Slashdot Mirror
Castle Denies GPL Breach
Anonymous Coward writes "Castle Technology, who were accused of breaching the GPL in RISC OS 5, have made a press release denying the allegations. This story has been covered on The Iconbar RISC OS news and resource site." We've given Castle some loving here on slashdot recently. Looks like this one isn't going away quietly.
At least not until they change their name to GNU/Castle
sulli
RTFJ.
From what I understand, the GPL (and most software licenses it seems) has never been tested in court. Perhaps this will be that test. I only hope that the GPL holds up in court.
So it's, one, test the GPL in court, two, pray it holds up???, three, GPL software profits!
Imagine how happy Microsoft would be if the GPL is ruled invalid...
Karma: Bad (mostly affected by being such an asshole)
They need a new lawyer.
The cake is a pie
Its been a few days since I read the original article, but I don't seem to remember where the original allegation that they'd ripped off the Linux kernel came from, other than "the guy". Who is "the guy"? Is he an employee for Castle, possibly disgruntled, or is he just "the guy" sleeping on the couch? If there is a legitimate breach, than whoever holds the license should by all means fight. But I've always been under the impression that borrowing code from a GPL based package was acceptable, as long as credit is given where credit is due. If that's the case, and there was indeed a breach of the GPL, couldn't Castle just put the creators names in the credits, no harm, no foul? Any takes on this?
Unless there is skullduggery afoot... hmmmm.
/rubs chin, cues "Scooby Doo" intro music
They say its not used GPL code in some old editions, and they wont be doing so in future. Its not clear if there is some release they did. They don't say they havem't done it with current code. Since they are making a floppy of the relevant code available that is a good step and means someone can check nicely and settle the question for good.
Why don't they just encrypt it, and print out the encrypted source in hex. Then anyone who wants it can send a SASE to get it. :-) Does the GPL have any provision against encrypting the source before distributing it?
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
At one point they say:
"The RISC OS 5.00 kernel did not contain work taken from or derived from the ARM-Linux or Linux kernel
then they say:
has it's PCI allocation and bridge setup based in part on the following functions from the Linux kernel sources:
So they say "based in part on the following functions", so are they saying that they have literally taken no CODE but were BASING their code on some Linux kernel code? So are they then saying that perhaps they just took the api from the LK but the code itself is new? If this is the case, then I could see how there would be a lot of confusion and that they have done nothing wrong. If not, then I'm not sure what they're trying to say?
You want a company with VERY shallow pockets and when they hopefully loses the case at the trial level, You want to buy the right for appeal from them for peanuts. INclude a few insignificant errors as reason for appeal, and thereby making sure the ruling will be confirmed. Then ask the supreme court to look at this and get denied.
Presto, it is now current law until thrown in doubt by another case that GPL lost. At which point we have two competing interpretations.
Help fight continental drift.
I can't imagine even one out of 50,000 floppies will make that round trip both with the data and error-free...this method has pretty much ensured that they'll NEVER have to give up the source.
Some day when opensource is big enough, we'll be able to take down companies just by accusing them that they stole open source code. "We won't shut ya down if you tell us where the other Cappie bastards are! Admit it, they're all stealing source!"
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
Castle state that "any company or individual wishing to recieve a copy of the source code to this component should apply in writing to:" The Managing Director Castle Technology Ltd Ore Trading Estate Woodbridge Road Framlingham Suffolk IP13 9LL You will also need to enclose a formatted 3.5" floppy diskette and return postage stamps (or international reply coupons if you are outside the UK)
While I agree that this is a shameful tactic, it's also an opportunity to inflict a little pain on them. Since they can't see fit to post the code on the net, let's start sending them tons of floppies. They have to honour the request to send the code back on the floppies (or a real GPL breach) and this will be a devastating work load.
later issues of the supporting software have had to have function names removed (along with a strategy of tokenising textual messages and compressing binaries)
In other words, that's the last time we're stupid enough to ship unstripped binaries!
The PR also explicitly denies using Linux source, rather than GPL'ed source. Reading between the lines, these guys know full well that they're in breach and they're trying to finesse the situation.
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
not 'could of'
is at http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:mf1nlduliL4C
So, if they had clean conscious, why would they remove that page?
I don't buy into this.
Castle Denies GPL Breach!!! more like celda
parenthetic
I just came across this word today. Is your desk calender 'The Office'?
Clearly this is just the endgame of a clever get rich scheme. They anticipate that a butt load of /.ers will contact them looking for the source code. In a few weeks they'll stop answering their phones, their website will go defunct, and Castle will for all purposes seem to have disappeared. Coincidentally, in a few days after that the number of ebay auctions for blank floppies will go through the roof.
For the avoidance of doubt, the hardware abstraction layer (roughly analogous to a PC's BIOS) has it's PCI allocation and bridge setup based in part on the following functions from the Linux kernel sources
I admit that it could probably be worded better, but it sounds like they could have took the function names/possibly signatures and wrote their own code. Get the source and find out. However, if the experts in this matter can still show that the object form is too close to the GPL output, then there may be something to worry about.
No sig, sorry.
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
Look at what little happened over the Virgin Webplayer.
It used a Linux kernel, some libc parts and shipped with this clause in the EULA
Section 2.2 of the member agreements reads as follows:
2.2 Webplayer Software License. Subject to the
provisions of this Agreement, we grant to you a
limited, non-exclusive, personal, non-transferable license to use and display the Webplayer Software in object code form only, solely as part of and as necessary to use the Webplayer and the Virginconnect Services. Except for the license granted to you above, we (or our licensors) retain all right, title and
interest, including all intellectual property rights, in and to the Webplayer Software. You may not attempt (or authorize any attempt) to defeat, obstruct or
block any or all of the Webplayer Software functionality, or to decompile, reverse engineer or disassemble the Webplayer or the Webplayer Software.
Nothing happened to them, and unless the people who actually OWN the copyright grow a backbone and take it to court, nothing else will happen.
Or, maybe, they saw your post and then quickly put it back...
No sig, sorry.
Short response: D.U.M.B. A.S.S.
Long response: You're still dumb, but here's why. First, making the source available for download does NOT cover the source redistribution part of the GPL, so the whole "not having an FTP server" doesn't matter. You have no responsibility to make copies of GPL software available to others for free or for cost. See the first question on the GPL quiz for more details on this.
Second, he can charge whatever he wants for sending you a copy of the program. $0, $1, $100, or $1,000. As long as he makes the source available with it, or at the cost of redistribution, everything is fine.
I really really REALLY wish people wouldn't randomly throw RMS bashes into other good articles. "Oooh, it's a GPL-related article, let's bash RMS." I'm not a huge fan of RMS, and I still call it "Linux", but I hate it when people just go off on the guy. I hate it even more that I have to go and write a response to something this stupid and waste my time. How this got modded up to 4 (oh.. it's 5 now), I don't know..
Bah!
I tried the original URL, it's still visible on the good old internet (I didn't try google, but why go indirect when you can go direct ?)
Check again - it's still there, including the legitimate line about using Linux driver sources to develop RISC OS drivers (which may be separate components and may be GPL'd):
http://www.iyonix.com/32bit/PCI_API.shtml
Parent is score 3, Informative when it's completely false? It's not that hard to paste the link and try it!
No sig, sorry.
A GPL violation is a GPL violation. If you use GPL code in your product, the modified code and anything it touches must be made freely available to *anyone* who asks.
I've got an idea.
How about, instead of developers playing amateur lawyers, and worrying about their precious "free-but-not-REALLY-free" code being stolen, you...
WRITE SOME CODE?
What a waste of time this is. What a waste of time the GPL is. I shudder to think of the wasted hours of development because someone decided to push a political agenda by writing this stupid license (the GPL) and brainwashing-- err, convincing everyone they had to GPL their code, because otherwise, The Big Bad Monster Under The Bed was going to steal it! (OMG! OMFG!)
-Teckla
P.S. Mod me as a troll if you want, but god damnit, rocket scientists don't pretend to be biologists, and architects don't pretend to be chemical engineers. Can all the armchair lawyers please go home? And take their stupid GPL with them? Thanks.
This fiasco just points out the need for more BSD licensed software so this does not happen in the future. The company has invested a lot into their software and should not have to give all that work away for nothing. If they used BSD, they would not have this problem (nor many others too).
This may not be a breach of the GPL. What Castle has said is that the hardware abstraction layer was based on the Linux kernel sources. They have made that code available.
What will determine if the remaining code is also under the GPL is how closely it integrates with the abstraction layer. Castle maintains that this abstraction layer is "roughly" analogous to a PC's BIOS.
For those of you who don't know what the BIOS is, it is the initial code which resides on a microchip that runs when you first boot your computer. It has, among other things, the very low level I/O routines that allow your computer to read enough of your hard drive to allow your operating system to boot.
It would be possible to write a BIOS and then put the code under the GPL. Would that mean that any OS that gets booted by these BIOS would suddenly be in violation of GPL? I don't think so.
The two questions that need to be answered are:
1. How analogous to a PC's BIOS is this abstraction layer? (This may be a subjective assessment and therefore open to litigation.)
2. Is there any more GPL'd code contained in the Castle product?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Microsoft licenses also limit the things you can do around the code, such as (in various EULAs) report benchmark numbers, write reviews, etc.
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
So what is this "copywrite" thing people keep mentioning? Does it have anything to do with copyright ?
since it's their contention that they are using no GPL'ed code they can tell you to go fuck yourself and hire a lawyer (we'll see you in court).
And if you're not aware Judges, Juries, and Lawyers are technical dipshits (note the M$ trial).
If you are putting your faith in a legal system that is presided over by friends of politicians and juries of the lowest common denominator, you're a fool.
It seems that people have already judged them guilty of violating the GPL. I think people need to take a deep breath and answer: What exactly is the evidence that they have incorporated GPL code into their product?
A few functions named the same as their linux counter-parts seems like rather weak evidence of a breach. Copyright does not protect ideas, so if they examined the GPL code, understood how it worked, and then re-implemented it with their own code, then this is a garden variety reverse engineering.
On the other hand, if they actually did lift code, then it should be pretty easy to verify with or without their source code. So before anybody continues on with blabbering about how terrible Castle is, can somebody just say what the evidence is?
Exactly...if you don't agree to the license, you don't get permission to use/modify the code.....nuff said
A GPL violation is a GPL violation. If you use GPL code in your product, the modified code and anything it touches must be made freely available to *anyone* who asks.
if i take gpl'ed code and modify it for internal use do i have to release the code to any person who asks for it?
your comment would suggest yes, but that is not the case here.
from the gpl
"
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.
"
so if i have not recieved the software, then i'm not entitiled to the source. this entitlement comes with the software and not by the action of modification. in other words you must have the product in order to have the rights associated with that software.
-- john
tell me if their platform is just a copy of the LART project?
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
That's nonsense. Copyright restricts copying, not use. What companies attempt to do with software licenses is to get you to agree to certain conditions in exchange for being permitted to obtain the software. But the restrictions arise from the license, not copyright. Furthermore, the ability of publishers to impose such licenses has traditionally been rather limited: publishers may force you to agree to a license saying that you can't resell a book, but you can resell it anyway no matter what the license says and there is nothing they can do about it.
And the GPL is at risk, in multiple ways. A court might say that there is no "valuable consideration" involved in the GPL licensing, and hence no contract exists for someone receiving GPL'ed software. As a result, the recipient can either not redistribute the software at all, or the court may decide that GPL'ed software is, for practical purposes, in the public domain. Either of those outcomes would not be very good for the GPL.
I'm not saying that I agree with that reasoning, I'm just saying that there are plenty of ways in which a court (in particular, a court biased in favor of Microsoft and commercialism) could draw a line between the GPL and commercial licenses and do grave harm to open source software. So, don't become complacent.
Ideally, we would get a legislative clarification of copyright law that explicitly provides for open source and free software licenses.
The thign with the GPL is that it is assigning rights to you that you would otherwise not have. Notably these rights include redistribution, modification, etc. Microsoft licenses take your basic rights under copyright and restrict them further. So the GPL is granting you rights you'd otherwise not have, not restricting rights you otherwise should have.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
IANALBMSI (I am not a lawyer but my spouse is)
... The reason this is unenforceable is that there was no *exchange* between you, no quid pro quo; Alice didn't give *you* anything of value in exchange for your promise. Without that -- without what the law calls "consideration" for your promise -- your promise is not enforceable in court."
Because it lacks consideration the GPL will not hold up in court.
to quote:
"3. Some CONSIDERATION must pass between the offeree and the offeror.
The GPL will in all likelyhood is worthless.
a few remarks:
- it's fun to cite US law... but Castle is a Brittish company and the alleged infringment was in the UK!
- you keep copyright over your original sources, even if you link them with GPL-ware.
- a derived work has shared copyright by both the original author and the editor.
- If you want Castle's source on floppy: are you capable of reading ADFS formatted floppies?
- last time I looked at RISC OS (v3.10) it was a very modular operating system.
- Castle will likely have licenced the major part of RISC OS from RISCOS Ltd, they don't own the source!
Castle (likely) can only legally share the code they own. If they provide the contested source on floppy then that would be (minimal) conformance to the GPL, assuming the sources are really derived from Linux sources. If those sources aren't derived from Linux sources, Castle has the right to distribute them as they seem fit.
The receivers of the floppy have to note that there can be significant consequences for them when they redistribute code where Castle has the copyright.
Do you remember the bnetd / vivendi complaint? I'll recap here briefly:
Vivendi: You stole our code. There was a bug in one of our subroutines, and your implementation included the bug. Also, some of our subroutines look identical.
Bnetd: Of course! Since the bnetd project was basing its code on the unprotected network traffic between client and server, the code would contain the bug because it was observed in said traffic.
Furthermore, If the two programs do the same thing, it makes sense that some of the code will be the same, simply because its the easiest / best way to implement it.
Is it possible that something similar is occuring here?
Here's what they say
The press release goes on to state that "For the avoidance of doubt, the hardware abstraction layer (roughly analogous to a PC's BIOS) has it's PCI allocation and bridge setup based in part on the following functions from the Linux kernel sources:"[snip functions]
Castle state that "any company or individual wishing to recieve a copy of the source code to this component should apply in writing to:" [snip address]You will also need to enclose a formatted 3.5" floppy diskette and return postage stamps (or international reply coupons if you are outside the UK)
So, the title "Castle deny GPL breach" is wrong. Castle have (somewhat grudginly) admitted using GPLed source and announced their intention to comply with the terms of the GPL. They emphasised that the Linux code they used is in their HAL and not the RISC OS kernel to explain why they will not provide the source to RISC OS.
So, IconBar titled their article "Castle Technology deny GPL breach" because they had not fully understood the press release they were quoting. The submitter submitted it with a similar title because he hadn't understood it either or because he hadn't read as far as the third paragraph. Chris DiBona posts it and says "Looks like this one isn't going away quietly" presumably because he hadn't read the third paragraph. There are as I write this 207 posts on this topic, most of them overexcited and almost all of them from people who didn't read as far as the third paragraph. I find this all hilarious.
Perhaps we could send inspectors to investigate the company and require them to prove they destroyed all the unlawful code that we had previously given them.
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It's a shame I had to read through 8 other replies to finally find one that makes sense.
Not only is it important to make sure the legitimacy of the GPL stands up, but it's also important to represent it positively. If every time, a person or company is accused of violation, a bunch of rabid slashdotters harras and spam them, no company is gonna want to go near it.
You're right, I didn't use the code so it's not my fight. If the authors do want help, I have no problem making a donation but it's there call.
How come i've never heard of this?
Maybe to stop rabid GPL barack room lawyers hounding them because they mentioned the word 'Linux' but aren't one of the open source elite? It sounds as if they just made their API look like a Linux one to make porting easier, and then got flamed to death by the GPL Thought Police. I guess that'll teach other companies to try to integrate with Linux...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The people trying to enforce the GPL are in fact very kind. They usually leave you two choices
1) Release it under GPL
2) Admit to breaching it (by accident or intentional), settle for a full press release and removal of the infringing source code
If they really wanted to be assholes, they could simply file charges for copyright infringement, Usually, if they not only copied the code, but presented it as their own work they could be sued with fraud too. And (if found guilty) the company would have to pay damages. Complying with the licence after the crime would not free them from any liability.
So you see, releasing it under GPL is a settlement offer from the copyright holders. They don't have to make the offer, and the company doesn't have to accept.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
They put the code in the HAL. They are offering the source to the HAL ("this component") It's safe to assume that, from the information the article gives (the HAL is comparable to a PC BIOS), the HAL is not linked to the kernel.
The truth about Michael
"You will also need to enclose a formatted 3.5" floppy diskette and return postage stamps (or international reply coupons if you are outside the UK)"
Last time i checked it was 2003.
Why not just mail the code rather than snailmail it?
??,
Lispy
As far as they have stated, and anyone has been able to prove they are not using GPL software. They don't have to release anything. They are releasing this bit of code so people will see they are not violating the GPL. Your postings usually get modded up to the 4 or 5 range, so I'm a little shocked that you didn't actually read the press release, or if you did you weren't paying attention. The press release pretty much paints the picture for you. It doesn't settle the issue, but it does not say what you think it does.
I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
yeah I know it's cruel, but some things just _have_ to be done. If they still persist, we just _might_ think about making them use VB for kernel development.
*evil grin*
Isn't the issue that they reuse code that wasn't theirs, without the license that allowed them? How is that different then someone else using my short story in their book? Fair use would allow people to read and share my stories (with limits), not pass them off as their own. I would hope the same principle is what applies to the code I write.
And yes, there are bigger issues with all of that, and personally I would agree copyright lengths are to long. I am trying to address the second paragraph's phrase "to use material protected by copyright". The main issue with copyright is exactly what the use is.
So as far as the GPL goes, the upshot (as far as I can tell as a layman) is that you can go beyond the normal allowed uses of the given copyrighted material if you follow some rules. If you don't, you are in violation of both the GPL and the copyright.
Again, that's just my impression. If I'm wrong, I'd love to know.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
read what you quote.
the HAL (the part which must fit into 4Mb ROM, and is equivalent to a PC BIOS) has some of its function based on the Linux Kernel. The offer to make the source available.
If, because in the "BIOS" they used some GPL code (and follow the GPL, by releasing the source, as they state they alreeady do, and as they state they WILL, since it will be an integral part of the port of Linux to their new X-Scale based platform) they have to release their kernel source, something is seriously fuxxored up, and i think u don't have the right to distribute any x-86 linux distro, 'cause it goes on the reverse: the BIOS isn't Open Source, by a far cry, even if the kernel is...
i had a sig, once..
Judging from the performance I've seen from this Cybernetics Corporation device, I would never purchase any Ps1t generator that they sold. The technology just isn't mature enough yet. I'm sorry.
If I look at code from the Linux source and then produce my own version with out using any of the Linux source, I have not violated the GPL, but my code is based in part on the linux code. This falls within fair use.
I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
From term #2 of the GPL (emphasis added):
I've asked it before and here I go again: "What the hell is a volume of a storage or distribution medium and what's aggregation?"
When the (first) GPL was written a "volume of distribution medium" was a tape snail-mailed from the FSF in Boston, or for work-derivers, a tape or maybe as Castle is doing, a floppy.
I understand that this exception is how binary kernel modules (NVidia) can be distributed in a CD-ROM with the GPL'd Linux kernel, gcc, emacs, etc.
However, Castle is putting the HAL and kernel into a Flash ROM. Even if they aren't statically linked together (not hard to imagine: HAL boots & uncompresses kernel image into RAM, then jumps), is this mere aggregation? One can extract a single file from a tape or CD-ROM, but can you un-aggregate a ROM?
Consider TiVo: is the closed-source application "merely aggregated" with the GPL'd kernel? You can put the hard drive in a PC & un-aggregate, but this violates your warranty and is not as trivial as grabbing a file from a CD-ROM.
When does "aggregation" end as "volume of storage medium" becomes more deeply embedded? If the ROM is soldered down instead of socketed? If it's inside a microcontroller with the security fuse thrown so it can't be read out?
FFS, amazing how many fuckwits have modded the parent up. The page has not been removed, etc, etc.
...the GPL is ruled valid, but Castle is ruled not to be in breach of it (e.g. by some jiggery-pokery with the `derived works' wording)?
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
What are you talking about?
www.iyonix.com/32bit/PCI_API.shtml loads just fine for me. And it doesn't even appear to be modified at all. Stop spreading FUD.
--------- Beware the dragon, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
I was just the other day joking about the phrase "for the avoidance of doubt" as an example of sloppy British legal drafting.
Mod parent up!
Assuming that Castle aren't lying then this goes straight to the hard question of the GPL (and of Copyright law enforcement in general) -- what is a derived work?
They admit that they have a GPL component and offer source. Fine. Then the question: is the product as a whole, a derived work of this component, or are they separate works, distributed together? If the former then Castle are in breach and would need to offer their entire OS under the GPL, the latter they are fine.
This question comes up in other places. For instance is Linux kernel + binary only module a derived work, or are they separate works? This ha snever been tested, but Linus has expressed some opinions.
It seems agreed that Linux kernel + proprietary user mode software (eg a Linux PDA with some proprietary app on it) are separate works, but in the embedded software world, even this becomes murky.
There is a real question here which can only ever be finally resolved by precedent.
I still have a couple of 8" floppies in the cupboard! ;)
I have, as part of my work, been required to disassemble binaries and re-implement in C. It always used to make me smile when a chunk of asm revealed itself as a simple plane intersection routine, linked list management, matrix transform, hardware init sequence, or whatever. Recompiling the C implementation often produced *exactly* the same asm.
My point echos the parent post: if you are writing code with the same functionality, it shouldn't come as a shock when the binaries match, especially - as was mentioned - if some massaging is done to one version to make them match.
Of course, no one can say one way or the other until they've seen the source code that Castle has agreed to show. I suspect they merely used the GPL'd code as reference, and wrote a similar version that matched their hardware, which isn't your bog-standard PC. How stupid would they look if they say it isn't the GPL'd code when it is, then show it to people? I mean, really..?
I'm biased, I'll admit that. I've been an Acorn/RISC OS user for many, many years. But I'm disgusted at the pitchfork and torch reaction this issue has received here. Linux/OSS users should be all-to-familiar with a platform struggling against a much larger organisation. Never before have I seen such two-faced, knee-jerk ranting on this site, and that's saying something.
Linux source code can be slightly modified to produce the disputed code
I've mentioned elsewhere on this section that two functions written to perform the same task in the most optimal way can often compile down to the same or very similar binary. Add a few slight but guided modifications and you're even more likely to create an identical version. Nothing but the original source code can show whether GPL'd code has been directly copied or not.
I wish RISC OS had gotten this much attention years ago! Unfortunately, no-one in the US cared about it except for a group of people in Redmond who borrowed some ideas for use in a new OS they were creating...
"You heard the man, Tubbs.. get undressed."
There is a minor but significant technical difference between linking to a hardware abstraction library (HAL) and making a call to a BIOS or ROM Monitor.
When system code wants to issue a call to the BIOS, it issues a software interrupt, which causes an exception that the BIOS handles.
When system code wants to call a function in a HAL, the code sets the program counter to equal the address in memory of the particular HAL call. The only reason why the system code knows where the function lies in memory is because it has been LINKED with the system code and LOCATED into physical memory.
The difference between using a BIOS and a HAL is akin to writing a proprietary Linux program that executes "ls" and grabs its output, and writing a program that has recompiled "ls" into a library and directly calls "ls" functions. According to the GPL, the former is fine, while the latter is a no-no. On another note, if the ls library were relicensed LGPL, then it would be fine.
I think this demonstrates that Castle doesn't really understand the GPL and needs to get a good lawyer.
Unless the court rules that releasing the source under the GPL is tantamount to making it public domain.
;)
That wouldnt be so bad. A new license could be written and anyone would have the right to use the old code *hence interoperability* - update the version in the license clause and its re-protected *maybe - hehehe*.
if (GNU_GPL == PUBLIC_DOMAIN) freedom.celebrate ();
else printf ("Err, somethings wrong!\n");
self.stupify ();
Pixels keep you awake!
Dan, its Dan. I lost your email, please email me, my address is ******@alum.rpi.edu where the stars are the first five letters of my last name followed by the first letter of my first name (in case you no longer have it).
Fellow programmer, greetings! You are reading a letter which will bring
you luck and good fortune. Just mail (or UUCP) ten copies of this letter
to ten of your friends. Before you make the copies, send a chip or
other bit of hardware, and 100 lines of 'C' code to the first person on the
list given at the bottom of this letter. Then delete their name and add
yours to the bottom of the list.
Don't break the chain! Make the copy within 48 hours. Gerald R. of San
Diego failed to send out his ten copies and woke the next morning to find
his job description changed to "COBOL programmer." Fred A. of New York sent
out his ten copies and within a month had enough hardware and software to
build a Cray dedicated to playing Zork. Martha H. of Chicago laughed at
this letter and broke the chain. Shortly thereafter, a fire broke out in
her terminal and she now spends her days writing documentation for IBM PC's.
Don't break the chain! Send out your ten copies today!
For example, if \thinmskip = 3mu, this makes \thickmskip = 6mu. But if
you also want to use \skip12 for horizontal glue, whether in math mode or
not, the amount of skipping will be in points (e.g., 6pt). The rule is
that glue in math mode varies with the size only when it is an \mskip;
when moving between an mskip and ordinary skip, the conversion factor
1mu=1pt is always used. The meaning of '\mskip\skip12' and
'\baselineskip=\the\thickmskip' should be clear.
-- Donald Knuth, TeX 82 -- Comparison with TeX80
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...