Castle Technology UK Ripping off Kernel Code? 789
Jonathan Riddell writes "`It would appear that Castle Technology Limited, UK, have taken some of the Linux 2.5 code, and incorporated it into their own product, "RISC OS", which is distributed in binary ROM form built into machines they sell. This code is linked with other proprietary code.' Full details from Russell King on lkml."
Sue them (Score:4, Insightful)
They should know better than to do this, they deserve to get sued and the money should go back to kernel development.
Some may argue... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I steal Linux, I sell it and make money. But "Linux" doesn't lose any money (I'm personifying Linux here, bear with me) because Linux is free.
However, Linux does suffer damages. The thing of value to Linux is its user base. The only reason somebody improves Linux is because he's a user. If I take away a potential user by offering the same feature by stealing Linux, I'm eroding its user base, future development potential, and therefore value.
Re:Sue them (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
The FSF vigorously defends its copyright on code it owns; it does not own Linux. It will be up to Linus and gang to defend their own copyright, though the FSF might offer to assist.
And no, RMS is not a lawyer. The FSF's lawyer and chief enforcer [gnu.org] is Eben Moglen.
Re:Hold on. (Score:2, Insightful)
That is a pretty good question.. If the GPL was enforced as some corporate IP agreements are - successfully - ever working on GPL'd code would forbid you to do even mildly related non-GPL work, at least for a year or so..
I mean.. I you work in any sort of development or engineering, your company owns any related thought you might have off the job, and you'll get in trouble working for a competitor within a period of time after leaving that job.
- Ranger
Information wants to be free (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, the above argument is absurd, but points out that Slashdot has a double standard. On one hand, it is ok when a 14-year-old violates the copyright of a RIAA or MPAA-owned company. On the other hand, it is not OK when a company releases GPL under terms not compatible with the GPL.
So, what is it going to be? Do we respect both the RIAA's copyright and the copyright which GPL programs have, or do we respect neither?
If you want the GPL to be respected, respect other people's copyrights.
- Sam
Re:Sue them (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't criticize unless you have an alternative.
Give it a couple of days (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Information wants to be free (Score:5, Insightful)
In any event, the comparison is obviously flawed because in the case of GPL code theft, you're talking about someone knowingly violating the license under which they acquired a product in order to PROFIT from a derivative product.
Most 14-year olds who pirate MP3s and DVDs are interested in FAIR USE of the products in question, or at worse in depriving the copyright owners of proceeds that they could have directly collected. I have not hear of any real cases where gangs of 14-years old pirates have set-up conterfeit CD and DVD rings to sell the products on FOR PROFIT. If you really doubt this, just ask the P2P companies when their huge profits fro residuals are gonna start rolling in.
Amazing how hard it is to see right from left, huh?
Re:Sue them (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps I'm misinformed though. Do you have an example?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hate to start a licensing flamewar... (Score:2, Insightful)
why is anyone that stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
why violating open source copyrights SUCK (Score:1, Insightful)
1st. When someone downloads some crappy song off kazaa, they arent claiming they made the song, or that they "own" the song, they just want to listen to the damn thing. Same thing goes for someone installing that warezed copy of office xp. They arent claiming that they coded office, or that they have the right to resell it, they just want to write documents.
2nd. If this company was merely using the modified kernel for internal purposes only , that would be kosher imho. If they wanted to modify it and sell the product, as long as they gave credit (and the modified code), that would be kosher too.
On a strictly personal level, i believe that when some large ass company (i.e. Microsoft, Riaa, Adobe ) commits multiple henious crimes against the people (i.e. DMCA, Sklyarov, Monopolistic abuses), that the company no longer is worthy of copyright protection. Thats why i have ZERO problem with people downloading music, burning off copies of Windows and Office, etc, for their friends and family, and giving the above companies a giant middle finger. Its civil disobienace at its best.
Re:To arms comrades! (Score:1, Insightful)
But what about their ISP? Is that fair to them?
Re:Sue them (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing copyright is clear on: You need permission to use other's copyrighted works.
If you are taking someone's code, which is available under the GPL, and using it in your own product... the only way you have legal grounds to use it is if you either a) abide by the GPL, or b) get permission from the author.
If the author goes and says "They are using my code illegally", the company would have to prove they have a license to do so. It's not about the enforceability of the gpl.
Re:Hold on. (Score:5, Insightful)
Violating the terms of the licence is only illegal if it results in copyright infringement. Fair use is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. One factor (of four) in determining whether fair use applies is the quantity of work copied. For three lines of code, that would be small.
The most important factor, however, is commerical impact. If those three lines add a feature that fills a marketing gap, then the result of the copying is unfair competition and thus improperly obtained revenue.
Re:I hate to start a licensing flamewar... (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting point but only hypothetical and not relevant in this case. The very nature of the BSD license is that if you issue your code under it, you more or less grant anyone else the right to do whatever the hell they want with it (as long as they keep your name on it).
On the other hand, If you choose GPL, you are aiming to restrict people's rights, so you need to be ready to be a policeman if people try and operate outside those restrictions.
To stretch a historical point, the BSD license is somewhat like Gandhi's passive resistance and refusal to fight, a strategy that eventually overturned the aggressor (ie Britain) more effectively than fighting ever could have done.
It's not though (Score:5, Insightful)
But invariably the guilty corporations are violating copyright law first before they are violating the GPL. This makes sense, because the GPL is actually more permissive than copyright law. And copyright law has been tested, many times - and it does have teeth.
If someone can present an argument why Castle in this case is violating the GPL, and not violating standard copyright law in the process, then I would like to hear it.
-renard
Re:audacity (Score:3, Insightful)
And there is nothing wrong with that, so long as the conditions of the licence (typically the LGPL for kernel modules) are met. When you modify the module to make it work with RISC OS, then distribute the source code and don't statically link it with proprietary code.
Re:why violating open source copyrights SUCK (Score:2, Insightful)
Hardly 'civil disobedience' at all unless you plan on publicly breaking a law and then publicly going to jail as a way of protesting that you feel the law is unjust.
If you're not willing to take the consequences, you're simply a sneak thief; read up on Thoreau and Gandhi before trying to hide your actions under their words.
Re:Information wants to be free (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it isn't a single consciousness with only one viewpoint. It has 450,000+ users, many of whom think differently than one another. If you get caught up in believing that everyone here thinks the same thoughts and believes the same things, you're missing the point.
Sure, there are tons of copycat thinkers here; however, even they are feeding from different schools of thought.
For example: I have no problem with the concept of copyright. It has a valid purpose. I have problems with infinite congressional extensions of copyright: they destroy this purpose. I have problems with technology being used in combination with law to restrict my rights on my own hardware to inforce copyright and restrict fair use.
The GPL gives *more* rights than you would normally have as far as software goes. I'm not an expert on the GPL, you won't see me arguing the finer points of OS licenses, however I do understand the basics and have come to my own opinion based on my understanding.
When you actually look at one person's beliefs, it's quite easy to see how someone can believe that abusing the GPL license like Castle has done is naughty, and at the same time believe that the RIAA, MPAA, and CSS are evil also.
Re:Sue them (Score:3, Insightful)
Litigation is what civilized societies do.
EULA vs GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
But isn't the GPL more or less the same thing? It's trying to control what you do with something after it is in your possession?
Not trying to troll, trying to come up with the distinction.
Re:No harm, no foul (Score:3, Insightful)
These people aren't merely "sharing".
Re:EULA vs GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think so. After all, companies with EULAs impose whatever conditions they impose, and the conditiuon that you can't modify (or generally even see) their code.
All the GPL says you can't do is to use the code in your own work without also making your own work available under the GPL. Sure, it's a restriction, but it's a restriction on coders who would use GPL'd code.
A EULA is a restriction on all users, not just coders who want to create derivative works.
The GPL does not restrict my use of the software it licenses -- I can use it as I see fit--, nor does it restrict me to a relationship with the author for the term of use (e.g., giving the author the right, as in the latest Microsoft EULAs, to modify software on my system without even so much as prior notification).
Re:EULA vs GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
In a sense, the GPL is the same, as you don't "own" the SW either (the copyright remains with the author(s)); the difference is what you're allowed to do with it. A commercial EULA usually adds a lot of restrictions to standard copyright arrangements. The GPL takes away restrictions; the simplest thing it does is to allow you to copy the SW without restriction. It also guarantees you access to the sourcecode if you've only got the binary. In exchange for these extra rights, you agree to some duties, namely to distribute the source code to whoever you distribute the binary to.
Re:Sue them (Score:3, Insightful)
GPL is too strong for most to face (Score:3, Insightful)
That's right, it hasn't. And violations are regular and frequent (dozens of times a year, according to Eben Moglen, the FSF General Counsel). But so far, no one has been stupid enough to take it to court. But Eben keeps hoping someone will. From an essay [columbia.edu] on his website: "'Look,' I say, 'at how many people all over the world are pressuring me to enforce the GPL in court, just to prove I can. I really need to make an example of someone. Would you like to volunteer?'"
Maybe this will finally be the time. But I'm not going to hold my breath. No one has had the proper combination of balls and stupidity yet. Frankly, I find that as persuasive, if not more so, than an actual court ruling on the matter.
Re:What is the oldest piece of code in the kernel? (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, I dunno - some of us really like those sort of uptime numbers ...
Re:EULA vs GPL (Score:2, Insightful)
In a sense, the GPL is the same, as you don't "own" the SW either (the copyright remains with the author(s)); the difference is what you're allowed to do with it.
Incorrect.
Under a EULA, you own neither the SW (that you paid for) nor the copyright.
Under the GPL, you do own the SW. You can re-sell it, give it away, install it on all of your computers, use it while disclosing benchmark test results of the
What you cannot do is violate copyright law. You cannot distribute the SW without the copyright holder's permission. Same as you cannot scan, OCR, reprint and resell copies of John Grisham's latest novel. There are some other restrictions under copyright law but you got the idea.
What the GPL brings to the table is a way to copyright holder to automatically grant permissions or waivers, provided that you abide by certain rules.
In a way, the GPL says: if you provide the source code (etc, etc) then you have permission to do some things that copyright laws usually restrict you from doing. If you don't - well, enjoy using the SW however you see fit, as long as you don't violate any laws, including copyright law.
EULA says: yours is mine and I'll dictate how you use it.
GPL says: your is yours, do whatever is legal with it and, if you play nice, I'll even waive some of my legal rights and permit you to do what the law usually forbids.
Not even remotely similar.
Re:why is anyone that stupid (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:why violating open source copyrights SUCK (Score:2, Insightful)
Not Castle UK? (Score:2, Insightful)
According to a rumour on top 'geek' web site Slashdot, Castle have been accused of using GPL'd code in RISC OS 5. The rumour was originally posted by ARMLinux developer Russell King and there is already a healthy debate running as to the possible implications of GPL breach. Please note that www.riscos.org is NOT affiliated to ANY RISC OS hardware manufacturers, so if you're a GPL geek, please don't bother inundating me with emails as I don't have time to reply to them all. www.riscos.org is and will always remain impartial regarding public news items.
Re:Sue them (Score:1, Insightful)
One thing copyright is clear on: You need permission to use other's copyrighted works.
That is only true if by 'use' you mean 'distribute'.
If the author says, 'They are using my code illegally', the company would have to prove they have a license to do so. It's not about the enforceability of the GPL.
There is no license to do illegal things. That is the fundamental quality of illegality.
Linux as it is commonly known is publicly available free of charge without restriction on use. Unless you have a contract or other legal restriction regarding your use of Linux to do certain things, or alternatively you have copied someone's proprietary Linux modification, then your use of Linux is lawful, provided of course that you are not breaking some unrelated law in the course of your actions which circumferentially involved Linux software.
So, it is very much about the legal force of the GPL. It remains to be seen whether a license, a contract, of such scope can ride on a copyright statement. This is not at all certain. To say that copyright law protects all software licensed under the GPL is a truism. What is at stake is the validity of the contract terms which govern the use of a compiler in distribution of derivative works.
Moderators who approve such breathless platitudes as expressed in the parent sow the seeds of mediocrity in this field of discourse. Consider my post as fertiliser.
Re:EULA vs GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
Not exactly. It's more correct to say that the GPL fails to grant that privilege. Which is not a privilege you would have by default under normal copyright law.
The GPL doesn't forbid anything. All of the forbidding comes from copyright law. The GPL simply grants you permission to do some things you couldn't do otherwise. Using the code in your own GPL'd app is one; using the code in your own proprietary app is not.
Response from an Acorn fan (Score:2, Insightful)
A programmer by trade, I grew up on the Acorn RISC machines. To see that the phrase "RISC OS" needs double-quotes makes me wince... My high school prizes were spent on books about ARM assembley language, and to this day x86 assembler seems retarded by comparison. I spent a whole summer working shit jobs in order to buy the RISC OS Programmer's Reference Manuals and Acorn's ANSI C compiler. I know it sounds like a typical Slashdot takeoff but it's true!
So I read this story with disgust and a sense of betrayal, it's like my own father has been had up for peddling drugs to schoolkids! Honestly Acorn (sorry, "Castle Technology Ltd" now), how low can you stoop? A lot of young British geeks owe their IT literacy to the company you once were, but if this story is true then you will find no sympathy from even your staunchest fans.
I am really sad to see this happening.
This is the bloody limit (Score:2, Insightful)
If I was Castle, I'd be considering legal action against Slashdot right now, as this is one heck of an unfair slam to their company.
Re:Does that mean... (Score:2, Insightful)
You run a hardware store, and I steal some nails from you. I use them to build a house. Do you have the right to take the whole house?
If I take a subroutine or two illegally from a GPL project, do the original authors have the right to my entire derivative program?
I believe the answer is "no" in both cases...
Re:Sue them (Score:3, Insightful)
Litigation is what civilized societies do.
So, then, since the United States has so much good, strong, and healthy litigation, that makes us more civilized than the rest of the world? :)
I thought negotiation and compromise were the cornerstones of civilization, rather than arguing about "my toy" or "my code" or "my way".
Just for the record, I'm not supporting people stealing Linux code, I just question the use of the word "civilization" with regard to present times. (I also just spent half an hour reading Google News, and I'm thinking that was a mistake)