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."
Re:Pirates! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sue them (Score:2, Interesting)
How to prove anything? (Score:5, Interesting)
Once compiled and linked and what-know-I, the source would be rather obscure, and after all, other products seem to do the same tasks, yet not using GPL code..
Please enlighten me!
- rnger
Who files a lawsuit? (Score:5, Interesting)
Would it be the many individuals? (They're probably not that rich) Would it be some benefactor, like Mitch Kapor/FSF? (He's rich, but has to pick his battles) Or perhaps a money hungry lawyer working for a fat contingency... Who files the lawsuit and pays the fees?
Have cases like this gone to court in the past?
Hold on. (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, if lets say I stole a simple 3 line chunk of code that converts a date from one format to another, and threw it in my multi-thousand line project (which is all original except for those 3 lines), would it really be breaking the GPL? I understand that it of course technically is.. but at what point would the 'borrowing' of code be of such basic elements that really, there is no other way to solve a particular problem?
Sure my above example sucks (it's friday afternoon, brains already gone)... but what amount of code warrants a "you're stealing you son of a b*tch" title, and what warrants a "meh... it's not rocket science, hell, there's no other way to do it, even if he hadn't looked at the code, this is the logical solution anyone with half a brain would come to..."...???
Re:Sue them (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How to prove anything? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pirates! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sue them (Score:5, Interesting)
IIRC, RMS has actually been anticipating for a serious GPL breach to rear its head, so it can provide an actual legal acid test of the GPL. I don't believe any organization/company has ever gone to court over GPL violations. Winning any courtroom legal victory would be a huge boon to for the GPL, as it would demonstrate it's legal resiliance. IANAL, of course.
How sad it sullies the Acorn name (Score:5, Interesting)
I still have mine here.
The ARM processor is one of the best CPUs in existence.
how ironic that on on this page
http://www.castle.uk.co/castle/rpcalt.htm
the fish in the picture is clearly too big for the inadequate bowl.
They might find that their GPL rip-off is equally dead in the water.
It's a sad day all round. Time to flush them down the toilet.
whoring
if anyone lives nearby maybe they could pop in on Monday and get the sourcecode
Castle Technology Ltd
Ore Trading Estate
Woodbridge Road
Framlingham
Suffolk
IP13 9LL UK
Sales Telephone Line: 01728 723 200
Lines Open: Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00
Sales Fax Line: 01728 727 427
Lines Open: 24hrs every day
Support Line: 01728 727 424
Lines Open: Monday-Friday 9:00-12:00
Email: sales@castle.uk.co
Re:Pirates! (Score:1, Interesting)
Getting some backing. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hold on. (Score:5, Interesting)
A three-line chunk would probably come under fair use. Also, there are some code sequences that pretty much can only be written one way; again it's fair use. The fact that it's the GPL makes no difference here.
The line between fair use and copyright infringement is fuzzy.
Re:Does that mean... (Score:5, Interesting)
Castle Technologies? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't the company in violation be RISCOS Ltd? [riscos.com]
Re:Sue them (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Some may argue... (Score:5, Interesting)
I would add that another reason for many developers is the knowledge that the code they contribute will remain covered under the GPL and not go towards lining the pockets of a closed-source company. Otherwise they'd use the BSD license, right?
So a GPL copyright violation also robs Linux of a portion of its' users goodwill to develop. Wonder if that would persuade in court...
Bah, hypocrites (Score:3, Interesting)
Copyright violations by individuals at home for private use are quite debatable...a company violating a copyright in order to make a profit is not debatable in the least...it is PRECISELY in the spirit of copyright and why it was invented in the first place.
Question on GPL. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Castle Technologies? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Who would take the case? (Score:4, Interesting)
That is why the poster to lkml mentioned the sections since all the copyright holders of those sections are affected.
As to comments that have or are going to be made regarding the GPL getting its day in court, the reason that this has not happened already is not because the GPL is weak, but because it is strong.
Much murmuring...to the supposed effect that the absence of judicial enforcement, in US or other courts, somehow demonstrates that there is something wrong with the GPL, that its unusual policy goal is implemented in a technically indefensible way, or that the Free Software Foundation, which authors the license, is afraid of testing it in court. Precisely the reverse is true. We do not find ourselves taking the GPL to court because no one has yet been willing to risk contesting it with us there.
Eben Moglen
In fact he has written two papers on the specific issue of GPL enforcement.
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-1
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-1
My expectation is that this company will buckle as soon as their lawyers get a look at the GPL in detail and what their developers/management did. The fact that the company actually took steps to hide their infringement is also going to look very bad in court. They are only making it worse for themselves. They should do themselves a favour and work out an agreement with the kernel developers before they really get burned.
Why didn't they use BSD code? (Score:2, Interesting)
They could have adapted code from netBSD's PCI and IO subsystem and integrated it in their binary only roms in total legality.
Re:How to prove anything? (Score:5, Interesting)
They might not have to. At the very least, the defendant could probably delay execution by arguing over whether they really had to produce their entire source code (on the basis of trade secret). This would, however, probably preclude them from producing code in their defence later on.
In any case, I don't think that there would be need. The GPL owners would simply have to produce the original (copyright) source code and show that it compiled down to something that looked like the impugned binaries. If this was convincing, then the defendant would have to prove that there was some other source for those binaries (at which point, producing their own (non-GPL) source code would be the one of the few choices).
On the other hand, given that they've already distributed these binaries with strings identifying them as the GPLed Linux code, we've already got a smoking gun. That they then pulled the signatures but continued to distribute (substantially) the same code, is pretty damning as proof of malicious intent.
(Remember: burden of proof in civil suits is only balance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt)
Legally speaking (IANAL), I'd say that these bastards are pretty much cooked.
Legal arguments on affirmative defences of fair use and licence compliance could be made.
Yep. Wholesale copy of the code probably fails the 'fair use' defence, and lack of source distribution pokes a big hole in the 'license compliance' defence.
The judge would rule on infringement, then if [when!] the plaintiff prevails, he would rule on damages. Factors influencing damages would be willfulness of the infringement and the presense or absense of commercial gain as a result of the infringement.
Deletion of the signatures after the first letter is pretty good proof (IMHO) of willful infringement, and they're selling the code (with the systems).
Re:How to prove anything? (Score:5, Interesting)
You can see that the functionality is very similar, and that by using some simple tools to compare the binaries [sourceforge.net] we can see they're the same on the inside. What we see here is mostly the names of functions which carry through from the source to the binary, to support debugging, run-time-linking, and similar things. The LKML post said that these strings were also found to be the same, and then Castle removed them, which is clearly evidence that they knew they'd been caught stealing.
Basically we're looking for patterns and similarities. Although somebody could (legally) write a program that had the same user interface, it's astronomically unlikely that they'd call their functions the same thing and have the exact same design.
Stephen Kapp [advogato.org] crawled back under his rock once this was published. I expect Castle will do something similar: just continue to deny that it ever happened, but remove the code.
Similar things have happened to other major open-source projects. It hasn't been to court yet because, as far I know, every case has either been an honest misunderstanding, or an intentional violation but the perpetrator skulked away when challenged. I suppose in both cases it's not worth the FSF's time&money to take it further, but the drawback is that there's no clear example to others.
I really hope the FSF does help the copyright owners bring a lawsuit, it's time for a demonstration and I'd certainly throw in a hundred bucks to help fund it.
This isn't just a free software problem though: people who publish proprietary reusable code (development libraries,
Re:I hate to start a licensing flamewar... (Score:3, Interesting)
Like others have said.. violations of the GPL have to be fought. If you fail to enforce the license then it soon becomes meaningless and you loose the ability to enforce it later.
Having an enforceable GPL is important. Many of the programmers who choose to use the GPL license or work on GPL licensed code would be lost if GPL turned out to be un-enforceable.
Personally I have no interest in spending a few hundred hours working with a group of programmers writing code only to see a company come around, grab it up, change a few things and perhaps change the output to a proprietary format. Then they start selling it and it becomes very popular but they keep the code to themselves.
Wouldn't that be great? Now not only are they making money off our original effort, but we can't even take advantage of the new product without paying. Heck, we can't even make our original program use their file format without risking breaking the law (DMCA.)
So even though we did nearly all the work we all would have to pay someone else in order to be compatible with the version that "everybody else" was using.
With GPL (if it is enforceable,) the company would have to release their changes back as GPL as well. Now we don't have to worry about suddenly needing to pay for what we worked on and gave to the world as free.
As far as wasting time fighting instead of coding goes... that is exactly why a lot of GPL programmers have assigned copyright of their software to third parties like the FSF [fsf.org].
Re:It's not though (Score:5, Interesting)
Like the GPL says:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.
A theoretical "test" of the GPL might find that the license text is all correct and legal. Or, maybe a court would declare the license invalid. This could mean that every user of Linux and other GPL software is in violation of copyright (until the authors work up another way to give out permission). That would be a major news story, and is why people get excited when the possibility of a "test" arises.
Re:Does that mean... (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it's you who doesn't understand. What makes you think I'd want to run Windows on it? I'm sure the operating system overhead is lower than for Windows, but probably not enough to make up for a four-fold reduction in cycles.
RISC_OS
Heh, 4 full time developers [riscos.com]?
So it's another proprietary desktop operating system, but one that only runs on slow expensive machines, has an infinitesimal marketshare and development community, isn't unix-compatible, and has a graphic design stuck in the early 90s? I should care why?
Any few of those I could put up with (free/non-unix/marginal, or proprietary/gorgeous) but the combination is pretty damning.
I'm happy to admit that if I'd gone to school in the UK, I'd probably feel all nostalgic and want to buy one. But I didn't and I don't. And I especially don't want to support the kind of rat-bastardry discussed in the original story.
Will DMCA kill GPL? (Score:1, Interesting)
Don't believe it won't happened in UK, because EUCD is going to pass in there pretty soon.
Re:Sue them (Score:2, Interesting)
The Free Software Foundation makes every effort to make sure a GPL violation case never makes it to court all the way to the point of doing nothing for long periods of time. There was a case where the Dell/Red Hat alliance violating the GPL since Feburary 2002. When I notified the FSF about it in July of 2002, I was asked not to go public with this GPL violation that spanned an entire GNU/Linux distribution worth of packages. When I confirmed the violation was continuing in October of 2002, they still sat on the same request to do nothing. It was not until around December that the companies got around to honoring the written word of the license and they still have not truely honored the spirit of GPL.
Re:How sad it sullies the Acorn name (Score:2, Interesting)
I still have mine here.
Hey it's not just UK kids ! In the mid-late 80s the Indian govt. distributed a bunch of BBC Micros to a set of federal govt.schools. I understand it was actually funded by the UK govt, although I'm not sure.
I was in junior high and we had these two computers (in their own air conditioned room
Talk about using the source
Ah, those were the days.
GPL: The Religion (Score:2, Interesting)
I care. That doesn't mean I want to mod you down either. It just proves that people don't understand the spirit of the GPL. Why it exists. Why it's important to defend.
Part of the point of the GPL isn't so much the technical aspect of the license - there's RELIGION there also. It is the unspoken belief (well, I think RMS has said something to this effect), that many coders contribute to the GPL codebase to make it better (and therefore save the universe from oppression or something like that)
When one steals from the GPL codebase, their contribution - which if sold is REQUIRED, must be returned to the whole. To not do so, to take the accomplishments of others who build on this license diminishes us all. It's as simple as that. Now, it is apparent (at least to what I've heard) that what this company (Castle) has STOLEN the work of others. Of course it should be looked at.
Hell, since many of us are now paying the "assumed CD-R piracy" fees everytime we buy blanks, this at least is a blatent violation of a legally enforceable license.
Re:EULA vs GPL (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference lies in what the two types of licences say.
The EULAs that we know and love (from MS, Adobe, etc.) grant us the right use the copy we have in very limited ways (one machine/one user, no redistribution permitted, no modification permitted, no source code provided, no liability, etc.)
The GPL shares the "no liability" part, but it expressly *permits* using the software any way you want, copying it as often as you want, selling as many copies as you want. All it asks is (1)that copies (and derivatives) are themselves GPL'd, and (2)that if you distribute a copy (or a derivative) of GPL'd software, that you provide the source code (if asked) to the recipient. These were added specifically to ensure that GPL'd code cannot be co-opted by proprietary interests.
By the way, the BSD licence is also worth mentioning. It's as close to "public domain" as you can get: BSD'd code can be used any way you want, as long as you don't hold the authors liable and you give them credit. It is "free-er" code than the FSF's "Free" (GPL'd) code in the sense that there are fewer restrictions on its use. In practice, however, without the GPL's protections, eventually BSD code gets "embraced and extended" by MS et al, rendering the orginal BSD version incompatible with its proprietary derivatives.
Here's my problem with copyright and a lawsuit (Score:2, Interesting)
It would be a great example of testing the GPL without running into the copyright argument.
An even better situation would be to write code, release the code under the GNU GPL, give it to a friend, sign a legal contract offering him use of the copyrighted code if and only if it is used under the terms of the GNU GPL, and then have him violate the terms of the GPL for either (A) release of derived source, (B) distribution, or (C) both.
Take each other to court, represent yourselves (in propia persona), and have a judge resolve the issue. Sue for enough over the small claims limitations, and when done, release him from legal liability if the suit is successful.
You set precedent, appeals potentials, and all without the FSF's involvement (or political backwash).
--Matt
RISC OS is not Castle Technologies' product (Score:3, Interesting)
From the details it's not clear whether Castle are the culprits or RISC OS Ltd. It is unlikely to be Pace as they are not interested in the desktop products. Knowing some of the parties concern I know where my suspicions lie but I'm not saying.
Re:RISC OS is not Castle Technologies' product (Score:3, Interesting)
I like that story (Score:3, Interesting)
They also used the Teletext system to distribute free BASIC source code, even before they released their computer they were supplying source for the Acorn Electron. You needed a teletext adapter to get it into your machine. When I was 10 or 11 I used to sit there with a pencil and graph paper copying down the source from the screen. I hadn't even used a computer by then, let alone owned one. I had no idea what I was writing down at first but gradually I got some sort of idea of what was going on. It was made more difficult by the fact that in order to maximize the bandwidth the newlines were tokenized so one line ran into another like this (I'm using ! as newline):
10 INPUT "Hello, what is your name?",name!20 IF name "DrSkwid" THEN 50!30 PRINT "Agghhh Doctor I've been expecting you"!40 GOTO 60!50 PRINT "Daleks, kill ",name!60 PRINT "bye"
happy days
glad you made it to Berkeley
Re:Here's my problem with copyright and a lawsuit (Score:2, Interesting)
Neat coding solution. Unofortunately, law is not code (especially in the "civil law" jurisdictions like US & UK).
IANAL but (a) this looks set to be a UK lawsuit and (b) I am a lay UKian with some experience of copyright law.
UK courts do their very best to avoid this course of action. They want to see genuinely adversarial cases.
There's an additional problem in that they want to see cases with significant financial amounts in dispute. Trust me, I'm thinking hard how to argue this...