I'm stretching myself a bit further here, not having bothered reading through the GPL, but surely the whole point of open source is that people can use it? Have Castle been both proven to use GPL code and not provide the source they used that derived from GPL code? Until either of those comes up it should be a case of "innocent until proven guitly", and applying that universally seems to be beyond most Slashdot readers.

Also GPL != Open Source. Open source just means you provide the source which can be under any license. GPL is open source as is the BSD license and others. The whole point of the GPL is to keep the work and anything dervied from it in the public domain.

One of the best comments I saw asked why they did not use netBSD code instead as its license basically says "do what ever you like". NT and 2k have BSD code as does the RISC OS TCP/IP stack IIRC.

If the code is really embedded as opposed to just being a module then the entire program source is required to be released.

Hence, as I see it, Castle has zero option about whether it can release 'RISC OS' source - that right lies with Pace, and to 'buy' sections to open source would be a costly business! It could, of course, release its new PCI manager and I/O subsystem code - but if you include GPL components with non-GPL components IIRC you risk your license too, though don't quote me on that. There is now also a question of whether this is Castle's branch of the RISC OS code which contains this code, or whether it is Pace's branch. The two are different ballgames.

I do find it amusing though that the same people that are advocating anti-RIAA laws so that they can't copy their CDs and DVDs are the first lining up to act on rumour!!! <mutters>Of course, that's purely for 'personal use' and it's totally different, mumble mumble</mutters>

The real irony is, if the EUCD had been incorporated into UK law by the deadline, Castle could find themselves up on criminal charges.

Hey let's suspend any form of critical assesment of that it must be true..... ;) [Heavy Sarcasm has now ceased]

Regards

Annraoi

Chris.

So that's why there's been so many new versions since release....

To comply with the GPL, Castle would have to release the source for all the parts of RISC OS which are linked with the GPLed code, which would probably be a substantial part of Risc OS. If they don't do this, they have no right to use Linux kernel code in their product. Unlike the BSD licence, which allows you to take and not give back, the GPL requires you give back - in the form of source code. From the sounds of it, they aren't acting honourably.

There is also the LGPL which is typically used for libraries, so you can develop a closed-source product using an LGPL library without having to publish your source code. However, no Linux kernel code is licenced under the LGPL.

And why are you just thinking of the RISC OS community in all this? This violation doesn't help the Linux community, the people Castle (are alleged to have) stole from.

Simple.

For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.

/me confused :-/

The same file clause probably wouldn't hold either. In the case of a ROM image there are several different bits of software that are definitely not integral (such as Draw and Paint). You could argue the same with archive files.

However, CTL say they'll be putting out a statement which will clear things up on Monday and then I'm sure we can all shut up because they'll be cleared completely of any wrong-doing.

As for whether it'll stand up in court, why wouldn't it? The GPL grants more rights than standard copyright law. If they didn't agree to the GPL, then they could ship their product at all.

I find it too coincidental that one of the accusers happens to work for RISCOS Ltd who have been effectively killed by RISC OS 5. It won't be long before Select subs dry up completely as people invest in the new technology, as opposed to throwing money at the RiscPC which has simply had it's day. Who would be daft enogh to keep subscribing to updates to a 26bit soft-loaded OS whilst a 32bit ROM-loaded version is being developed and run on better, faster hardware?

And as Castle and Pace are well aware of the number of pathetic nerds that RISC OS and Linux unfortunately attract, they would hardly likely do something like this in the full knowledge that some saddo like Justin Fletcher would look for it straight away.

I thought for a while that people would fail to find something major to whinge about over the Iyonix and 32bit. I mean, now it's here, the whingers have had their End Of RISC OS Due To No 32bit mantra crushed. If there's nothing wrong... make something up!!

It's no wonder they wound Acorn up. Excellent machines, fantastic engineers and a customer base consisting of nerds and whingers (half of which don't buy anyway).

Castle have saved RISC OS. The least you whingers could do is allow them the legal and moral right of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Castle _are_ innoccent until proven guilty. That's why we're waiting patiently for their side of the story this week. So sit down.

Chris. Jesus, zealots.

1. Violate the GPL.
2. ???
3. Profit!

:-)

However, I believe it is unwise for individuals to make public statements that could in any way be construed as damaging to the reputation of a person, organisation or company unless a) they are absolutely sure of their ground and can prove the truth of it and b) have deep pockets to defend themselves. The following website gives a quick explanation:

http://www.rjw.co.uk/legal/libelxpress/defamation.aspx

[ Incidentally "RISCOS" finds significantly more content on Google than does "RISC OS", so don't buck the trend.]