They do it because they can, and because they suck.
I'm sure of the last part, because if I ever have to work with one, he gets stuck on
the simplest stuff. They have years experiences (supposedly) but the code you actually see them write is first-year stuff. And the bugs are first year stuff. They hoard code, lots of code, basically like it's pron.
They are the code thieves. And it's all too common.
They''ll steal from anything, linux or you, cut and paste and claim its theirs. And the worst part is that they suck, can't fix anything by themselves, the simplest bugs over, and over again.
Recently, I've begun to think there is some code thief black market, where someone sells
a system backup tape for a university to some sorry software contractor corp.
And they get all kinds of code, and all kinds of bugs, ands its wierd that this huge corp. multimillion dollar corp, was insisting the problem was on our end -when in fact, its a bug on their end that anyone could have made as a first-year in CS unix programmer: that I remember making (and fixing), and its so wierd that this was a stumper for them.
Which made me conjure up visions of someone stealing a server backup tape from campus, and meeting on some foggy bridge to make the 'drop'. A snapshot of all that student code, with all those student bugs, but not the student brains to fix them.
(*shakes head with wry grin*)
https://secure.castle.org.uk/cgi-bin/ctlor.pl
;)
their order page only requires that the cardholder's name and e-mail addresses be filled out. i can only imagine how many computers bill gates could afford.
You are not enforcing the GPL because it's not in play.
What you are enforcing is copyright. Period.
You can't violate a license you never agreed to.
Obviously I meant "use the code in your own product" or "in a manner that copyright doesn't allow". Not "use the product".
If I think you are using my code in your product, that's illegal. If you turn around and point out that you have a license to do so via the GPL, I am wrong. If, on the other hand, you ignored the GPL, you ARE using it illegally. Copyright law says so.. and I can seek restitution... that's pretty straightforward.
The GPL is not a use license; you aren't required to accept it in order to use or play with the code or the software; it is merely a way you can gain the legal right to re-distribute the code or derivitive works, something that standard copyright law would forbid.
Nice troll.
They cannot release the source because they do not own it.
And if you look at the bottom of the page, it quite clearly states that RISC OS is copyright Pace Micro Technology plc. They are not even claiming that RISC OS is their own. Besides, the code in question is only a small part of the OS.
Why on earth would they want to sue Linux developers, anyway?
Just sue them the first time round. Don't give them any chance to take away the "signature".
When you buy a SW package - you may or may not own it, but not the rights to the actual code (unless specified).
The typical EULA states that "You own the disc in which the Program is fixed, but the Author retains title to the Program itself."
17 USC 101, which defines terms used throughout copyright law, states:
So in other words, the disc purchased from the publisher is a copy of the program, and the person who buys a software package from the store is an "owner of a copy" unless the software is part of a rental or lease agreement. By stating that "You own the disc in which this Program is fixed", the copyright owner disclaims any rental agreement.
DISCLAIMER: I am not a copyright lawyer. Nothing you read on Slashdot is legal advice.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Fair use means they can publish an article which contain quotes from the code, not that they can use it in their products without permission.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
Thank you. Obviously, I can't speak for the people who are hypocrites on this site, so I'll simply agree that it is a bit annoying to see the imbalance when you are reading at a high mod filter. (I swear, if you can stand the chaff, you get some very reasonable comments at 0 and -1).
Civil disobediance is, I believe, perfectly warranted behavior when the rationalle is just. Agreed, defending copyright in the digital age is not as earth-shatteringly important in the grand scheme as issues like racial equality, but I would argue that even if the DeCSS code very existance is considered illegal, I would still wear the T-shirt proudly! Your statement was "two wrongs don't make a right": in the majority of civil disobediance cases, the "wrong" committed by the rights activist is intentional, to show the ludirous nature of the illegality of the act, to show that it was not "wrong" at all.
Finally, on the GPL. My point was not that copyright itself would be found to be faulty (which I actually don't believe would be that massive a disaster for everyone, but guaranteed would be for existing big business interests). My point was that the licence that modifies the default copyright restrictions may be struck down. Yes, this would screw up the legality of Linux distros in the short term, as everyone who wrote code would have to be contacted for permission. But more to the point, it would be open season on challenges to EULA licences as well.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
The key point is that you do something to _all_ the monkeys, not just the one that goes for the banana.
Usually a firehose - all primates dislike being hosed with cold water.
So later, when the new monkey comes in, sees breakfast and goes to climb up and get it the _other_ monkeys stop him.
Next time a monkey is replaced, he joins in.
Iterate...
After a while no monkey has been hosed down with a firehose, but all know that you don't go after those bananas.
I've usually seen the story used as an illustration of management rumours propagating, in fact as an explanation for why the NHS is so bad at getting IT into action - mention Wessex Regional Health AUthority and see managers develop prior engagements.
From the press release:
It looks like the HAL does use GPLed Linux code, and that they are, in fact, complying with the GPL by making the source available via postal delivery.RISC OS has a fairly unusual design, heavily derived (due to funding shortages, apparently), from the MOS of the BBC Micro. Part of that design was based on the concept of 'Sideways ROM' (and later Sideways RAM), a simple mechanism that allowed extension of the operating system.
RISC OS uses modules, the design being *heavily* based on the old BBC Sideways ROM design (extended with various new features, most notably support for the SWI system). Most modules can be removed temporarily with *RMKILL, and ROM modules can be removed permanently with *UNPLUG. Last I used RISC OS (version 3.6), it consisted of about 186 modules, one of which (UtilityModule) contained the kernel, and was just about the only one that couldn't be removed.
Now, the press release is not that clear, but it does imply that Castle have used the GPL code in a module seperate from the main kernel (which would be consistent with RISC OS design). It's quite likely, therefore, that it can be *RMKILLed to unload it or *UNPLUGged to stop it from loading. If so, this is *in no way* a GPL violation: the GPL provides a specific exception for external programs that merely link to operating system code. That's why cygwin can distribute binaries without owning the rights to Windows source code. There would also be a strong case to argue in that case that the code is a seperate work from the RISC OS kernel. Modules can also be soft-loaded from disk, which allows a considerable portion of RISC OS to be upgraded 'in the field': it's likely that this module could be saved out from ROM and loaded from disk as required (which implies that it is seperate. The GPL doesn't apply to everything that's stored on the same storage medium, whether that medium is magnetic disk or ROM)
(I could be more sure if I could actually get a look at the code in question, but Castle do seem to be doing the bare minimum required to comply with the GPL, if they are at all). It's likely that the code intercepts OS calls and replaces them with its own (if it interacts with the kernel at all).
An important question with the GPL is where its influence ends. In order that GNU software could be run on proprietary operating systems such as those it was originally written on, it has an exemption to allow a GPL binary to contain operating system code (with a fairly broad definition of what constitutes operating system code) without that code itself being covered by the GPL.
True, however, you fail to set any sort of legal precedent. If it can be shown that you knew about the violations it may be harder to win that specific case and therefore harder to set a precedent.
IANAL, however, I do know that precedent is powerful in legal cases - at least in the US.
A few points:
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.