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
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
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.
Why would you want to inflict pain on them before you even know if they did violate GPL or not?
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
Relax, he must be British, just like those guys from Castle Software ;-)
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
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
actually they only have to honor that to people who have the software they produced in which the gpl'ed software was used to make. so if you dont have a copy of their software, you dont have the right to ask for them to make you a copy. now if you buy a copy of their software, download it off their site (i dont know if they offer free downloads), etc. then you have the right to ask for a copy.
so everyone with a copy of their software that was compiled with source that contained gpled code should feel free to ask for a copy of the source.
-- john
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.
Why would you want to inflict pain on them before you even know if they did violate GPL or not?
first, they do not have to provide the source if they did not use GPL'd software. so the offer and the website basically concede this point.
second, it's obvious they're trying to make it as difficult as possible to obtain what rightlyfully belongs to the public under the GPL. it's not like the don't have a web site that could be used as a distribution mechanism. and it's also not a great deal of code (floppies!? hello!).
in conclusion, they're being dicks and deserve a little pain.
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!
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.
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!
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 company has invested a lot into their software and should not have to give all that work away for nothing."
If a company chooses to base a work on GPL'd code that is their choice and they must follow the agreement. If they don't want to give the code to the community that's okay but they'll need to start from scratch and not base thier work on the hard work of other's.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
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
Come on, let it out... How do you really feel about GPL'd code?
Do you work for Microsoft or something??
"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!"
What a bunch of crap. The GPL is a stupid license?? As opposed to Microsoft's? Convince people the put their code under the GPL to prevent people from stealing it?? Your lips are moving buy you're not saying anything!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
How about, instead of developers playing amateur lawyers, and worrying about their precious "free-but-not-REALLY-free" code being stolen, you...
You appear to be saying that programmers should just stick to programming and forget about any laws or rights that might apply to their work? To give up any and all rights to a piece of work they put their hard time and effort into?
That's the equivalent of me telling you to stop wasting time spending money and just give me access to your bank account.
It's absolutely ridiculous.
The GPL exists so that you can't take my work and claim it as your own. So that, at the very least, I will be given due credit for the work I've done, the code I've created. It also keeps you from selling my work to make a profit.
Lets go back 20 years in time. You just wrote a nifty little windows-based version of a solitare game. It's fun and a time waster and you put it out there for all to download and use. Then some guy comes along and thinks it's a pretty nifty little piece of fluff and tosses into his operating system.
Now back in the present, we have millions of Windows users spending hours out of their work week wasted on the game you built. A game that becomes the punch line for many jokes and a stable background fixture on television.
And you get jack squat for your work.
It's Bill Gates and the Windows team that gets the credit. Everytime that solitare game makes an appearence on television it's Windows that people associate with it and it becomes a very valuable commercial.
It's product placement at its best.
Even if it helps bring in even a fraction of a percentage of the money that Microsoft hauls in and we're talking millions a year.
And you get jack squat. Thanks for playing.
All because you decided to not worry about enforcing your rights as a programmer because a simple cut n paste is wasting your precious development time.
Baka.
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
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
The difference with the GPL (and other Open Source licences), is that it lets coders make modifications of other people's work, which coders like to do (as well as seeing how code works, and basing code off of other's code.)
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
There is no, zippo, absolutely none, requirement for them to distribute the source code widely to non-customers. They're required by the GPL to distribute the source to paying customers and/or anybody else who they give binaries to. Paying customers and/or anybody else who they give binaries to are permitted to redistribute it as they wish. They're not allowed to restrict their customers from this redistribution.
Are YOU a paying customer? Did they give you a copy of the binaries? If not, don't waste your time and money sending them a floppy.
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.
Come on, let it out... How do you really feel about GPL'd code?
I have nothing against GPL'd code. I do, however, think the GPL is a misguided license used by misguided developers.
Do you work for Microsoft or something??
No, I don't.
What a bunch of crap. The GPL is a stupid license?? As opposed to Microsoft's?
Oh, please. I don't like the GPL, so I must like Microsoft's licensing practices, right? You maroon.
Convince people the put their code under the GPL to prevent people from stealing it?? Your lips are moving buy you're not saying anything!
How can something that is supposedly free be stolen?
-Teckla
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..
You appear to be saying that programmers should just stick to programming and forget about any laws or rights that might apply to their work? To give up any and all rights to a piece of work they put their hard time and effort into?
What I'm trying to say is programmers are overly concerned with protecting their source from the Big Bad Wolf.
That's the equivalent of me telling you to stop wasting time spending money and just give me access to your bank account.
No, it's not.
The GPL exists so that you can't take my work and claim it as your own. So that, at the very least, I will be given due credit for the work I've done, the code I've created.
Other licenses exist that help ensure you get credit for the work you've done.
It also keeps you from selling my work to make a profit.
There's that Big Bad Wolf again.
So what if a company takes your code, incorporates it into their product, and makes a profit? How does that hurt you?
-Teckla
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?
...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.
The GPL license made Linux, possibly the greatest open source project ever, possible. You marron.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
The GPL license made Linux, possibly the greatest open source project ever, possible.
Linux is licensed under the GPL, so its success is due to the GPL? What a ridiculous conclusion. Perhaps you'd like to explain why the BSDs are successful despite not being GPL'd?
-Teckla
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.
Mod parent up!
Why not actually RESEARCH the claim? Oh, wait, you arn't too bright are ya?
k C: web.gnu.walfield.org/mail-archive/linux-kernel-dig est/2000-July/0112.html+gpl+violation+webplayer&hl =en&ie=UTF-8
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:618Ah-5N0g
Thanks for showing you are clueless.
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."
Maybe you can explain why the BSD license is better that the GPL? Is it because it allows companies like Microsoft to take the code, modify it in a way that makes it incompatible then release it again as closed source?
This is what they did with Kerboros. By using their Monopoly power they basically stole the technology by introducing incompatibilities by design.
Projects that are truly great that are under the BSD are great because the authors choose to keep their source open. It is the openness of the source that is the root of the success and is what makes the projects most valuable to other developers. If these BSD projects had been closed source from the beginning they would not be great.
GPL forces the source to be open and that is why it is superior to BSD for the open source community. That being said, I do believe that the GPL should allow closed source code to link to it. This would facilitate hardware drivers, etc.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
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.
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).