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)

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.

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.