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
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.
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
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.
isn't it a little ironic a messanger titled "IntegrityMessenger" ripping off someone elses code?
No, it means that they are commiting willful copyright infringement for commercial gain. The penalties for that are severe and include the larger of statutory and actual damages. The statutory damages can be up to $100K, iirc. Actuals include any revenue which results from the infringement.
I hope somebody tears them a new sphincter, if this is true.
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).
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
...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.
...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.
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.
Nope. Consider the physical-property equivalent: I steal something from you. Do you have the right to come steal it back? No. Similarly, if they "steal" GPL'd code, we don't have a right to steal it back; the legally correct course of action is to file suit, get an injunction against distribution of the stolen code, and recoup losses from the infringer.
You are confusing the conditions for complying with the licence with the penalties for infringing the copyright.
The judge *could* order compliance with the licence as part of the penalty phase, but it is much more likely that he would award monitary damages.
The interesting thing is that each patch to the linux kernel could be viewed as separately copyrighted by whoever the author of that particular patch is. The statutory damages can reach $100K per violation if the judge wants it to.
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).
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.
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
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
there are three perfectly good sets of BSD code to copy from with zero repercussions that do the exact same thing.
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.
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
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).
But isn't the GPL more or less the same thing [as an End User License Agreement]? It's trying to control what you do with something after it is in your possession?
I don't think so. After all, companies with EULAs impose whatever conditions they impose, and the conditiuon that you can't modify (or generally even see) their code.
All the GPL says you can't do is to use the code in your own work without also making your own work available under the GPL. Sure, it's a restriction, but it's a restriction on coders who would use GPL'd code.
A EULA is a restriction on all users, not just coders who want to create derivative works.
The GPL does not restrict my use of the software it licenses -- I can use it as I see fit--, nor does it restrict me to a relationship with the author for the term of use (e.g., giving the author the right, as in the latest Microsoft EULAs, to modify software on my system without even so much as prior notification).
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
The SW isn't "in your possession" in a typical commercial EULA. What you get is a "licence" to use the software, under certain conditions. You don't own the SW after you buy it.
In a sense, the GPL is the same, as you don't "own" the SW either (the copyright remains with the author(s)); the difference is what you're allowed to do with it. A commercial EULA usually adds a lot of restrictions to standard copyright arrangements. The GPL takes away restrictions; the simplest thing it does is to allow you to copy the SW without restriction. It also guarantees you access to the sourcecode if you've only got the binary. In exchange for these extra rights, you agree to some duties, namely to distribute the source code to whoever you distribute the binary to.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
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.
The sources used by RISCOS Ltd are not those used by Castle; the sources that RISCOS Ltd use were licensed a number of years ago from Acorn and do not include any components which are GPL, and acknowledge the components which they do use. Castle have, alledgedly, licensed their sources from Pace Microtechnology plc (the company who bought Acorn) and presumably added the PCI code from the Linux kernel themselves. I say presumably because I can't say one way or another whether the work was done by Pace or by Castle. Castle, as publishers of the product, are those who must be looked to for answers.
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.
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!)
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