The Icon Bar: Castle break GPL?

Castle break GPL?

Daniel Barron contacted The Icon Bar this morning to point us at a Slashdot article which suggests that Castle Technology may be breaking the General Public Licence in their RISC OS 5 machines.

The Slashdot article points us to an article on Linux Kernel Mailinglist, which outlines that Castle have "taken some of the Linux kernel 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."

The article, by Russell King, states that "Having discussed this with Linus, Linus is of the opinion that a public letter should be written to Castle Technology Ltd, copied to lkml and various news sites."

Also stated in the article are the two areas which the problem has occured with. Namely, these are the PCI subsystem and the IO resource allocation, which has been mentioned in passing on the ARM Linux Mailing List.

If the accusations are true, and Castle have used the GPL Linux code, they will have two main options. The first is to release the source to the sections where the GPL code is used and the second is to rewrite the sections without using the GPL code. The first is by far the easiest, but making RISC OS (or parts of it) open source has been discussed before by RISC OS Ltd, who said that it would not be released as open source.

IconBar.com will keep you up to date on this as we get more information.

Castle break GPL?

This is a long thread. Click here to view the threaded list.

GuestX

Message #91715, posted by guestx at 11:36, 10/2/2003, in reply to message #91714

Member
Posts: 102

Assuming that the recent allegations are true, perhaps it's time to get a good price for your Iyonix on eBay:

RARE Castle Iyonix PC - GPL violation edition!

[ Log in to reply ]

Chris Williams

Message #91716, posted at 12:18, 10/2/2003, in reply to message #91715

Unregistered user

I'm particularly amused by the number of faked names and aliases employed here by people attacking (with the exception of Andrew but he's just as wound up as usual). One word: cowards.

Chris. drobe. proud of it.

[ Log in to reply ]

Horse

Message #91717, posted at 13:21, 10/2/2003, in reply to message #91716

Unregistered user

Oh yes, the usual "won't stand up and be counted" jibe. If this were comp.sys.acorn.* you'd have brought up top posting or Outlook Express instead, if only to penetrate the dullness of it all.

[ Log in to reply ]

Gavin Smith

Message #91718, posted by SparkY at 13:38, 10/2/2003, in reply to message #91717

Danger! Danger! High Voltage!
Posts: 697

Where have these muppets come from suddenly? I can't understand why people who have no interest in RISC OS, stick around - it doesn't seem to be out of innocent interest, it seems to be out of spite, as they only appear to nitpick, criticise or cause fights. It happens on all platforms I guess - when you move to another platform, you like to think you've made the right choice, so you returning to your old haunting ground and ruin it as much as possible. It's quite sad. I'm interesting in many OSs, and regularly read on what is happening in their comunities, but I don't chime in every now and then with pointless jibes.

Grow up or just piss off. I'm sure Castle will release a statement of some kind then, but can you please stop this drivel and go spend your time constructively on something you do believe in, because for a lot of you, it certainly isn't RISC OS.

[ Log in to reply ]

GuestX

Message #91719, posted by guestx at 13:58, 10/2/2003, in reply to message #91718

Member
Posts: 102

Yeah, like the first thing I did when I got my Archimedes was to rain all over the Acorn Electron's parade.

[ Log in to reply ]

Andrew

Message #91720, posted by andrew at 14:08, 10/2/2003, in reply to message #91719

Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439

Then you should be ashamed of yourself.

[ Log in to reply ]

GuestX

Message #91721, posted by guestx at 14:29, 10/2/2003, in reply to message #91720

Member
Posts: 102

I don't know whether a ;-) would have helped that last comment go down a bit better or not.

[ Log in to reply ]

Gareth

Message #91722, posted at 15:13, 10/2/2003, in reply to message #91721

Unregistered user

Excuse me but isn't Linux supposed to be free i.e. the code is there for people to develop it. At least Castle have taken some initiative and realised that RISC OS should be compatible with other OS's, without having to include another front end.
Isn't that what the OS needs more than anything else, compatibility?

[ Log in to reply ]

Gavin Smith

Message #91723, posted by SparkY at 16:00, 10/2/2003, in reply to message #91722

Danger! Danger! High Voltage!
Posts: 697

Bloody hell Gareth, if you're not trolling mate, I suggest you and go and properly read up on what has supposedly happened! :)

[ Log in to reply ]

Darren Winsper

Message #91724, posted at 16:39, 10/2/2003, in reply to message #91723

Unregistered user

Is my name so odd that you think it's an alias? I'm offended ;)

[ Log in to reply ]

SimonC

Message #91725, posted at 17:59, 10/2/2003, in reply to message #91724

Unregistered user

Going back to the points I raised, and the replies (which seem to have been lost in the past behind quite a bit of petty bickering which seems to have turned this from a sensible discussion):

I wasn't suggesting that the code in question should be softloaded, merely using the example of an independently developed piece of softloaded code that a particular machine might require (no real machine, I'm speaking generically). From one point of view you could say every module loaded is part of RISC OS, whereever they come from, but of course there is no reason I couldn't write my own module for whatever purpose, using GPL code, and release it fully complying with the GPL. If someone happened to put that in with RO4, maybe on a CD, I seriously doubt there could be a sensible claim for the whole lot.

My other points: If the GPL says "the whole product", which some here seem to be taking as "everything in whatever is sold together, even if some parts of it are separate produces", then I would have my doubts whether that would hold. To my reading of the GPL that isn't what it means, although it does seem a little vague on precisely what does and doesn't come under it in some areas. If another part of the ROM, say Edit, used GPL code (I'm in no way suggesting it does, just using it as an example) then some might claim the GPL applies to the entire ROM. I would say it only applied to Edit. It would seem unlikely to me that the GPL would be able to enforce the entire ROM in that example, whatever it might say. I'm fairly sure you can't say absolutely anything you want in a contract or license and have it legally binding if it's unreasonable. It would need a lawyer to give a definitive answer on that one, though.

Of course the RO5 issue is far more blurred. If there is GPL code in there and they don't even release the source for that then there is no question about a violation. It would be quite interesting to see a similar situation come to court and see just how much the GPL really managed to force open (or withdraw). I just wish it didn't look like happening in the RISC OS world.

[ Log in to reply ]

John Hoare

Message #91726, posted by moss at 18:05, 10/2/2003, in reply to message #91725

...óflå...óflå...óflå...

Posts: 9348

Yes, that's what I was trying to say, Simon; only you've done it more in-depth and effectively. I think it's a bit too simplistic to say "look, it's obvious" - there *is* a blurred line, here. It just depends which side of the line you fall on...

Either way, I think this is one area of the GPL that could be rewritten or added to - however you understand it at the moment, there is obviously some confusion in this area; it could do with being more explicit.

[ Log in to reply ]

Darren Winsper

Message #91727, posted at 18:43, 10/2/2003, in reply to message #91726

Unregistered user

Look, I don't see what the blur is. If Edit contained GPL code, then you'd need to to GPL Edit, since Edit is a self-contained application.

RISC OS 5 is an operating system. How could Castle take the GPL code out of RISC OS 5 without breaking it? Thus, the GPL code is part of RISC OS 5. Therefore, you must GPL RISC OS 5. Of course, whether you would have to GPL the bundled applications is a little unclear, since the interpretation when it comes to Linux is that you can use non-GPL code on Linux because interfacing with the kernel is using the kernel, rather than deriving from it.

[ Log in to reply ]

SimonC

Message #91728, posted at 19:41, 10/2/2003, in reply to message #91727

Unregistered user

The blur is just how separate various things are. Edit is in the same ROM as RO, but is a separate app, although the ROMs are sold (or supplied with the computer in this case) as a unit. You can argue both ways for each case, and the same is true for the PCI code, except Edit and the PCI code lie towards different ends of the spectrum of seperatedness.

Castle's statement certainly doesn't clear things up at all IMO.

[ Log in to reply ]

Pages (2): |< < 2