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 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.
It was originally posted on the Linux Kernel Mailing List (lkml) by Russel King, here.
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?
GPL defines the source code as "the preferred form for making modifications to the work". So unless their engineers are way way way way better at doing hex arithmetic and mental cryptography than most of us are, yes the GPL does have a provision against it.
The guy who originally wrote EMACS clearly didn't understand the GPL either. No FTP server; mailing out the source on Magnetic Tape for $100 a copy? Someone ought to be hassling him a bit more too!!
Oh wait.. that was Richard Stallman.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
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.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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?
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.