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

Will this be the first GPL test case?

[Anonymous Coward 1]

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...

Re:Will this be the first GPL test case?

[LMCBoy]

From what I understand, the GPL (and most software licenses it seems) has never been tested in court.

Your parenthetic clause is important here. I can't imagine a situation where the GPL could be ruled invalid without basically saying no software licenses are valid. I don't think Microsoft would be very happy about that. :)

Re:Will this be the first GPL test case?

[jpc]

and reading the press release forwarded to lkml I see that they have admitted using functions from Linux, and are prepared to give copies of the source to the authors. But they have ignored the derived works / linking parts og the license. This admission is rather bad for them, as they have admitted using copyright material in their product without permission, as if the GPL gives them this permission if they send developers copies of their own code on floppies...

It reads:

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:

pci_alloc_primary_bus
pbus_size_bridges
pbus_assign_resources_sorted
pci_setup_bridge
pci_bridge_check_ranges
pbus_size_mem
pbus_assign_resources
pci_assign_unassigned_resources
pci_scan_bus
pcibios_update_resource
pci_read_bases
pci_alloc_bus
pci_add_new_bus
pci_do_scan_bus
pci_scan_bridge
pci_setup_device
pci_scan_device
pci_scan_slot
pcibios_fixup_bus
pci_calc_resource_flags
pci_size
pdev_fixup_device_resources
pbus_assign_bus_resources
pci_do_scan_bus
pcibios_fixup_pbus_ranges
pci_assign_resource
pdev_sort_resources
pdev_enable_device
pbus_size_io

Any company or individual wishing to receive a copy of the source code
to this component should apply in writing to:
(blah)

Re:Will this be the first GPL test case?

[sbryant]

this case would be in the UK, where click through licenses are not valid anyway [...]

That's not quite the entire truth. The click-through licence is not invalid because it's a click-through licence. The problem is that the customer is able to buy the software (which closes the deal) without seeing or agreeing to any terms first.

I read today (albeit about German law, but it might well be the same in the UK) that even a notice on the outside of the box saying you must agree to an EULA is not enough to make the EULA legitimate.

Furthermore, there are legitimate questions as to whether clicking something may represent contractual agreement. What if someone under 18 (who can't legally be bound by many such contracts) clicked it? There's no proof who clicked something - a signature shows who the signer was; it could be forged but that's what witnesses are for. There's also the problem of pre-installed (ie: pre-clicked) software...

-- Steve

Where did the accusation come from..

[j_kenpo]

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?

Seems reasonable

[Alan Cox]

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.

Re:If they want it over with...

[Skyshadow]

why not release the source online, rather than using snail mail and floppies?

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...

Nothing will happen

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Confusing release

[Eric Seppanen]

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.

Re:Calm down...

[stratjakt]

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.