Slashdot Mirror
Linux Xbox Project Seeks Microsoft Signature
silvaran writes "We've had several Microsoft posts, and here's another, from CNet News. The team behind the XBox port of Linux is seeking a digital signature from Microsoft to approve the XBox Linux project. This would allow it to run on an unmodified XBox. According to the article, "Microsoft will be eligible to apply for an award under this scheme if they approve Xbox Linux as a normal Xbox program."
This is another team trying to get a licence to allow linux to run (in the same way a game is signed - only an OS), NOT microsoft trying to get their way into linux. I personally bet the app is turned down.
Well, I can't speak specifically how it works for Microsoft, but this is how it worked for Sega (and Microsoft copied some of Sega's technique for this):
1. Developer approaches Sega with an idea. Typically they do this through a publisher, however, or Sega would at least suggest they get a publisher
2. If Sega likes the idea (established ideas are more likely to get the okay, as in a port of an existing title), then the developer is given a contract to sign.
3. The developer/publisher ponies up a lot of money for the SDK/development hardware.
4. The developer must meet with Sega on a regular schedule to demonstrate their progress. If Sega isn't happy with the direction things are going, they can terminate the agreement.
5. Once the title is finished, Sega burns it.
6. I'm not clear how it worked here, I don't remember if Sega distributed the discs, or if the publisher did.
Of course, there's also other aspects, like jewel case artwork, documentation, etc., that has to be approved by Sega.
The SDK/equipment is typically done up-front, and the rights to use it can typically be revoked at any time during the contract.
-- Joe
If you're going to submit a story about a letter written to MS, please, LINK TO THE LETTER
/. editors to fault with this, as CNet didn't link to the letter either.
Can't hold the
-malakai
-Malakai
A Dragon Lives in my Garage
The console market is dominated by Sony, not Microsoft. Microsoft has monopoly in personal computers market.
Saying that Microsoft has illegal monopoly on XBox is like saying that Dell has illegal monopoly on Dell-brand computers :) Of course MS has 100% market share of XBox consoles :), but the real market is entertainment consoles, where Microsoft has maybe quater market share, or even less.
P.S. Note also that monopoly itself can't be illegal. It is abuse of the monopoly which is illegal.
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
I apologise - Atari got whipped for copying the program generated the security code. Accolade however beat sega because they reverse engineered the security which is protected and the judge also mentioned that the security code probably lacked protection because of the "words & short phrases doctrine"
It doesn't run Windows. It has APIs that look like windows calls to access the underlying hardware. There's no process management, no VM, and there isn't any OS stored on that hard drive. Your disk has the API libs on it, just like any console.
The very important item is that they use their own development kits. Many people out there released software for the Dreamcast based on the official Sega or Microsoft SDK's, and Sega legally could have sued them into oblivion.
As for requiring approval for distributing their own 100% original software (again, using thier own SDK), that's a legal issue that I'm not 100% familar with (I have read Sega v. Accolade, but don't remember a lot of the specifics). I do know that in the case of the Dreamcast however, there is copyrighted code that MUST be present in the boot block of the disc, or the BootROM won't accept it. The legal standing of making your own bootblocks, I'm not sure about, but this was one of the things that Sega learned from the Sega v. Accolade case.
The issue in this case though, is that the Linux XBox team can't crack the digital signature that Microsoft uses (AFAIK), so they have to ask Microsoft, or waste time in trying to crack it.
So, while I agree with your view, please note that it can take up to several years for this to happen. By the time the Dreamcast was hacked, it was already dying, and were it not for the Mill CD backdoor in the BootROM, the Dreamcast most likely would not have been hacked (the requirement for the media being GD-ROM's, which are higher capacity than CD-R's was strictly enforced, except for when a particular signature was on the disc). Oh, and since I don't think that Sega has anymore profit coming in off Dreamcast games, I guess I can safely say that there are some titles that had checks for whether or not they were on real discs or not (and did some pretty cool stuff if they weren't) - but I won't say more than that, nor will I name titles.
I think that the key point here is that the Linux XBox team would actually like to release Linux for the XBox sometime this year, rather than five years from now (pulling numbers out of my butt).
Oh, and one final thought...
they can release unlicensed software should they want, provided they wrote all code themselves and got all hardware programming information by reverse-engineering rather than stealing NDA'ed documents
Sure, but only if they're not bankrupted in court by a company with bigger pockets than them tying things up (i.e. Microsoft) while trying to prove it.
-- Joe
This also brings up the interesting point that, should they refuse, they might loose their copyright on the X-box system.
The law is pretty explicit about this, and the refusal to license is at the heart of Sharman Networks/Kaaza legal battle with the RIAA. In the Sharman case, if they can show that the RIAA colluded to block competition in distribution through use of copyright, they (the RIAA) could lose all government protection of that copyright (and of course, Sharman wins).
Copyright is a "temporary" monopoly on what you have created. If it's mis-used to block competition, i.e. leveraging one monopoly (your works) into another area (like distribution), you may loose your copyright protection. This would have been an even better angle than breaking MS into smaller companies, strip them of copyright on Windows....but that's another story.....
This is a really great legal cudgel to force MS's hand.....If they refuse, their refusal could be used against them in the future as a defense for those who attempt at breaking the key on X-box (think no DMCA on X-box because no copyright)....If they do go along with the approval, they can keep their copyright on X-box and loose money on every unit sold. If they admit that they are loosing money on the console and profit from the games, which they alone can cert., and use that feature to keep others away, they undermine their own legal position and demonstrate mis-use of copyright
I love watching MS between the two horns of a dilema...
I take it you have never surfed the web or read your email on an average TV then ? The image quality and resolution just isn't up to it.
The parent poster said "software monopoly". They were referring to Microsoft's control over who does and doesn't publish titles for the Xbox. This has happened before; Atari sued Nintendo over claims that their "anti-piracy chip" was in reality a way for Nintendo to restrict licensing to approved developers.
There's a brief writeup here:
And the court's decision here:
The courts ruled in Nintendo's favour but for a non-obvious reason: Atari was found guilty of copyright infringement! The antitrust violations claimed by Atari were mostly ignored.
Anyway, my point is that you could reasonably argue that Microsoft is engaging in antitrust violations iff they refuse to license Linux for the Xbox.
Sega lost in Sega vs. Accolade because IIRC, the copyrighted code in question was only 4 digits. The console merely looked for the letters 'SEGA' on the cartridge. Since this wasn't exactly rocket science to figure out Accolade copied those 4 characters on their games. They were using their TRADEMARK for protection, not copyrightable code.
Gameboy on the other hand required an image of the word "Nintendo" on the cartridge, as seen on the boot screen (the name scrolling down the screen, and blanked out when no cartridge was present). Some company I can't remember the name of, found out that the boot code only checked the CRC for a match, so they produced an image with the same CRC code and produced unlicensed games. Learing from that mistake, the gameboy advance uses a similar image, and the boot code checks EVERY PIXEL of the image. Hence the copyright and trademark protection.
All of the console makers lose money on the consoles, and attempt to recover that money by licensing software titles.
WRONG WRONG WRONG. The only people who have lost money selling consoles has been microsoft and sega. the PS2 sells above cost. That's probably why the graphics, CPU, and sound systems are all below XBox's level. Not to mention the fact that it's 2 years old, almost going on 3.
The SNES sold for quite a bit at launch for the same reason. The Razor/blade analogy isn't there with most gaming consoles.
Microsoft DOES lose money per xbox sold. however, they are the exception, not the rule in the gaming biz.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
A comment earlier implied that opening up the s/w architecture for this box (by unlocking the signature mechanism) would ultimately end the console model for gaming systems.
I remember (vaguely) many years ago, a game console (Colecovision?) that also had an expansion unit (keyboard, cassette tape perhaps, printer capability), so you were (if I remember right - someone feel free to add detail) buying a game system that expanded to be a basic computing system. Yes, we are talking in the pre-Windows days...
MS Seems to be doing almost the opposite. They are selling a PC as a game, but restricting its operation as a freely working PC.
A number of people questioned why anyone would actually want to use one of these boxes, especially in comparison to the Walmart PCs. I actually like the form-factor (especially to use in home entertainment centers, along with TVs and stereo gear), and am seriously considering purchasing one or more X-boxes specifically for running Linux. I think its a neat little box, and if I don't really want the walmart box, this is a nice alternative.
Also, there are people who will already have an Xbox (especially kids), who may not have the money to spend on a PC immediately, who might like to load up Linux. I read about the X-box linux project on a number of sites, and the most recent 2600 magazine edition had an article on it. One article that I saw also indicated that with some care, you can Install Linux, and still play X-box games. What's more, if you are constrained for space, you have a small-platform PC, and can still use your TV. No need for a more costly (small-footprint) PC, plus a monitor ($$), plus the space lost for the new monitor.
Now, if you get a new xbox for $200, and the mod-chip for maybe $50, you are paying a 25% toll to defeat that signature scheme. Plus the extra few steps required (cutting and soldering cable wires for the mouse and keyboard), for example, are pretty basic, but just enough to deter many who might otherwise use this project.
I am curious about how far memory or disk storage can be expanced.
I think that X-box linux is a very nice hack, and I would like to see it seen not just as a novelty, but as a means towards PC appliances, and towards low-cost computing).
Sam Nitzberg
http://www.iamsam.com
The XBox normal operating system is a very much stripped down version of Windows NT, running in supervisor mode. There is no user mode, applications are running in supervisor mode as well. Any binary running on an XBOX can modify the running system and can overwrite anything on disk.
The XBOX kernel executes only XBE files. These are XBOX binary files, they are self-contained. They cannot load DLLs or other extensions. Also, the XBOX kernel does not provide even I/O subroutines for controllers or other gaming hardware, the XBE has to bring even these itself in order to play.
In order to run, XBE files must be signed. Microsoft is the holder of the private key for the XBOX, so in order for your XBE to run, Microsoft must sign the binaries. As of now, they require the source of your application, compile it and sign the resulting binary. So it is not as easy as giving an arbitrary binary to Microsoft and have them sign it in order to subvert the XBOX.
If you choose not to ask Microsoft up front for signing a chain loader to load a Linux kernel, you'll have to have a genuine game, and have Microsoft sign this. This game must be buggy, and there must be some kind of circumstance where this game turns into something different that can load arbitrary code and execute it.
The most simple way to have this is to modify the USB controller routines for a game that provides custom controllers such as a steering wheel or something similar. The USB drivers for such a game must have a bug where they accept arbitrarily long USB blocks from the bus, and by accident jump to the head or end of that buffer. Thus, you can build custom USB devices that send about 1 K long USB blocks containing a chain loader and then execute this.
Your code would not be part of the code Microsoft signs, the flaw would be very innocent in your code, and the actual chain loader would not be signed and it thus changeable.
Currently, there is no key recovation scheme for code that I know of. Thus, MS cannot easily revoke the signature for that buggy game. Also, the maker of the game cannot be directly blamed for making some kind of circumvention device, as there is no actual circumvention in that code, just a flaw.
MS would most likely build the next generation of XBOXes to contain an updateable list of revoked keys, though, and probably use XBOX online gaming to distribute key revocation lists.
Now you are just being silly.
1. There is a huge chance that the NVIDIA-drivers won't work on an XBox.
2. The XBox only has 64MB ram. That is not nearly enough to run newer games well on top of an OS (and X) that is already taking up some memory.
At the launch date, the retail price of the box was $300, meaning that the wholesale price was probably $250-$275. Then they dropped the retail price to $200, with a wholesale at $175. So, barring a drop in production costs, they should be losing $100 more per console than they were at launch.
Hardware prices have dropped spectacularly since then - I'd be surprised if they're still losing money on the Xbox.
Using off-the-shelf hardware from other vendors means that MS can't reduce production costs as aggressively. And they can't just go to Pricewatch and buy out-of-production CPUs, so their prices don't fall as precipitously as those of an arbitrary PC clone.
MS still has to absorb shipping and (two-year) warranty costs in that $175, as well. They're definitely still losing money on the console, if not on the X-box division as a whole. In fact, the latest quarterly reports confirm that they're still losing money on the division as a whole, too.
Didn't know about the attach rate - nifty.
I didn't either. Maybe it's all MS interns getting those games for $10-$20 apiece. My attach rate was 7, because I got those 7 games for a total of $70. *grin*
This will come in time as people polish the installation routines. The software to do everything you need exists already (not sure about the recording tho), it just needs some convenient bundling. Try Xine/MPlayer for video, Grip for ripping, and any of a dozen packages for audio playback. Check out http://www.xboxmediaplayer.de/newweb/info_screens. htm for a nice app that is progressing well.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.