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."
Test for the GPL (Score:5, Funny)
Let's see if the goat has teeth!
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: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:It's not though (Score:5, Informative)
In other words, yes, you were wrong, and have now been corrected. GPL does not mean Public Domain (even though the two share some similarities). It seems you're going to keep waiting a looong time for whatever gripe you have with the GPL to materialize.
Re:It's not though (Score:3, Informative)
The only work you own, is the work you do yourself.
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.
Re:Sue them (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sue them (Score:3, Funny)
Lets see, uh Linus?
I'll tell you what, if he doesnt sue, then I'll take the kernel and release a closed source version of Linux with it and call it LinaazaOS
Re:Sue them (Score:5, Informative)
It depends on who holds copyright to the associated pieces of code. Best bet is that it's been assigned to the EFF, but it could also be Linus and/or some of the people who wrote the bulk of the code.
It'll actually be rather interesting (in ~200 years) when it comes time to determine when the code's copyright expires. Just who's lifetime does each piece of code expire in relation to?
Re:Sue them (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps I'm misinformed though. Do you have an example?
Re:Sue them (Score:4, Informative)
But if you're a kernel hacker, especially in the core, and want to see the GPL get enforced more effectively, just write to assign@gnu.org, and assign copyright to the FSF. Right now, almost everyone who uses the kernel also uses various GNU userspace applications. That's what lets me do my job of enforcing the GPL. But it would be much easier if the FSF simply had copyright in one or two core kernel files.
Re:What is the oldest piece of code in the kernel? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Sue them (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sue them (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Sue them (Score:3, Funny)
It is if you are a lawyer
Re:Sue them (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sue them (Score:3, Insightful)
Litigation is what civilized societies do.
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)
Re:Sue them (Score:5, Interesting)
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: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:Sue them (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah they should have known better (Score:3, Funny)
Re:For damages? (Score:2)
Sure, say the GPL is not defendable, but then ALL copyrights are not defendable.
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:Some may argue... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Some may argue... (Score:3, Informative)
This is something that could also concievably involve criminal charges.
Re:For damages? (Score:5, Informative)
"Nobody lost anything", except control over their creations.
Copyright grants a partial legal monopoly on distribution of the copyrighted work. The owner can make people pay for it (the usual approach), or make them accept the GPL, or even prevent circulation of the work altogether (the way Sinatra pulled the movie "Suddenly" off the market after the Kennedy assassination).
Re:No harm, no foul (Score:3, Insightful)
These people aren't merely "sharing".
it was bound to happen (Score:3, Informative)
Now let us see what GPL does.....
Re:it was bound to happen (Score:2, Informative)
They've recieved one warning (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, then. Let's get everybody forming into single-file lines; you'll receive your pitchforks on the left, torches on the right. Please, no shoving, there will be plenty for everyone.
Someone get the evidence...? (Score:2)
KING writes about CASTLE? (Score:4, Funny)
Does that mean... (Score:2)
Re:Does that mean... (Score:5, Informative)
No, it means that they are commiting willful copyright infringement for commercial gain. The penalties for that are severe and include the larger of statutory and actual damages. The statutory damages can be up to $100K, iirc. Actuals include any revenue which results from the infringement.
I hope somebody tears them a new sphincter, if this is true.
Re:Does that mean... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Does that mean... (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. Consider the physical-property equivalent: I steal something from you. Do you have the right to come steal it back? No. Similarly, if they "steal" GPL'd code, we don't have a right to steal it back; the legally correct course of action is to file suit, get an injunction against distribution of the stolen code, and recoup losses from the infringer.
Re:Does that mean... (Score:5, Informative)
You are confusing the conditions for complying with the licence with the penalties for infringing the copyright.
The judge *could* order compliance with the licence as part of the penalty phase, but it is much more likely that he would award monitary damages.
The interesting thing is that each patch to the linux kernel could be viewed as separately copyrighted by whoever the author of that particular patch is. The statutory damages can reach $100K per violation if the judge wants it to.
two words (Score:2)
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
Re:How to prove anything? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How to prove anything? (Score:5, Informative)
Legal arguments on affirmative defences of fair use and licence compliance could be made. The judge would rule on infringement, then if 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.
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,
grrr... (Score:2)
--Mark.
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?
Re:Who files a lawsuit? (Score:2)
Under GPL you retain copyright.
Re:Who files a lawsuit? (Score:3, Informative)
Some people do sign over their copyright ownership when they participate in GPL projects, but more often people don't. The crux of the issue is whether you can *change* the licence. For example, the FSF can update the GPL and the changes take effect immediately on any works they own the rights to.
Assuming that no explicit transfer of copyright ownership has happened, the authors of the particular code that was copied probably each have an independent cause of action against the plaintiffs. That could hurt the plaintiffs, because the statutory damages can be calculated for each act of infringement.
Re:Who files a lawsuit? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Who files a lawsuit? (Score:3, Informative)
Bruce
Re:Who files a lawsuit? (Score:3, Informative)
Bruce
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: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: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.
No... read... (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL is the set of terms under which you can do things OTHER than what you are allowed to do under standard copyright.
It is not a use license, you don't agree to it in order to use said software; it is a license that grants you extra rights beyond what copyright does should you CHOOSE to use it (abide by it's terms).
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
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
RISC OS is not Castle (Score:3, Informative)
That's a bit like saying that you would not buy a second hand 486 with MS DOS on, because a different PC manufacturing company ripped off some GPL code last year to get part of their new system working.
I think a lot of people are getting Castle [castle.uk.co] confused with RISC OS [riscos.com], and in this case even Acorn, who don't exist any more - the code being discussed is for the new Castle Iyonix [iyonix.com] machine, released just before Christmas 2002. It is the first 32 bit RISC OS machine, and as such needs a 32 bit OS. Castle have released RISC OS 5, which is based on RISC OS which is licensed by Pace, who bought it from Acorn just before they were closed down (about 5 years ago I believe).
It is RISC OS 5 that has the alleged GPL breach; previous versions of RISC OS have nothing to do with Castle, apart from Castle's machines run RISC OS.
As a general comment, it would be nice if people on slashdot spent a little more time looking into the facts before posting.
On a separate note, if you really are interested in getting an old Acorn machine, there are a lot of second hand Acorn machines available at extremely reasonable prices if you're willing to spend a little time looking for it - for example, newsgroups, community websites, magazines (such as Archive [archivemag.co.uk], which has a small ads section), or companies which sell second hand RISC OS machines, like CJE Micros [cjemicros.co.uk].
What's really stupid... (Score:4, Funny)
If these allegations are true, not only are they violating the GPL, they're morons to boot.
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: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: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.
audacity (Score:5, Funny)
Note that the source code for many of the Linux PCI device drivers is publicly available on the Internet and may be useful in developing the corresponding RISC OS device driver.
While not coming right out and saying it, they are suggesting that if you are writing a driver for hardware for their machine, to go grab the linux kernel source code and copy as much as you can. Also, the rest of the PCI documentation on that page looks familiar, but I can't place it.
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.
Give it a couple of days (Score:5, Insightful)
reminds me of a story... (Score:4, Funny)
Of course the defendants blatantly denied everything and asked for proof. So in front of the judge and the rest of the audience, one of the programmers nonchalantly typed a sequence of keys on the defendant's software and... a huge easter egg showing the name of the original programmers appeared on the screen.
Too bad they changed the function signatures, such a definite victory may not be obtainable in court this time. But I sure hope a good precedent comes out of this.
Castle Technologies? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't the company in violation be RISCOS Ltd? [riscos.com]
Re:Castle Technologies? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Castle Technologies? (Score:3, Informative)
why is anyone that stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Er....maybe.... (Score:3, Funny)
Double standards...gotta love it.
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: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: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.
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: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.
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)
A Brief History of RISC OS (Score:3, Informative)
Wait only the consumer is a pirate. (Score:2, Funny)
Corperate Piracy is ok, its only when people share without profiting that its Piracy.
This is why Linux is bad but Shared source is ok.
Just call Michael Robertson for more info.
Re:Pirates! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Pirates! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Pirates! (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah and they even intend to make YOU buy it (Score:4, Funny)
They want to sell you stuff they stole, they should be raided by the RIAA!!! Get Em Hilary Rosen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
No, it's like putting. . . (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, and this is magical VC, so as soon as you take something out it's still got the same amount in the box. Nifty, huh?
So, there's no real harm in taking out. No one "loses" anything. But if you take out, make money, and don't put back in you become what is technically known as a "shit head."
And even the law has been known to formally uphold what it is generally refered to as the "social contract."
Now the only question is what are armed South Vietnamese dissidents are doing on the front porch in the first place.
KFG
Re:Modern Pillory (Score:5, Funny)
Get a life (Score:3, Funny)
One of the two needs to get a life (I'll leave it up to you to decide who).
I don't know what is more disturbing: a hacker mentioned on slashdot who needs to get a life, or somebody posting to slashdot on a Friday evening saying the hacker needs to get a life.
One of the two needs to get a life (I'll leave it up to you to decide who).
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: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.
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.
Your argument SUCKS (Score:3, Informative)
The law says that it's a violation of copyright law to participate (as sender or recipient) in copying the property of another entity.
Re:They have nerve (Score:5, Informative)
www.riscos.org is completely independent and in no way affiliated to ANY RISC OS hardware manufacturers.