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.
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)
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?
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.
Obviously, they're trying to create a high level of hassle to get the code. They assume people won't want to go through the PITA that mailing a floppy represents.
I propose we kick their ass at this game. Here's the procedure:
Everyone reading this, go grab a 3.5" floppy from your old disk box or the supply room or whatever. Mail it to the address below along with a note requesting a copy of their GPL'ed source code:
The Managing Director
Castle Technology Ltd
Ore Trading Estate
Woodbridge Road
Framlingham
Suffolk
IP13 9LL
Let's see how they like making 50,000 copies onto floppies...
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
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.
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.
They're saying that their kernel does not include GPLed code, but another program of theirs (called the HAL), a separate piece of software, DOES include GPLed code and source will be available for this program. I'm not sure I believe them; hiding the function names after a complaint sure does seem like they know they're doing something wrong. But that's what they're saying. Remember, too, that just offering source isn't the only requirement of the GPL. You're also required to notify users that the code is GPLed and tell them source is available. If they haven't done this part then they're also in violation.
314-15-9265
Thing is, if you consider that both implementations are done "correctly", the object form will be very close, if not identical.
Hence is the inherent flaw in software liscensing/patenting. Often in programming, there's one "right way" to do things.
Assume for the sake of argument, that both linux and riscos did this the same 'right way' in completely different voids unaware of each other. Or even say that the RisOS design team studies linux and implemented their own take on the routines in question (which is what I gather they are saying)
Computers know 1's and 0's, and HAL implementations are as low-level as it gets.
Just because company/group A manages to publish their implementation of the "right way" first, all subsequent efforts must do things the "wrong way"?
If this is true, it behooves everyone interested in programming as a profession to never, ever come within 100 miles of a piece of GPL'd code. Because if you learn something, everything you write from that point on could be corrupted.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Don't be a bozo, that's a spiteful and stupid thing to do. Why not do what you should be doing, shut the fuck up and leave this to the people who's Copyright is alleged to have been infringed. Spamming the crap out of some poor little company is pathetic.
If they have infringed, they can either fix it or hope the copyright owners don't sue them.
Chris "Ng" Jones
cmsj@tenshu.net
www.tenshu.net
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?
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.
I don't understand how you can make a cut and dried statement such as "if they link it's a violation, plain and simple." Could you please define linking? How is it different from calling routines in a BIOS?
I'll give you a hint. There is little to no technical difference. Either way you're going to be pushing some arguments on the stack or placing them in registers and calling a routine and possibly receiving a return value from that routine. There really is no technical difference between these activities.
So what makes running DOS on top of LinuxBIOS okay, but running RiscOS on top of a Linux-based HAL not okay? Unfortunately, I can't come up with an answer to this question. The only thing I can say with absolute certainty is that it will be a non-technical one.
Link-based licensing (compile-time or runtime) tends to get compilicated (or complicate things) in the embedded world, where many devices use single statically-linked system images. The conventional linking-based interpretation of the GPL's standalone-works stipulation (GPL section 2) is a bit awkward in that context. If you take a loose view of the link restrictions (e.g. accepting compile-time linkage), then the GPL contaminates the least part of the incorporating work that could "be reasonably considered independent and separate works" -- possibly a driver, a HAL, or the whole kernel.
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.