This is why we should suspend further judgement till we can see the sources.

It sounds like they have taken more than headers and believe (very mistakenly) that offering source code to the GPL component is all that is needed to comply with the license. They need to get a new lawyer with a clue in copyright law.

The whole wording of this announcement is cryptic at best. It seems like the following rationale is going on: "Only a tiny part is based on GPL code, it is not the whole thing. So here, have the source to that part and go away...".

If the PCI allocation components are in fact "based" as in substantially similar to the GPL code, then they are a "Derived Work". Under copyright law they have no right to do this. Under GPL license they can do this ONLY if they release the ENTIRE derived work under the GPL also.

This stinks to high heaven. I think it is nothing more than naive profiteering, thinking "it's free, let's jsut use it". They are now dismissing the whole issue. I expect to see some furious back-pedalling pretty soon. I don't think they appreciate the s**t storm that's brewing.

We have this rule: innocent until proved guilty. Originally, we thought they were guilty (because of gerph's evidence); now they're offering source code for that part, we can't make judgement until we've seen the code.

I've been protecting CTL from the pointless "Castle are probably still in the wrong even though we haven't examined the new evidence" comments.

Neil

Bang to rights. Bake 'em away toys!

2) The hardware abstraction layer DOES contain code based upon Linux kernel sources, BUT, they will release the source code and are thus not in breach of GPL

Yes, the hardware abstraction code does contain code based on work for the Linux kernel - but as Castle say they're not using any GPL'd code, you have to assume that they've just used the same APIs (interfaces), but with proprietry code behind these interfaces. Interfaces are allowed to be used by non-GPL products, which is why there is no breach of the GPL.

Of course, all this is based on what Castle have said, and it may not bear any relation to reality; it's just my (logical, I hope) assumptions.

This is not a court of justice, it is a court of public opinion ;-).

I am simply speculating, like everyone else. Since castle made it a huge PITA to get the code, there is going to be nothing BUT speculation for a while. BTW, who is sending floppies? Please let us know if you are!

In the mean time, I am reading the release and finding a lot of reasons to have doubts. I express those doubts not as a judgment but as food for thought, engaging like others in idle speculation.

Part of me hopes they have not taken GPL code, because it would be wrong to do so. Part of me hopes this case becomes a precedent to protect the GPL.

I am torn...

Here's why I am sceptical:
- "These sources will also form an integral part of a forthcoming Linux port to the IYONIX"

I read: "It's going to be part of a Linux port, so it's OK"

"any company or individual wishing to recieve a copy of the source code to this component"

I read: "Look, we're complying!"

""The RISC OS 5.00 kernel did not contain work taken from or derived from the..."

I read: "It depends what the meaning of \"is\" is, and in any case we did not inhale"

Chris. drobe. there's enough slashdot for everyone!

the hardware abstraction layer ... has it's PCI allocation and bridge setup based in part on the following functions from the Linux kernel sources

Doesn't that mean they DID include code from Linux?

You can find the answer to this on in the description of the HAL on Castle's web site.

This says: "RISC OS and the HAL are two separate entities, potentially linked separately."

So the answer to your question would seem to be that the HAL exists nowhere in the RISC OS source, in the same way that a PC's BIOS source does not form part of the Windows kernel.

I don't think they appreciate the s**t storm that's brewing.

I don't think that you, and many others, realise how insignificant your opinions are in the real world. Because a group of saddos on the Internet accuse Castle of something doesn't mean they'll end up in court. If you think they are guilty, then YOU have to prove CONCLUSIVELY that they are. The fact that they are offering to prove themselves innocent by supplying source code is simply a gesture of goodwill and an attempt at avoiding time-consuming legal doings.

To me, it looks like a big smear on Castle made by parties with other vested interests.

All you people who have accused them outright of stealing code have opened yourselves up to prosecution for a variety of things including corporate slander. You'd best hope that CTL don't take to the solicitors as easy as D Atkins does.

Anyway, let's just see what Castle's released source is like; everyone can make a proper judgement then. Until we get our hands on it, there's not much more anyone can do, and opinions on the subject are fairly meaningless.

now as it stands they say that they own the code and therefore the source code would only then be for privtae view purposes.

Also at the comment about slash dot having done more programming.
most people who posted it seems had very little interest in coding, also very little understanding of the item they were talking about.
im sure that many of the people at slashdot are what we call powerusers, but there is a difference between a poweruser and a programmer. one programs, and one fiddles.

also it seems that alot of the slashdot comments that did know something about RISC OS had alot of vested interest, and seemingly grudges and vendetas against some of the people in the community.

The smart commentary isn't that which says, "Let's screw them right over!" It's the commentary which states that if Castle have violated the GPL, they really ought to come as clean as they can, as fast as they can. We now await the views of the inspectors. ;-)

its a shame you have to grind through loads of "they are guilty" "screw 'em" "im gonna spout randomness" "mail bomb x website" to find something that said "well its only a rumour" and intelligent decussion on the GPL.

maybe there are alot of programmers who use the website, but by reading this particular thread it gives the impression its just aload of script kiddies, uninformed morons, and generally sad teenagers who should have been banned form using a computer for reasons of stupidity.

i personally don't have enough time to form an opinion of /. just that the thread on it was a total waste of my life reading, though it did highlight that there as some nasty pieces of work who have left the risc oc community.