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.

Comments

Re:Where did the accusation come from..

[Anonymous Coward]

It was originally posted on the Linux Kernel Mailing List (lkml) by Russel King, here.

Re: Confusion

[markov_chain]

Read the press release more closely: "based in part on the following functions" could mean that they just looked at Linux code and then wrote their own from scratch.

Liars. Google cache proof.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Google cache of the (now removed) page http://www.iyonix.com/32bit/PCI_API.shtml
is at http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:mf1nlduliL4C: www.iyonix.com/32bit/PCI_API.shtml+&hl=no&ie=UTF-8

Note that the source code for many of the Linux PCI device drivers is publicly available on the Internet and may be useful in developing the corresponding RISC OS device driver.

So, if they had clean conscious, why would they remove that page?

I don't buy into this.

Calm down...

[zjbs14]

They're not releasing that piece of source as part of some GPL requirements, they're releasing to show that it's not covered by the GPL. From the press release (empahsis mine):

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.

Re:Will this be the first GPL test case?

[ChaosDiscord]

The GPL is a license to software. Plain and simple.

Without a license, you cannot use copyrighted material. If you use copyrighted material, without a license, you are in violation of that copyright. The only matters before the court would be "did you use the software" and "are you licensed to do so".

You are operating on a popular but completely incorrect belief. This incorrect belief grants copyright holders far more power than the law really gives them. Copyright industries want to encourage this erroneous belief but we need to fight back.

You do not need a license to use material protected by copyright. If I buy a book, a DVD, or a CD I'm free to take it hope and read it, watch it, listen to it, loan it out to a friend, destroy it, give it away, or sell it. No license is needed or granted. The particular item that I purchased is mine, the copyright holder no longer has any claim to it. What the copyright holder does have claim to is the exclusive right to make and distribute copies. (Well, the right to perform publically is also in there, and there are lots of complex exceptions, but that's the gist of it.)

This is important and many people seem to have missed it: You do not need a license to personally use (read, watch, run, listen to, whatever) a copyrighted work you purchased.

Given this, the GPL is not a license to use the software. You're free to use software under GPL without ever reading or agreeing to it (but you should probably note the "NO WARRANTEE" clause). You can refuse to agree to the GPL and use the software. The GPL only seriously comes into play if you want to distribute copies. Normally under copyright law you cannot ever distribute copies. The GPL is an open offer to let you distribute copies (granting you more freedom than copyright law normally allows), in exchange for certain behavior on your part.

Normal software licenses attempt to change your purchase of a particular thing restricted by copyright into license of something you don't own. This is completely alien to the United States copyright system. In a similar case much earlier (around 1900 if I remember correctly) a publisher tried to put a license on an actual book. It was soundly defeated in court. The legal precedent for software End User License Agreements is pretty shaky, primarily resting on a single case at a lower court level (district?) that rather insanely decided that copying a program into memory to run was an infringing copy and as such required a license. It could yet be overturned. If it does get overturned traditional software will revert back to the same rules books, CDs, tapes, and DVDs live with and do fine under. The GPL will continue to work fine because it already assumes you have every right under copyright law but offers you a license to do more than copyright law allows.