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."
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
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