Wii Will Have an Updatable Linux OS

eldavojohn writes "There's bits and pieces of information floating around that revolve around Iwata Asks interviews on Nintendo's website. What I found interesting was the tidbit about the updatable operating system: 'Wii is the first system from Nintendo that we can continue to be involved in (via operating system updates) after the customer buys it. This means that Wii will greatly expand and diversify the ways in which people will enjoy games in the future.' The Wii is reported to operate on top of a proprietary form of the Linux kernel, although there are already efforts to make a GNU/Linux for the console. So, the answer to the age old question is that it already runs Linux."

Comments

"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[jb.hl.com]

How proprietary, exactly? Potential GPL violation, anyone?

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[megla]

I'm glad I'm not the only one whose immediate reaction was "say what?"
How does this work with respect to the GPL, requirements to release sourcecode, copyright, etc?

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[MBCook]

It could be like MkLinux, basically a modified Linux kernel running atop a proprietary microkernel.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[Chris Pimlott]

Who knows? The article linked says nothing about it, there's just the submitters comment. If there is anything behind this, a source would be helpful...

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[Anonymous Coward]

but no one was there

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[joe 155]

I was wondering about that, although I found this;

"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."

IANL but I wonder if they could claim that it was sufficiently seperate to have a different licence?... It a real shame that they didn't just go for a free OS anyway, I mean the games are going to be hard to copy, hard to the extent that no one but the ones who would get it anyway would... so why bother with all this proprietary nonses

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[grapeape]

Because no one wants to be the developer of the next dreamcast.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[Reverend528]

It's running SCO linux.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be like MkLinux, basically a modified Linux kernel running atop a proprietary microkernel.

There is also the fact that MkLinux is directed at PowerPC, which is what the Wii uses.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[metamatic]

Assuming the Wii really does run Linux, they will doubtless be using the TiVo hole to get around the GPL v2.

That is, they'll provide the source code with their proprietary modifications for the Wii hardware, but it'll be totally useless as the Wii hardware will be designed so that it will only run code signed by Nintendo. So the modified code will be useless to Wii owners, and also useless to everyone else as PC hardware won't have any use for the Wii hardware support.

And Linus will no doubt say that this is just peachy.

I think it's exactly the kind of crap the GPL was supposed to stop. If I purchase hardware and software that's GPL licensed, I should be able to modify the software and run the modified version on the only hardware it's useful for, the hardware I own. That's why I support RMS's efforts with GPL v3 and think they're a good thing. In fact, I think they should go further.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[X0563511]

Or it could be linux using proprietary binary modules to talk to the Wii hardware and software... kinda like Nvidia is doing.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[Sillygates]

They will probably do what tivo did.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[chmod a x mojo]

STFU, i LIKED the DreamCast. I think it is a shame that people didn't want to make games for it. And for what little hardware there is the games look amazing, i really would have like to see what sega could have done had they lasted another generation on the console front.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[Anonymous Coward]

Good reason for them to stay away from Linux as much as possible...

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[grapeape]

Did I say I didnt like the Dreamcast? I have two of them...imported the first one (black dreamcasts werent available here in the states until the sports edition right before it died, I own a real copy of both Bangai-Oh! and Ikaruga along with around 50 other originals. The problem with the dreamcast and making games for it is that any idiot with a burner could just pirate the crap out of their games. Sega was dumb enough to launch a console that was even on paper weaker than the competition a full year before the others with very little hype about the actual games (showing someone doing something like watching tv or cooking than screaming sega loudly is not promotion). Sega screwed up and pretty much died for it.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[macshome]

MKLinux was Linux on the Mach kernel.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[lunadog]

This would be a GPL violation. NVidia is an exception allowed by Linus because the driver was not written specifically for Linux.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[Meneth]

Hardware is not licensed under the GPL. Only the software is. This is why Linus is right and RMS is wrong.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[A beautiful mind]

Except that violates GPL. Nvidia gets away with it for two reasons.

First, they have a GPLd interface between the two. This is more of a show of trying to satisfy the GPL while still violating it, but at least is something.

Second, they are not distributing it. Users have to install it manually. The livecd Kororaa had a taste of the problem.

If Nintendo is using proprietary (non-gpl compatible) modules and wants to sell (distribute) Wii, they are violating the GPL.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be like MkLinux, basically a modified Linux kernel running atop a proprietary microkernel.

MkLinux was a port of linux to run on top of the OSF MK (Mach) microkernel, which is free as in BSD... hardly proprietary. MkLinux ran on powerpc (PowerMacs), hppa, and x86. The microkernel got reused by Apple as part of (the open-source) Darwin project for MacOS X.

http://www.mklinux.org

It's not had active development for a while now, the active development has been on the conventional Linux, on Darwin and MacOS X!

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[HuguesT]

Nvidia are definitely distributing their kernel extentions via their web site. You are playing with words here.

You are right that Nvidia gets away with it because essentially Linus himself has no big qualms about it. Personally I think this is a shame. Because of the laissez-faire attitude we have very poor quality free drivers, as no one has the incentive to reverse-engineer the hardware, and very poor quality proprietary hardware. Until the very latest beta drivers (9xxx series) I think Nvidia drivers really really sucked, as in lock up every 2 days on my 64-bit AMD machine (the 32-bit drivers have been sucking a little less for longer). Now they are barely adequate.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[Anonymous Coward]

Because of the laissez-faire attitude we have very poor quality free drivers, as no one has the incentive to reverse-engineer the hardware, and very poor quality proprietary hardware. Until the very latest beta drivers (9xxx series) I think Nvidia drivers really really sucked, as in lock up every 2 days on my 64-bit AMD machine (the 32-bit drivers have been sucking a little less for longer). Now they are barely adequate.

Unfortunately, this is a universal problem with modern video hardware, and is spreading to other hardware as well. The key issue is that the hardware manufacturers want to differentiate their products, in order to add value and roll back the commoditisation driven by MS Windows in the 1990s. That commoditisation also benefited Linux (together with other open-source systems), and it's reversal has led to lower quality drivers for users of both MS Windows and Linux.

The unfortunate reality is that the video hardware manufacturers who protect their IP by using binary-only drivers are able to prevent competitors imitating their designs, and thus to increase the value of their products (in terms of performance). This is true on Windows too, where video drivers included on the Windows CD used to be licensed to Microsoft in source form, and compiled/tested/fixed along with the OS source code, but are now licensed as blobs (so other hardware vendors can't get access to them).

It's sad that the laptops I owned back in the 90s were well supported with open-source drivers on not only Linux, but also the BSDs, where as critical hardware in the last couple of laptops I've owned has only partially worked under Linux (using binary drivers), and been hopeless under the BSDs. Maybe I've just had bad luck, but my impression is that a lot of the hardware manufacturers are doing everything they can to try and move the industry back to the 'bad old days' of proprietary hardware, when hardware vendors had 'lock-in' power.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[Professor_UNIX]

Personally I think this is a shame. Because of the laissez-faire attitude we have very poor quality free drivers, as no one has the incentive to reverse-engineer the hardware, and very poor quality proprietary hardware.

Nobody is forcing you to use proprietary NVidia graphics drivers or their cards. The open source driver support for S3, Trident and the old Cirrus Logic cards is quite good. If you use Linux you have to expect that you won't be able to use the latest and greatest hardware available unless you're willing to accept some bitter terms from the manufacturer to protect their intellectual property so that they can stay on top of the game. We've seen what happens to the manufacturers' cards that Linux fully supports in open source... the companies become irrelevant. Do you think Nvidia wants to become irrelevant just to satisfy some silly kernel source code requirement? Better yet, why doesn't *Linux* implement a binary compatibility layer for drivers so manufacturers don't HAVE to implement their own proprietary interface. If there was a simple accepted binary driver interface that manufacturers could use to write drivers for Linux you'd see a LOT more support for Linux on cutting edge hardware. Blame Linus for that not happening though. He holds on to these antiquated beliefs in "free" software to the detriment of people that actually want to use their computers for something useful. That's why a lot of people, myself included, have abandoned Linux on the desktop and use Macs now.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[A beautiful mind]

Nvidia are definitely distributing their kernel extentions via their web site. You are playing with words here.

No. The important difference is that Nvidia is making their kernel module accessible through the website. Then YOU have to download it and LINK it against the kernel. They are legally doing nothing wrong with that - it is the users deciding to use the proprietary module with the kernel.

In the case of Kororaa, they distributed it together already linked.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[indifferent children]

If you use Linux you have to expect that you won't be able to use the latest and greatest hardware available unless you're willing to accept some bitter terms from the manufacturer to protect their intellectual property

How about: "If you use ANY operating system, you won't be able to use the latest and greatest hardware available unless you're willing to accept some bitter terms from the manufacturer to protect their intellectual property". Using Linux doesn't subject you to terms that are more bitter, it's just that we Linux users have grown to expect freedom.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[Thomas Charron]

.....

Binary drivers are present for MANY things besides nvidia. Linus making an exception for nvidia has NOTHING to do with anything.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[hcob$]

Most likely, it's not a GPL violation. There are several instances of proprietary "linux" kernels out there. Monta Vista being a prime example. They call it linux but in reality, the Glibc and many other core portions have been redeveloped from scratch with a focus on size, stability, and the etherial "Carrier Grade Linux" Standard. You then compile a kernel source using the new libraries and voila... proprietary kernel. It's not that they have taken the linux kernel and won't relase the source. To the contrary, they more than happily point you at kernel.org. All that is truely propietary are the libraries with which the kernel is built.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[lpcustom]

NVidia drivers are the best drivers available for linux on anything. I've never had a problem with them at all. ATI's Linux support has sucked in the past not NVidia. My last three video cards have been NVidia because of this. I've never had X lock up, much less every 2 days. So enlighten me as to why so many people love NVidia's Linux support and you hate their drivers.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[lunadog]

It's all about whether the binary driver is considered a derivative work.

See:

http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735

So, many binary drivers will conflict with the GPL.. The fact that they "help" Linux users in making more hardware compatible means that the GPL violations may be overlooked.. I think if Wii used binary kernel drivers with a Linux kernel, they would be in serious risk of litigation for violating the GPL.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[lordmatthias215]

Hmm I was under the impression that the Wii's CPU (Broadway), although designed from IBM, was designed almost from scratch, and bears very little resemblance to the PowerPC architecture (which Xbox 360 uses).

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[hexix]

Doesn't the BSD license allow you to change the source code without releasing your changes to the public? I thought that was the main difference between the BSD licensed software and the GPL licensed software.

If that is correct, then a modified version of mklinux could be proprietary.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[metamatic]

You misparsed my sentence. It was "hardware and (software licensed under the GPL)".

And I didn't agree to any license when I purchased my hardware.

That's why Linus is wrong and RMS is right.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[_iris]

It says "operating system updates" not "kernel updates" and, as I understand it, if they don't distribute their proprietary kernel in binary format, they don't have to distribute the source code. You could argue that they are distributing it packaged in the hardware, but I don't think that floats in court.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[Rogerborg]

That's a low cunning way to get an article published. It's not like the editors ever read the linked articles anyway; in fact, you could probably get them to link to goatse, just by submitting an "article" along the lines of "OMGZ!!! Sony to sue Micro$oft using DMCA over GPL violation"

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[jasonditz]

Except that we also know it's binary compatible with the Gecko, which was itself just a specialized G3. The early development kits for the system were just Gamecubes with a hardwired Wiimote.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[msh104]

it could be filled be proprietary modules that actually controll the hardware itself.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[SQLz]

Second, they are not distributing it.

What kind of dream world are you living in?

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[Roxton]

Why don't you just cut through the crap and put the following condition in GPL3?

"Using this software on a device that does not allow the owner of the device to make changes to that software is a violation of this license."

Then watch as the cost-per-unit goes up on embedded devices that now need to make their code memory accessible and swappable (or flashable).

It's about scope. There's no getting around it; you're talking about expanding the scope of the GPL to cover hardware accessibility.

Here's a thought problem for you. What would happen if part of the kernel were rewritten in a hardware description language (HDL) for performance reasons? The HDL describes an ASIC, which requires mass-production in multi-million-dollar manufacturing plants to be economically viable.

You see the new GPL as something that elegantly closes a loophole. I see the new GPL as a blatant hack designed to get its grubby fingers on hardware specifications in a very narrow way. I would have more respect for GPL3 if it were more honest about its intentions and included a provision like the quoted statement above, adequately fleshed out to include hardware accessibility standards.

I would respect it, but I still wouldn't use it in most cases.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[TheRaven64]

nVidia 'get away with it' because they are not distributing the kernel. The GPL applies only to distribution; you can't distribute the GPL'd code unless you comply with the restrictions it places on you. If someone distributes the kernel and the nVidia drivers together, however, then they would be violating the GPL (I seem to recall a distro got in trouble for exactly that recently).

Remember, the GPL is not a EULA; it has no say on what you can or can't do with the code, only on how you can distribute it (or derived works of it, but there is precedent to show that drivers are not derived works because you can't copyright an interface).

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[ak3ldama]

Wrong. The GPL is only interested in protecting the rights, and wishes of the authors of the code. The authors of GPL code wish for their code and derivatives to remain open and useable by users. This doesn't happen when a device like a tivo uses GPL code but then uses hardware that requires tivo's digital signature upon the software to run. If tivo didn't want to follow the GPL license they shouldn't have used the code. Simple as that. "Using this software on a device that does not allow the owner of the device to make changes to that software is a violation of this license." Then watch as the cost-per-unit goes up on embedded devices that now need to make their code memory accessible and swappable (or flashable). Is it now the job of others to help companies make money when not in their employ? The GPL is about making people play nice if they want to be on the playground, it's not complicated at all.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[mrchaotica]

The open source driver support for S3, Trident and the old Cirrus Logic cards is quite good.

What horrible advice, (implicitly) suggesting that people limit themselves to that old crap! If you want Free graphics on Linux, you can do much better with ATi's R200 (or was it 250?)-based cards, or Intel integrated graphics.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[evil_Tak]

The problem with the dreamcast and making games for it is that any idiot with a burner could just pirate the crap out of their games.

The same was true of the Playstation, yet Sony managed to do all right with it.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[Anonymous Coward]

no it isnt and anyways how could linus make an exception the code isnt just his
heres a random article and theres more out there
http://beranger.org/index.php?article=967

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[mrchaotica]

Show us a link to Nvidia's website where we can download the Linux kernel (note: not just the graphics card driver) then!

Look, I would love for Nvidia to be caught violating the GPL, because the current situation sucks. However, the reality of the situation is that they're not quite doing so, because the only thing they're distributing is the binary blob itself and the glue code to patch it into kernel code that's distributed by somebody else. They're immoral, underhanded assholes for doing it, but it's legal.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[Roxton]

Wrong? What do you mean wrong? As far as I can tell, our arguments are in perfect harmony.

All I'm saying that if that's really what you think the GPL is about, then you need to be honest and incorporate a broader provision mandating upgradability of software, rather than pretending you found a loophole by addressing code signing specifically.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[stsp]

Or it could be linux using proprietary binary modules to talk to the Wii hardware and software... kinda like Nvidia is doing.

No, Nintendo would violate the GPL if they did that. Nvidia is not doing this either, since nvidia is not distributing a Linux kernel binary with their drivers linked in. You can link whatever you want into your copy of the Linux kernel, as long as you don't distribute it. That's the loophole nvidia is using to get around having to GPL their drivers. They only distribute the module, and the user links it into the kernel.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[grapeape]

Really? When did self booting backups come out for the ps1? I know they had modchips and the swap tricks (which for many just resulted in replacement purchases) but didnt realize there were easily made bootable backups.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[X0563511]

They can probably get around it by requiring the user to link it on first startup. But I admit I don't really know what I'm talking about. I, for the most part, ignore licences.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[Sancho]

If Nvidia were found to be violating the GPL, they'd probably fight like hell to let the reparations be just ceasing distribution of the "infringing" work--and they'd probably win. All that would mean, then, is that we'd have no 3d drivers for their cards. Some of us don't mind using the binary drivers.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[mrchaotica]

All I know is that if I were the victim of a GPL infringment, I'd be demanding that the infringer release the source code -- no more, and no less. The FSF's policy of just allowing the infringer to stop isn't enough of a deterrent, IMHO.

Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel"

[evil_Tak]

You could get a "boot disc" that would boot up, display text ("Insert backup disc and press start"), and pause while you put in your backup, which would just be a burned image.

A Linux Kernel, eh?

[macaulay805]

Does that mean they're required to distribute the source code?

Re:A Linux Kernel, eh?

[Barryke]

RTFC, dodo read the fucking comments

Re:A Linux Kernel, eh?

[senatorpjt]

Hey, it's a valid question, in as much that i've been reading the comments for a half-hour and still don't know the answer.

Re:A Linux Kernel, eh?

[Sal Zeta]

Theorically Yes, if the rumors are true.

In pratice...I really doubt it, even if they really use Linux.
I mean , even if they say "Yes, we use linux.No, we aren't going to release the source. Have a good day." what "the community" is going to do? An online petition? A legal action from the EFF? Good luck with that.

Sorry to sound like a troll, but recently the linux kernel and his development has changed his path...Now is a product controlled by IBM and other corporations. I don't know if it's really a bad thing, but surely it's no more what it used to be in its original concept.

Re:A Linux Kernel, eh?

[feld]

Really? So Linus and co no longer make the decisions? The LKML messages that flood my inbox tell me differently.

The kernel development has not changed, it has only matured. They are now looking at the possibility of stopping all feature additions and doing bugfix only for a while so that things stabilize and age-old bugs that nobody bothered to look at get squashed.

Re:A Linux Kernel, eh?

[Barryke]

@Senatorpjt
If you didn't read the same thing as i'm going to say again, sir, you are a moron.
In short this is the case:

IF they distribute a modified linux kernel, they are obligated to hand out code to everyone who asks for it.
After that, they could make other (new, homebred) software for the hardware of the system
(think video, controller, diskdrive, usb, flashcards) binary only and not distribute it.

Nonetheless if they distribute binary files on a linux kernel, these will be reverse-engenered before you could calculate the first googol decimals of pi by using a deskcalculator.

Personally;
I dont expect the Wii to use Linux at all. (excluding Nintendo's internet game and content servers)
It would be much more practical to write their own OS and model their own API for data, video and input.

"proprietary form of the Linux kernel"?

[khasim]

How is that possible?

Re:"proprietary form of the Linux kernel"?

[epi314]

One possibility is that it might only run versions signed by Nintendo.
This is a loophole that GNU GPL version 3 is meant to prevent.

Re:"proprietary form of the Linux kernel"?

[Kankraka]

At least until someone finds a way around that you mean, which will almost definitely happen. The fact it runs linux is just another reason for me (a previous nintendo hater, i have disliked most games on their systems since the 64) to actually buy one.

Re:"proprietary form of the Linux kernel"?

[MikeBabcock]

That's not a loophole at all -- the loophole is that you can lock down the CPU to only run signed code and this has nothing to do with Linux at all. Its perfectly plausible that Microsoft could give you the source code to whatever runs on an XBox 360 up front and let you play with it all you want, but that you still wouldn't be able to get your modified versions to load up on your 360 since it requires signed code.

The openness of the software doesn't necessarily reflect on the hardware it runs on. And in case you missed it, please note, you do not need to do anything wierd to the OS or base kernel to make this possible on a hardware platform.

That said, usually hardware hacks are forthcoming that remove such limitations with time (on the XBox, PS2 and PSP so far at least ...)

Re:"proprietary form of the Linux kernel"?

[Anonymous Coward]

The openness of the software doesn't necessarily reflect on the hardware it runs on. And in case you missed it, please note, you do not need to do anything wierd to the OS or base kernel to make this possible on a hardware platform.

The GPL has nothing to do with the openness of code, it has everything to do with the freedom of the code as defined by the free software foundation. If nintendo were to tivoize the wii it would violate our freedoms.

Specifically this violates the following three freedoms:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

With a tivoization you can not run the program for the purpose you want, adapt it to your needs, nor improve the program. In other words your freedom is denied.

Re:"proprietary form of the Linux kernel"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Much ado about nothing.

If I give you a quarter but stipulate that you may only spend it on a newspaper, then I have denied you freedom.

Or, If I you insist, if give you a quarter in exchange for a nickel, a mutual beneficial trade given that I stipulate you may only spend it on a newspaper and I have interest in you buying newspapers, then I have denied you freedom.

But you can do something you might not otherwise be able to do, and everyone profits.

Re:"proprietary form of the Linux kernel"?

[oohshiny]

That's not a loophole at all -- the loophole is that you can lock down the CPU to only run signed code and this has nothing to do with Linux at all.

It's a loophole from the point of view of the people who wrote the GPL, and it's getting fixed in GPLv3. That is, you may be technically able to "lock down the CPU", but you will not be permitted to run GPLv3 code on that kind of hardware.

Re:"proprietary form of the Linux kernel"?

[MikeBabcock]

Personally, its not a loophole -- and Linus doesn't seem to think so either, although RMS obviously does. But to use his own examples, if I bought a digital book that was using GPL'd software, I'd still be able to read books with that software on other hardware by modifying the GPL software in question. Its possible I wouldn't be able to use my modified software on the hardware I bought, but that's a hardware issue, not a software one and the GPL's about software.

PS, I like trusted computing and locking down CPUs -- its great for business situations that require good solid security and allows for enhanced mandatory access control systems. Sure, it might suck if misused in a home environment, but it can also be very useful (like making gaming consoles that are guaranteed to all behave the same way).

Re:"proprietary form of the Linux kernel"?

[Anonymous Coward]

GPL v2 already covers this:


The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. 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.


Lawyers can argue against anything, but GPL v2 covers any digital signing required to install the software on the hardware it is distributed on.

Re:"proprietary form of the Linux kernel"?

[heinousjay]

Where did you get that GPL2 covers digital signing? You didn't get it from the paragraph you quoted, that's for sure.

Re:"proprietary form of the Linux kernel"?

[oohshiny]

As I was saying: it's a loophole from the point of view of the people who designed the GPL.

You're entitled to your opinion that other licenses are better and that this kind of "lockdown" is appropriate. I would wish that people like you would have the intellectual honesty not to hide behind the GPL then, though. If you truly believe that that kind of behavior is OK, then please use a license other than the GPL license.

Re:"proprietary form of the Linux kernel"?

[MikeBabcock]

For what? Read my post and tell me how the GPL is inappropriate for use on devices that can't use other software. The software is free to use/edit/change/migrate to another hardware platform.

You have no implicit right to use any software you like on one-use hardware devices. I'm glad certain router companies leave their hardware flash upgradable so I can load a different version of Linux on them, but if they didn't, its none of my concern -- I could just buy OEM hardware without the lockouts and still use that same GPL routing software on it.

Buy hardware that supports your freedoms if you want to, but it has nothing to do with the GPL.

Re:"proprietary form of the Linux kernel"?

[oohshiny]

You aren't paying attention. All I said was "it's a loophole from the point of view of the people who designed the GPL". How do I know? I asked them. And you can also look at the GPLv3 draft:

The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of use, such that they can implement all the same functionality in the same range of circumstances. (For instance, if the work is a DVD player and can play certain DVDs, it must be possible for modified versions to play those DVDs. If the work communicates with an online service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot distinguish.)

You have no implicit right to use any software you like on one-use hardware devices.

You have no implicit right to use anybody else's software anywhere. The rights you have are spelled out by the authors of the software in a license. The intent of the authors of the GPL has been clear, even for GPLv2. But the GPLv2 had some loopholes relative to the intent of its authors, and the GPLv3 fixes that.

Buy hardware that supports your freedoms if you want to, but it has nothing to do with the GPL.

We aren't talking about my wishes, we are talking about the wishes of the authors of the GPL, and they are clearly not what you claim they are.

proprietary kernel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems a little like an oxymoron. Any modifications to the kernel source need to be made available to the community under the GPL. If they rewrote everything from scratch to get away from the GPL, then it's not a linux kernel.

Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[eldavojohn]

I don't think so. I guess I phrased this badly. It's reportedly (no official Nintendo release yet) that the Wii will be using a Linux kernel with a proprietary GUI. Whether or not they are modifying the kernel (like Google has done so that it fits there needs) I cannot say. All I know is that they can either look at the GUI separately from the kernel and leave the kernel under the GPL or they can bundle it all together and not fret over releasing it under the GPL.

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not too clear on the GPL. I thought you could modify the software under it and release it without ever being forced to hand out the source code. I could be wrong though.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether or not they are modifying the kernel (like Google has done so that it fits there needs) I cannot say.

Google doesn't distribute their modified kernel, though.

I thought you could modify the software under it and release it without ever being forced to hand out the source code. I could be wrong though.

You are.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Chris Pimlott]

It's not reportedly so unless you can provide a link to some reputable organization that's reporting that. Otherwise it's just a rumor.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Toveling]

You are wrong; you're thinking of the BSD-style licenses. Anything under the GPL (or software that extensively uses GPL-software's interfaces) must have source released if it's released.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[fossa]

I think Nintendo could have a modified Linux kernel for which they offer the source code to Wii owners to satisfy the GPL requirements. Atop that they could have any proprietary system without needing to release that code, just as various proprietary software packages run atop Linux. The only potential issue would be a binary-only video driver, though Linus' stance is that this is not a derivative work of the Linux kernel.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[tepples]

Anything under the GPL (or software that extensively uses GPL-software's interfaces) must have source released if it's released.

But under GPL 2, there's no guarantee that the hardware provided with the software will allow an improved version to run, which makes an end-run around FSF freedom #1. Linus Torvalds reportedly likes GPL 2 much better than the GPL 3 drafts, deliberately not caring about freedom #1 for hobbyist end users of proprietary hardware.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[mhore]

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not too clear on the GPL. I thought you could modify the software under it and release it without ever being forced to hand out the source code. I could be wrong though.

Well, they're certainly free to write their own proprietary modules and have their own GUI, that's for sure.

Mike.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Aladrin]

Not just 'Wii owners'. Everyone. That's the whole point of the GPL. It gives you the freedom to run it and distribute it as much as you want, but if you change ANYTHING you must provide those changes to EVERYONE.

So as long as they don't actually modify the kernel, and ship it with a custom GUI (under any license), they are fine.

I'm sure if Nintendo finds the need to fix/modify the kernel, or any other GPL'd software they use, they'll release the changes.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Lorkki]

To be bluntly, you don't seem to be a software engineer either. It wouldn't be the first time that rumour sites would be mixing up technical terms and concepts, though.

A graphical user interface would most likely sit completely in userland, while the Linux kernel would only contain a device driver for communicating with the hardware. The user-mode parts can be as proprietary as Nintendo wants them to be, but any changes to the kernel itself must be released or they'll be violating the terms of use of the GPL.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[peragrin]

No sources only need to be available if the end person asks for them. under the GPl Nintedo could release the source code only if you filled out a card asking for it and then paid a few for the creation and mailing of a cd with the source. So $5-$10 depending on where thy are mailing it from.

Granted the first person to do that then has a right to post the complete source code minus Nintedo's trade marks on any website they choose.

It just makes more sense to hook it up to your web site and alllow people to download it. cheaper, easier, and less hassle and your in complaince.

but source code only has to be released if requested.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Lobo42]

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not too clear on the GPL. I thought you could modify the software under it and release it without ever being forced to hand out the source code. I could be wrong though.

That's almost exactly what you CAN'T do with GPL'd code.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[5E-0W2]

Nope, you only have to distribute the source to those you distribute the binary to. Of course those people are free to redistribute the source to whoever they want, so in effect it'll reach everyone who wants it for anything that gets released to a non-tiny group of people, but there's no obligation to distribute the source to those you haven't distributed the binary to.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Talchas]

Umm, yes just 'Wii owners'. Or rather, anyone who gets a binary copy of the OS must be able to get a source version easily and w/o real charge. You do NOT have to give the source to everyone.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Kjella]

You are wrong; you're thinking of the BSD-style licenses. Anything under the GPL (or software that extensively uses GPL-software's interfaces) must have source released if it's released.

As a general rule, yes. There are things which definately require you to release it, using GPL'd code or a GPL'd library. There are various shade of gray with different encapsulations of the code, I won't go into that. But there's also a few very clear cases where you do not have to distribute source:

a) By mere aggregation, i.e. the software has to actually work together, not just come on the same media
b) Using standard OS API calls (otherwise there could be no GPL'd softwara for Windows, or proprietary applications on linux)
c) Using libraries that come standard with the OS/compiler (e.g. Microsofts standard C/C++ library)

So in the example he quoted, yes Nintendo could use the Linux kernel, but not release any of the userspace code if they built that from scratch, or only the modified libraries if using GTK (which is LGPL). They do need to distribute any chances they make to the kernel, but since binary drivers are tolerated it need not be more than a stub. Also, there's nothing preventing them (and I imagine they will be) using a digitally signed kernel, so that modified kernels can't be used to copy game disks.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Servo]

IANAL but I think you've oversimplified the GPL. If you've written an app that links to GPL libraries, I don't believe it falls under the GPL requirements to release the source. If that were the case, you'd never see apps on Linux like Oracle or whatnot.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Rix]

No, if you link to GPL libraries (such as QT), you must release the source. Most libraries are released under the LGPL, which allows linked non-GPL binaries.

Which is why almost all proprietary X software uses GTK.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[zippthorne]

No, they need only provide the source to the people you ship it to. Of course this is academic as they must apply the GPL to the work-as-a-whole, so those people would in turn have the right to redistribute the code under those same terms. at least.. as I read the GPL... IANAL

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[KarmaMB84]

Standard language libraries are generally okay even if they aren't LGPL. Then there's the question of who decides which ones are part of the standard OS and may the original developer of the library just change their mind and sue no matter what.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Rix]

The GPL requires you to give source to anyone you give a binary to. You can modify GPL software for internal use and not release the source, but if you release the source, you are required to release the binaries.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[be-fan]

Linking against GPL libraries requires you to release the source (since otherwise the GPL could be circumvented trivially, just by compiling the code you want to steal into a library and calling it). However, applications do not link against the kernel, which is why they're not affected by the licensing condition.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Burdell]

Nope, you are wrong. Re-read section 3 of the GPLv2; for a commercial product, it either has to come with the source or include a written offer to give ANY third party a copy of the source (for at most the cost reimbursment of the cost of distribution).

My TiVo manual includes a written offer for example (also with their download site URL); anyone (not just TiVo customers) can request a copy of the source from TiVo.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that was just a writing error, but to make things clear. It should be "if you release the binaries, you are required to release the source." And not the other way around.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[buswolley]

Its reported here: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=199749&c id=16358237

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Anonymous Coward]

Torvalds works for OSDL (aka IBM, HP etc etc) and is protected by their lawyers. What is comign out of his mouth is their words... they bought his say on the license... because they want Trusted Computing hardware to become commonplace, and then use it with Linux systems.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[NitsujTPU]

They could indeed develop a proprietary GUI without modifying the kernel at all. The kernel code is entirely separate from the GUI code, aside from a few drivers, and they can inject propietary drivers and taint the kernel.

The short answer is, yeah, it's incorrect, and it is a little alarming to read, but people are probably overreacting with their responses to this one.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you could modify the software under it and release it without ever being forced to hand out the source code.

You can modify GPL'd source code without having to release those modifications. It's when distribution comes into play that you have to consider your obligations to share. I've said it about Google, and I think similar considerations apply to Nintendo: distribution includes appliances and game consoles, not just disk media or network sharing. I've always found the FSF's silence about Google's appliances very curious. Perhaps there's not a shred of modified GPL code on those things, but that has not been my impression.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[crankyspice]

You are wrong; you're thinking of the BSD-style licenses. Anything under the GPL (or software that extensively uses GPL-software's interfaces) must have source released if it's released.

Actually, you are wrong. The GPL is only required (i.e., only applicable) when copyright is involved; i.e., making a derivative work. For there to be a derivative work, there has to be a copying within the ambit of the copyright act. If you look to the Altai test (adopted by pretty much every court), you'll see that code dictated by external requirements (i.e., pretty much every piece of software running on a UNIX/Linux system has to use malloc, etc., and thus must either call the system calls directly or via the C Library) is specifically filtered out of the copyright comparison. So any interface calls, even symbols brought in from include files, are [strongly] arguably not even copyrightable (a 'method of operation'; see, e.g., 17 U.S.C. 102, and Lotus v. Borland, 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995)) and even if they are, would be stripped out of any comparison of code done in an infringement action. Absent an infringement, there's no need for GPL applicability...

Further, the COPYING file for the Linux kernel (http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING) specifically carves out "user programs that use kernel services by normal system call." So, with appropriate facts, one could easily argue copyright estoppel in the (unlikely) event that Linus (as the copyright holder for much, if not most, of the kernel, AFAIK -- the FSF, etc. would not have standing to sue, it would have to be Linus or some other kernel contributor whose work was in the Wii) brought suit.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Anonymous Coward]

...there's nothing preventing them (and I imagine they will be) using a digitally signed kernel, so that modified kernels can't be used to copy game disks

You know, I've always suspected there was more to Torvald's resistance to GPLv3 than he (or other kernel devs) were letting on. Considering how important the Wii is to Nintendo, I can imagine there's been some close cooperation with the kernel dev team. If that is true, I hope folks are forthcoming about the relationship. If true, it sheds new light on people's concern with "pragmatism", doesn't it.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think so. I guess I phrased this badly.

Your comment trying to explain the summary is even worse. Please stop trying until you actually know what you are talking about.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[senatorpjt]

According to http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=199749&c id=16358341, it's just a rumor.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[ZakuSage]

So in other words this could be complete crap, and yet Zonk posts "Wii Will Have an Updatable Linux OS"? Hm...

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[senatorpjt]

Yet, nvidia links against the kernel and doesn't release source code. I guess it's just a question of which has more lines.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong.

This has been debated lately and proven wrong.

If you distribute the code, you have to make the sources available. It's not enough to say "I didn't touch it, just added X to it". You STLL have to provide the source to whoever asks for it.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[tepples]

If you distribute the code, you have to make the sources available.

But you don't have to distribute the compiler or especially the linker along with the source code, do you? I would imagine that the Wii linker includes a digital signing step to keep out hobbyists and other unlicensed developers.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[cduffy]

No, that's an example of who is operating under an explicit exemption made by the copyright holder.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[alienw]

It's not even trusted computing. It's just that Linus wants his system to be successful, and forcing companies to do things they do not want to do is a great way to fail at that. There are plenty of reasons why companies don't want people to mess with their hardware -- control, competition, proprietary licensing, and many other reasons. If you are using a piece of software or hardware licensed from someone else and have to respect the NDA, you can't just go handing out source code left and right. For instance, wireless router chip companies have lots of competition (in China, for one), so they are notoriously tight-lipped.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[jZnat]

A lot of non-free software uses GTK+ since they don't have to spend thousands of dollars on proprietary licences for Qt. I'm quite positive it's a choice of cost over quality.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, there's nothing preventing them (and I imagine they will be) using a digitally signed kernel, so that modified kernels can't be used to copy game disks.

If they're trying to do that, I wish them luck. Somebody will find a way to inject code into the running kernel, the end users are in controll of the physical machine you know. Even if they don't allow you to have root or load kernel modules, somebody will find a way.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a definitive source either, so it's just rumored that it's just a rumor.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[aussie_a]

If you've made no changes, can't you just link to other people's copy of the source code (assuming that such people have a copy online).

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[BKX]

Um, that's what the man said. Kids with their lack of reading comprehension skills today.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Rix]

Yes, exactly. You can buy a restrictive, absurdly priced license for QT, otherwise you have to release your source.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Dlugar]

Actually, you are wrong. The GPL is only required (i.e., only applicable) when copyright is involved; i.e., making a derivative work.

I think you meant "e.g.". Copyright is also involved when making a copy, which is what Nintendo would have to do if Linux came on every Wii. Thus, Nintendo would have to distribute the source code (or fulfill one of the other similar requirements) for the GPL'd portions of the software. (You are correct, however, in that only derivative works would be covered under the GPL, so Nintendo could certainly create a closed-source user interface on top of Linux and distribute them both together without having to GPL the userland portion.)

Dlugar

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[oohshiny]

If you've written an app that links to GPL libraries, I don't believe it falls under the GPL requirements to release the source

Merely linking doesn't cause it to fall under the GPL. However, if you distribute the linked binary, you are distributing code under the GPL, and you only have permission if all the code that is linked to it is also distributed under the GPL.

If that were the case, you'd never see apps on Linux like Oracle or whatnot.

Oracle's code is not linked with the kernel, and libc isn't under a (strict) GPL license, so the GPL doesn't require Oracle to distribute the sources to their code.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[seguso]

But under GPL 2, there's no guarantee that the hardware provided with the software will allow an improved version to run, which makes an end-run around FSF freedom #1.

But you do have freedom to run the improved version, just not on the same machine. You are free to build a machine which runs the modified software.

Requiring to be able to run the modified software on the same machine would be a restriction on the hardware, not on the software, so it seems a software license is not the right place for it.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[maop]

You don't seem to understand software or operating systems. Oracle is a self-contained database management system. Why would it have to link to any GPLed software on the Linux Platform? An application program doesn't link to the Linux kernel: it would only use kernel's services through system calls which is not considered linking.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Simon80]

Sure, being able to run the software on a different machine is great, but RMS wants computing to be free, not strictly software. My understanding is that what bugs him is people having computers, and not being free to use, modify, and distribute the software that runs on them. So I don't think that being able to buy some other computer to run the software quite cuts it for him, and the GPL is a legal codification of those ideals, so you'd expect the GPLv3 to take that into account.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Simon80]

Um, no, he said they only need to be available on request, which implies that if there is no request, then they aren't available. The GPL states they the sources must be available, end of story. So, either the grandparent post doesn't make sense, or it's wrong.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[arose]

Not per GPLv2.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[rm69990]

As long as Nintendo provides a written offer to provide source code with the Wii, it is fine. Go read the FAQ on the GPL.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Actually that isn't "to those you distribute the binary to", but rather it is to "any third party". It doesn't have to wait for a "trickle down". Not only the people who recieve the binary, but any one else (any third party) who requests it, gets source code, as per the agreement you posted with the binary in the first place.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Actually, if you release binary only, you are required to also give a written offer to provide the source code to "any third party". This means that if Fred buys the binary, Sally can make good on the offer to provide her, as a third party, the source. You can end up with more people requesting the source code than people you've sold binaries to.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[aichpvee]

Most proprietary software I've used on Linux uses Mo/Lesstif, which looks uglier but works better. But I guess the principle is the same.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Antique Geekmeister]

If they're not using gcc or a patched gcc compiler, I'm really surprised. Many commercial compilers are nowhere near as reliable or flexible as gcc, and often fail miserably when handling cross-platform compilation in cases where gcc does so quite conveniently. It's usually much easier to patch gcc to support a new hardware than to purchase and retrain for a new proprietary compiler, especially if the hardware platform being compiled for is brand new.

This makes it interesting if they're selling or publishing for partners a developer kit with a compiler: then, they'd have to publish the patched gcc-based compiler.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[mwvdlee]

Would a license even be legal if it places restrictions on third party products?

It would be rather odd if somebody managed to release GPL3-licensed software for the X360, Microsoft would suddenly be forced to open up their hardware.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like you have trouble with the word "either". The GPLv2 states that you either have to bundle to source with the product, or explicitely make it available on request (for a potential distribution fee).

This means that either you give the source code with the compiled code, or you give the source code to anyone who already bought/licensed the compiled code and asks you for the source. The latter is exactly what ggp mentioned.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[seguso]

It would be rather odd if somebody managed to release GPL3-licensed software for the X360, Microsoft would suddenly be forced to open up their hardware.

Maybe you are interpreting GPL3 too extremely. I think Microsoft would only need to "open up" the X360 if it released a GPL3 program which runs on X360.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[aussie_a]

Well that's just stupid. What if you offer a bittorrent tracker. Do I have to set up my very own tracker if I distribute the code? That's ridiculous.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[arose]

GPLv2 predates bittorent by quite a few years, they are trying to adress such issues in GPLv3.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are using a piece of software or hardware licensed from someone else and have to respect the NDA, you can't just go handing out source code left and right

... which has nothing to do with GPL v2 vs GPL v3. This is about hardware that prevents the running of, or refuses to "trust", any software not cryptographically signed by a particular key(s)... and key which cannot be modified or known by the customer (this last bit is an important point... before anyone brings up the medical/miltary/election red herring).

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need to look to Nintendo for that. Torvald's wages are paid by OSDL (corporate consortium of companies like IBM and Hewlett Packard), and they protect him from the SCOs of the world with walls of lawyers. They don't want the DRM provision in GPL v3 either.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[IpalindromeI]

You're wrong. Only people who receive the binaries have the offer to receive the source code. "Any valid third party" means someone who gets the binary indirectly from someone else rather than the originator.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaaaarrgh, stop doing that, you'll make the universe implode!

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Rix]

I did dislexic up my comment, but no, you don't have to provide source to people you didn't provide binaries to. The people who supplied those binaries inherit that obligation.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[LKM]

No, I just read at games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=199749 that it's definitely a rumor, and they even link to sources.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Aladrin]

The only way to only distribute the source to Wii owners is to include a copy of the entire source on some media WITH the distribution of the binary. That means including a CD with every Wii that has the source code for the entire GPL'd project.

The relevant portion of the GPL:

3) a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

The only other commercial option is to provide access to the source to "any third party" that requests it.

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[zotz]

"I'm not a lawyer so I'm not too clear on the GPL. I thought you could modify the software under it and release it without ever being forced to hand out the source code."

I am not a lawyer either, but I think it is more like you can modify the software under it and not distribute it and not be forced to hand out the source code.

If you hand out binaries, you have to hand out source with the binaries or on request.

Something like that. How did you come by the other idea?

all the best,

drew

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[squiggleslash]

You're both right and both wrong.

You essentially have what boils down to two real options: you can either distribute the source with the binaries (in which case, yes, Wii owners would be the only people who Nintendo would have to distribute the source to), or you can make a "written offer", but that written offer applies to everyone, not just those who received a binary.

So if the Wii ships with a CD containing the source code, provided under the GPL, they've done everything they need to. More likely, however, it will not, so the Wii will probably ship with an offer, and that offer will be available to everyone, Wii owners or otherwise.

For those who care, the relevent part of the GPL is here:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) {...}

(C is an option for non-commercial distribrution and as such does not apply to Nintendo.)

I hope this helps.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[zotz]

This is 3.c)
        c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
        to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
        allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
        received the program in object code or executable form with such
        an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

from the current GPL here:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.txt

Do you fall within that?

all the best,

drew

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Entrope]

It's not entirely clear that DRM'ing a GPLv2'ed binary like that is allowed unless you also distribute the keys as part of the work's source code. GPLv2 defines source code to include "the scripts used to control compilation and execution of the executable". Given that the compiler is then listed as a special exception to this requirement, there's a fairly strong line of argument that the necessary DRM keys are part of "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether or not they are modifying the kernel (like Google has done so that it fits there needs) I cannot say.

Google doesn't distribute their modified kernel, though.

I sometimes wonder how meaningful this difference really is. When I use Google, I'm using Linux, it's just running on Google's hardware instead of mine, so they're free to keep the source code to themselves. However, if they were to sell the same hardware to me, running exactly the same software, to be used in exactly the same way (only owned by me, and thus with the potential for guarantees w.r.t. availability, bandwidth, et al), they'd then have to give me the source code for their software.

At the end of the day, what's the real difference between using software on Google's hardware and using it on my own? What about an in-between case of leasing the hardware from Google, or, alternatively, leasing guaranteed access to the hardware? Maybe there's something obvious I'm missing, but I just don't see a particularly meaningful difference. In every case, I'm using Google's operating system (i.e. it's arguably being provided to me), with the only difference being hardware ownership.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Anonymous Coward]

Torvalds works for OSDL (aka IBM, HP etc etc) and is protected by their lawyers. What is comign out of his mouth is their words... they bought his say on the license... because they want Trusted Computing hardware to become commonplace, and then use it with Linux systems.

There are two possibilities:

1. Linus agrees with OSDL (and hence IBM, HP, et al.) because he works for them.

2. Linux works for OSDL (and hence IBM, HP, et al.) because he agrees with them.

From what I've read of Linus's opinions before he starting working for OSDL, I'd suspect the second one is nearer to the truth.

Speaking for myself, I'll never let anyone 'buy' my opinions, but to the extent it's practicable, I'll eagerly support those whose opinions are similar to mine.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Ash Vince]

Since the above is a worthless answer that does not go into any detail of explaing whiy you are wrong I thought I would try and elaborate.

The first point is relavant regarding google not distributing modifications to the kernel as this is what prohibited.

For example, if I rewrite large chunks of anything under the GPL then only use that code in house without ever releasing a product based on my alterations that is legal. This is effectively what the GPL was there to allow, you can modify the kernel source for your own ends providing you do not distribute the result as your own work. If you distribute the result at all then it must be done with source included.

Although as far as I am aware the GPL may not be legally binding in all countries. I am fairly sure it has never been challenged in any English court and I do not know how well it would hold up here due to our laws of contract but as I am not a lawyer I an not qualified to discuss that point.

If there are any lawyers out there could they explain to me why the GPL still forms a binding contract even though the end user who supposedly agrees to the contract does not provide any 'consideration' to the developers?

(Note - 'consideration' is used in this instance as a legal term so if you dont understand the question, dont bother trying to answer it)

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Anonymous Coward]

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/abbreviations/f /ievseg.htm

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Anonymous Coward]

We're talking about games consoles here - the perfect example that non-free computing is what a vast number people want. I hate to say it, but RMS is irrelevant.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[tepples]

It's usually much easier to patch gcc to support a new hardware

And then not distribute those patches to anyone, so that Nintendo signs all code for retail systems in-house. Besides, the modifications would be in and/or around Binutils, which is much easier to replace then GCC.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[5E-0W2]

I stand corrected, thanks.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[snarlydwarf]

Because, quite simply, if the license is invalid, then you have no license to even -use- let alone modify or distribute GPL code.

This is why the term "license" as in "permission" is used in copyright law, not "contract".

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[mr_mischief]

You're using an application that runs atop Google's copy of Google's operating system. They are using the OS to serve the application. It's a fine line, but it is a line.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Alchemar]

Wrong again, the GPL applies when distributing binaries. They do not have to be a derivative work. If you distribute the binaries, you have to make the source code available. If you have not modified the original source, it is generally accepted that you can point the people that you distributed the binary to, to the same place you recieved it. If you add code, then you have to distribute the source to your code if it is linked to the GPL code. If it is an interface or a layer that can be compliled seperately, you do not have to distribute your source, but you are still responsible for making the source available for the GPL binaries you distributed. Otherwise you do not have the right to distribute them under copyright law. Copyright is the right to copy, in whole or in part. I think that you were possible discussing new code, but the way it was phrased makes it come across "The GPL is only required (i.e., only applicable) when copyright is involved; i.e., making a derivative work." which is not the case. Copying in whole still requires permision from the copyright holder, which is provided by the terms of the GPL.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[mr_mischief]

They can give you their modified source signed by the key and the binaries signed by the key and not give you the key. That means that the source of any changes the vendor made to Linux are still released with the changes to the binaries. It means the binaries can be trusted to be from them, too. The only hassle is you don't have the keys to sign your new binaries once you make a change, because you're not that vendor and don't have their key. That's a poor protection of the freedom of your hardware, but it's still good protection of the freedom of Linux.

Linus is concerned with the freedom of Linux, including the right to use it on hardware that isn't "free as in speech". He's not looking to make sure that the license on his kernel forces license terms onto the hardware.

A good trusted platform module for a general purpose computer should allow you to add a couple of keys it will allow to have signed the system software. That way, you could add your own key in flash and sign your own changes. Hardware vendors interested in locking things down aren't likely to do that, but it'd be nice. Companies like Nintendo probably would use just the one key and not allow others, for example, but they're not building something as a general purpose computer.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[civilizedINTENSITY]

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party , for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[civilizedINTENSITY]

While it says "any third party" rather than "any valid third party", the FAQ does indicate that you have to have recieved the offer for the offer to be in effect for you. I stand corrected.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"you don't have to provide source to people you didn't provide binaries to. The people who supplied those binaries inherit that obligation."

It depends on whether they distributed them commercially. The FAQ puts it this way:

"Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled to take you up on it.

If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.

The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you .

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[mrchaotica]

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not too clear on the GPL. I thought you could modify the software under it and release it without ever being forced to hand out the source code. I could be wrong though.

Not being a lawyer isn't really an excuse for having it entirely backwards. The whole point of the GPL is that if you modify and release it then you are forced to make the source code available to everyone you distribute it to (by mail, no less -- making it available only for download is technically a violation) for something like 3 years.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[mrchaotica]

Would a license even be legal if it places restrictions on third party products?

It would be rather odd if somebody managed to release GPL3-licensed software for the X360, Microsoft would suddenly be forced to open up their hardware.

The situation you describe is physically impossible: if a third party could release GPL3 software for the Xbox360, then the hardware must already have been open. Conversely, if GPL3 software is released for the Xbox360 and the hardware is not open, then the party distributing it must also be in control of the hardware, and is therefore not a third party.

The only possible loophole would be the case where Microsoft had some kind of contractual agreement with "another party" whereby they had access to the keys to sign GPL3 software, but were prohibited from distributing those keys. IANAL, but I believe in this case there ought to be a good argument that the contract causes Microsoft and the "other" party to be considered as one and the same for the purpose of the GPL.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[mrchaotica]

It just makes more sense to hook it up to your web site and alllow people to download it. cheaper, easier, and less hassle and your in complaince.

I'm pretty sure that merely posting the source on the Internet does not absolve the distributor from the "written offer" requirement.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Dlugar]

I was referring to the second "i.e." where it should have read "for example".

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[SQLz]

The problem is that, QT blows GTK so far out of the water that most sane people would rather pay the money. Even if it was $1000 per year per developer, you would rather pay a team of deveopers $75k+ or more a year to develop something not a good and well tested as QT? My company pays over $1000 a week to provide dinner to the people working late, I think we can afford QT.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[mwvdlee]

How about when EA releases a game that partly contains GPL3 code and somehow it managed to slip by Microsofts' checks? GPL3 would infect any code linked so EA would have to release the entire code it is linked to (which would be pretty bad for Microsoft as it is). But would it also require Microsoft to open up their hardware?

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Anonymous Coward]

You're using an application that runs atop Google's copy of Google's operating system. They are using the OS to serve the application. It's a fine line, but it is a line.

I think that's sidestepping the issue. If I buy a Wii, I shan't be using the Wii operating system, but rather games that run on top of the Wii operating system.

From what I gather, as long as Nintendo keep ownership of the hardware on which their OS runs, they can claim it's not being distributed, even if end users are using it to run applications (whether open- or closed-source). Apart from hardware ownership, I don't see any difference between running Nintendo's games (and others) on top of Nintendo's OS, and running Google's applications on top of Google's OS.

Maybe Stallman and the open-source advocates who follow him like Google, and trust its operating system, but it seems to me they're leaving a gaping hole in their aim of pushing open-source software if all I have to do to keep modifications to GPL'd code proprietary is retain ownership of any hardware that it runs on, even if, in practice, I transfer effective control of that hardware to end users.

I really would like to see a clarification of this issue. For example, suppose I 'lease' hardware to a customer for 99 years, with a lump sum up-front to cover all of the lease payments. Can I then say that, as it's still my hardware, I'm not distributing the software that runs on it? What if I do the same thing, but keep physical control of the hardware, and only allow the customer to use it remotely, or by coming into a facility owned by me?

It just all seems very strange to me, that distribution of the software to users is seen to be tied to distribution of the hardware to those users, rather than to the actual use of the software by them. I'm not a free-software or open-source ideologue (nor a closed-source one), but if you really care about keeping source open, for its own sake, then it seems rather self-defeating to allow this sort of thing.

As an example of the above, imagine if client/server software were to replace desktop software, with everyone using Google's OS and applications instead of Microsoft's OS and applications. That would just be going from one closed system to another, apart from the meaningless openness of the software running the 'dumb terminals' connecting to Google's servers. The difference, however, is that Google's closed system would also benefit from all of the work of open-source developers, including developers of Linux and GPL'd applications, taking their code and modifying it, without any requirement to give back.

In practice, Google and Yahoo are using Linux and FreeBSD in exactly the same way, which means that, for their purposes, the GPL is identical to the (current) BSD licence. If the important software migrates back to the server, then, does the GPL really provide anything more than the BSD licence? I can't see that it does. That's all well and good if you're a supporter of the BSD form of open source, but is it really in the spirit of the GPL?

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[Ash Vince]

Thanks for the reply, but I was hoping for an answer from someone who at least lived in Britain as it was a question about a fairly specific point of British Law.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[mrchaotica]

I can't imagine how it would require Microsoft to do anything, but it could conceivably require EA to release the key MS gave them, which would put EA in quite a pickle (not releasing the key would mean violating a court order, but releasing it would be a breach of contract with Microsoft). I suppose it would be within a court's rights to decide which option EA would have to take.

In other words, the end result could still be that the hardware became open, but the damages Micrsoft would demand from EA in a subsequent lawsuit would probably bankrupt EA. That's only the ideal case, of course -- it's also possible that the court wouldn't require EA to release the key, and EA would just have to stop distribution and/or pay damages to the copyright holder of the GPL3 code.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[mink]

Nintendo will do the same thing Sony does with it's televisions. Include a 1-2 page document explaining the license in use, why they must tell you about it, and where to write to.

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[mrchaotica]

Since when did TVs have software, much less GPL'd software?!

Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly

[mink]

Here is a PDF version of the document.

From the website I found that link:

I bought a Sony Grand Wega 42" TV for my new house and was supprised when I found a 4 page GNU/GPL license in the box. The TV apparently runs on the Monta Vista Linux kernel and has some other executable packages along with it. I guess that explains the 5 sec "boot" time before I see a picture.

This is New?

[Quasicorps]

The title is misleading. It isn't going to run a user customisable Linux GUI when turned on, the Wii just has that capability. Just like the XBox. And The PS2. To make this a selling point is just another example of how people are doing everything they can to suck up to Nintendo. I know Sony hasn't been on top of any game for a while, but with the sheer hatred suffers has and all the Nintendo worship going on, I'm starting to feel like there are very few important people who are dedicated to making me want to buy a Wii. And they aren't from Nintendo.

Re:This is New?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you're an idiot. Try reading the whole summary.

Re:This is New?

[Quasicorps]

Only one part of the summary is a quote, and mentions nothing on the subject. What is mentioned after the quotation is that it is "reported to operate on top of a proprietary form of the Linux kernel". I'm personally not very familiar with those. It also states that there are "efforts to make a GNU/Linux for the console", which it would not be the first console to have, and would not be unique in, and is therefore hardly noteworthy.

The story claims it will be running an "Updatable Linux OS" as if it is the first console to do that. It won't be an out of the box open Linux distro, it (apparently) won't have the GPL, and therefore offers nothing new, which is my point.

Console interfaces have been updated remotely for years. There now a claim that a proprietary kernel will do the same thing Microsoft does, but apparently has something to do with the Linux kernel.

Re:This is New?

[Hao Wu]

Who ever thought of title should need severe reprimands. It is not worth the shoe tread of Wii, a stunning technical achievemnt.

Re:This is New?

[Quasicorps]

You're basing that on what? Have you played it?

Re:This is New?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't just Nintendo-fanboyism. Sony made this into a selling point for the PS2 years ago despite the fact their support for Linux was horribly, horribly broken.

Re:This is New?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the title is misleading. Zonk does not approve articles unless they are positive / interesting about the Wii or negative / derogatory about the PS3.

Personally I think the Wii could run Linux, (as could Xbox 360 / PS3), but all three will have copy protection built into the hardware that stops them running unsigned code. So it's not so much a question of if they can run Linux, but whether they will run officially Linux and in what form. The Xbox 360 is obviously never, ever going to run Linux. I think the Wii could run Linux, but it may not have the power or the storage capacity to do much on it.

As for Sony, they've released a full featured Linux distribution for the PS2 so they have a track record of doing it already. The PS3 is basically a computer out of the box and totally ready for Linux (it has the memory, CPU power, harddrive, networking, USB ports, HD connector), so let's hope they do the same there. Interestingly IBM even developed the Cell processor on Linux, and Sony use a gcc toolchain for the PS3 (probably due to IBM). Therefore Linux is already part of the PS3 / Cell development cycle. Perhaps they could polish up what IBM gave out, sign the binaries and call it a dist. The homebrewers could take it from there.

It already runs Linux.

[transporter_ii]

In probably a Tivo-type of way. I wonder if this is one of the things that the GPLv3 would prevent?

Transporter_ii

Re:It already runs Linux.

[dbIII]

In probably a Tivo-type of way. I wonder if this is one of the things that the GPLv3 would prevent?

Why would the kernel developers as distinct from a seperate group that does not contribute to the kernel want to stop them? RMS is described in computer magazine that should know better as the co-creator of linux but he is obviously not and has his own projects.

Re:It already runs Linux.

[babbling]

Yes, one of the main changes to the GPLv3 is that it prevents this.

Re:It already runs Linux.

[bWareiWare.co.uk]

Sorry to be pedantic but it won't. Even if GPLv3 meets its aims the Linux kernel is staying GPLv2 so this will always be possible.

Even if Linux moved to GLPv3 the only real value is 'waive any legal power to forbid circumvention', however they can still make it practically difficult:

The Wii is completely proprietary can could easily need a very heavily customised compiler (i.e. an encrypted instructions set any with sort of propitiatory code signing Nintendo likes). I think the GPLv3 would require the compiler to be available or you are technically withholding the users right to recompile.

IANAL but I can't see how they can require the compiler to be released under any particular license.

• I should imagine 'available on equal terms' is probably the most restrictive test a court would uphold - in which case Nintendo will probably pay a couple of million to some lucky start-up for their compiler licence.
• If the compiler (and hence the operating systems it runs on, ad infinitum) have to be GPLv3 then no one is going to be using the new licence for a while.
• If the compiler just has to be free/open then who decides which licences are compatible (i.e. is free for non-commercial use allowed)?

Even if Nintendo decides to go for a GPLv3 compiler (?) on a GPLv3 OS (hurd?) they could still structure the signing to need a couple of hours of computation on BlueGene/L. Technically you are not prevented form exercising your rights, in fact you are on a completely equal footing with Nintendo themselves. However it may limit the number of home brewers wanting to role their own.

Even if Nintendo provided an easy to use compiler and full and comprehensible source code, most of GPLv3 restrictions (equal access to hardware and on-line services) still wouldn't apply. The system-library exception allows them to use the closed-source Opera as an interface to all functionality, even if it is sitting on a GPLv3 OS.

If the Wii is hard-wired to only access Nintendo's network (and it is coded to only support the initial Opera build), and the DVD games all boot directly, then even a GPLv3 operating system which you could easily recompile would have very limited appeal.

Linux on Wii, since when?

[grumbel]

The Wii is reported to operate on top of a proprietary form of the Linux kernel,

Who is reporting that? Its the first time I hear that and the linked webpages don't really give any more detail, the Iwata interview simply states that the Wii will have upgradable firmware, nothing Linux related.

Re:Linux on Wii, since when?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was "reported" once at a single site and, like so much Wii speculation that has gone before, passed through the fanboy blog echo chamber until it has far more credibility than it deserves.

The person who posted the original story really should have done the 5 minutes research I just did, there is zero credible evidence that Nintendo has done anything at all with Linux. The "source" of the original speculation is someone named "Kiyoshi Saruwatari", who claims to be a designer who doesn't work for Nintendo, but has worked with them. He never names a company, specific business interactions, the nature of his work, nothing. His "facts" seem to consist of pure conjecture and swizzling of common publically released information (Virtual Console, etc).

In the months before the Wii controller was revealed at Tokyo Game Show 2005, there was a rash of "insider" blogs, with a lot of suspiciously made-up sounding Japanese names, with calculatedly poor English skills. These blogs were the source of a lot of the early misinformation, the "VR helmet" nonsense, the "secretly more graphically powerful than both Xbox 360 and PS3", the "Kid Icarus sequel", etc. My guess is half of them were American or European fanboys who were trying to stir things up.

In short I don't consider it responsible to call the single, highly dubious rumor that Nintendo is using Linux "reporting", and I hope this doesn't touch off a lot of controversy over what began with nothing more than a big fat lie / hoax.

Re:Linux on Wii, since when?

[fruey]

Never forget the paranoid mode analysis of what you said, e.g. that these made up names & blogs are seeded deliberately from Nintendo's PR department to put out rumours, myths, and some stories that will be true.

Buzz around a product, whether on real features or not, is in Nintendo's interest, and planting of bloggers in a network for marketing means is nothing new.

Imagine

[Giant Ape Skeleton]

I am sure I am not alone in imagining a Beowulf cluster of these....

Re:Imagine

[JRWR]

haha, great i can see it now, 40 Wiis in a room processing the meaning of life, hrm 42?

Re:Imagine

[tehlinux]

Can you imagine what a Beowulf cluster of these could do with nunchucks?

Re:Imagine

[senatorpjt]

We already know the answer to the question is 42. We can use them to find out what the question was.

Tsk. Pure BS.

[Greger47]

I call bullshit on this one, Nintendo wouldn't touch GPLed code with a 10 foot pole. They have always kept their platforms in an iron grip, using GPLed code would allow outsiders to take a peek. Nintendo vs. Tengen anyone?

/greger

Re:Tsk. Pure BS.

[LiquidCoooled]

Just having have an Open source platform does not require you to open source the applications running on that platform.

Re:Tsk. Pure BS.

[c_forq]

What if they use Linux like TiVo does? TiVo releases the source of their changes to the linux kernel, but that is pretty much it.
http://www.tivo.com/linux/linux.asp

Re:Tsk. Pure BS.

[xenocide2]

Which is obviously why the standard compiler for the GBA (and probably DS) is GCC. Because they're deathly afraid of anything even related to "Open Source", as evidenced by 20 year old lawsuits. Who can imagine that anything's changed in such a short time frame?

Re:Tsk. Pure BS.

[LackThereof]

This is easy. They'll just put all the super-secret stuff in their own proprietary, binary only module, and modify the linux kernel so that it will only load 1 module. Then they won't have to reveal anything useful except that they're loading a kernel module. That's totally in line with GPLv2, so long as they release everything they've done to the kernel to get it to load 1 module on the Wii.

Besides, the games won't be running under linux; as another poster pointed out, the dev kits have been out for a long time now and it uses the same RTOS as the Gamecube. Only the built-in stuff will run under linux. Even if someone did figure it out, they wouldn't be able to pirate games, they'd only be able to run unrestricted linux on the Wii. Because Nintendo is already going to turn a profit on the hardware itself from day one, this hurts no one at all. Hell, it would be in their best interests to ENCOURAGE people to make their own linux programs for the Wii.

Re:Tsk. Pure BS.

[mrbobjoe]

N64 games were also built with gcc.

where does it mention Linux?

[anon101]

Where exactly in the Iwata Asks article does it say it runs on a proprietery version of the Linux kernel?
Infact where does it mention the Wii runs Linux on it at all?

I think I found the story, thanks google. And it says that its a rumor from one of the designers who said:

"Wii will have Linux as operating system with proprietary GUI and applications based on commonly open source for Linux programs."

Since when did "GUI applications" count as in the kernel?

Story found on:
http://wii.qj.net/Wii-Will-Use-Linux-as-Operating- System-with-Proprietary-GUI-/pg/49/aid/60531

Another quote direct from the so called "insider"

but the final system in closed and will allow only signed code etc and will be very secure, even though it's technically compatible with a world of already existing software

I bet Nintendo are thanking their lucky stars that GPLv3 isn't out and that Linus Torvalds prefers v2 anyway, isn't there going to be something in it about locking out modified versions?

I am skeptical about this guy, but make up your own mind,
Orriginal blog post about Nintendo Wii having Linux on it: http://saruwatari-wii.blogspot.com/2006/07/softwar e-in-wii.html

If anyon can find a quote about a proprietery kernel please post a reply, :D

Re:where does it mention Linux?

[plasmacutter]

but the final system in closed and will allow only signed code etc and will be very secure, even though it's technically compatible with a world of already existing software

in other words.. the claim of an open platform is completely specious..

we won't have anything similar to xbmc for wii without the standard modchips because theyre greedy (*)#$@$#'s

Re:where does it mention Linux?

[ArwynH]

I am skeptical about this guy, but make up your own mind, Original blog post about Nintendo Wii having Linux on it: http://saruwatari-wii.blogspot.com/2006/07/softwar e-in-wii.html

Oh he's a fake alright. The most obvious reason is that if he did have any connections with Nintendo he'd of been fired or sued for NDA breach by now. Another obvious reason is that some of his previous statements have already been proven false.

As for a Linux OS on the Wii, I doubt it. It's memory footprint is too large for one thing, but mainly because it's not suited to job at hand. Console OSs are not like Desktop OSs. They don't stay persistant in memory while a game is playing, in fact you could call them glorified boot-loaders. All they allowed you to do was change a few system setting, like the clock, and load a game. Once the game was loaded, it took full control of the system and the 'OS' is completely removed from memory. This allows games to utilise all the memory and reduces the overhead, boosting speed.

From what I'm understand this is changing for the 360 and the PS3, so that you can access the menu and 'Live' within a game, but whether that will be the same for the Wii is another matter. But the Wii-mote does have a 'home' button, so you never know...

Re:where does it mention Linux?

[a.d.trick]

Since when did "GUI applications" count as in the kernel?

In Windows it does.

Re:where does it mention Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad your bootloader theory is not applicable to the new generation of consoles (Wii/PS3/360). The new systems have operating systems designed to support web browers, movie players, file downloads, hard drives, ethernet, wifi, bluetooth (PS3) and many other applications and pieces of hardware. If you think console operating systems are simply used to set the clock and load the game, you are very mistaken.

Re:where does it mention Linux?

[mrchaotica]

Console OSs are not like Desktop OSs. They don't stay persistant in memory while a game is playing, in fact you could call them glorified boot-loaders. All they allowed you to do was change a few system setting, like the clock, and load a game. Once the game was loaded, it took full control of the system and the 'OS' is completely removed from memory. This allows games to utilise all the memory and reduces the overhead, boosting speed.

Although that's been true in the past, it's a pretty dumb way to do things nowadays. Programs on consoles are written in high-level languages and as such need to do system calls just like programs on general-purpose PCs, so all that code might as well be included in the box so that developers don't have to waste space on every game disc.

Besides, the Xbox (for example) even has DirectX; surely the Wii has a standard library of some kind included too...?

Re:where does it mention Linux?

[ArwynH]

It's not a dumb way of doing things, not even nowadays. For a PC yes, but not for a console.

One main reason for shared libraries is their abstraction, allowing access to different hardware though a single API (EG DirectX/OpenGL provide a API that can be used independantly of the GFX card). Since a consoles hardware is predetermined, that point void.

Another reason for shared libraries is saving space, as you pointed out. This is mostly true when a vast number of programs that share the same space use them. In the case of consoles and games, each game is on it's own disc, so the space saved from sharing libraries is pretty small. Probably only a few megabytes at most on modern games. Considering the size of the media and the relative size of textures, sound and FMV it's simply not worth the cost of adding extra memory to the console to house them.

Another reason for not adding them previously was that on the console they couldn't be updated. That now isn't completely true, however it still holds for a few places that can't connect their console to the net. Another reason for not putting libraries on the console is that the games might break with a library update. Nintendo doesn't want to check each game for defects before rolling out a library update.

No, the way it's currently done is better for console games. The channels on the other hand are another matter, they will have an updatable libraries and so will the VC I suspect.

As for a standard library, there is one. It's included in the Nintendo dev tools. It gets updated every now and then with optimisations and extra features, hence the difference between 1st/2nd/3rd generation games. Everything just gets staticly compiled.

Proprietary Linux is pure nonsense

[Executive Override]

There's no such thing as a "proprietary form" of Linux. The kernel is released under the GPL, and therefore any derivations/modifications must be released under the GPL, and hence are not proprietary. If they deny source code, or release it under a license non-compatible with the GPL, it will be clearly illegal.

You would imagine that people would know this by heart by now...

Re:Proprietary Linux is pure nonsense

[Lord Kano]

You would imagine that people would know this by heart by now...

Restricting the hardware to only run signed binaries, would allow them to comply with the letter of the GPL if not the spirit. Any modifications could be released under the GPL and no one would be able to compile a custom kernel for the Wii.

LK

Re:Proprietary Linux is pure nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no such thing as a "proprietary form" of Linux.

See TiVo. What's the point of having the source if you can not compile your own binaries? This goes against the spirit of the GPL, so yes there are "proprietary" forms of Linux. And get used to it.

Re:Proprietary Linux is pure nonsense

[elronxenu]

But releasing the source code for a machine which can only run signed binaries is defeating one of the fundamental freedoms - the freedom to change the program, and run changed versions.

Re:Proprietary Linux is pure nonsense

[shermozle]

See Sony's "Linux" system for the PS2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS2_Linux

Re:Proprietary Linux is pure nonsense

[TheUser0x58]

There's no such thing as a "proprietary form" of Linux

Yes there is.

any derivations/modifications must be released under the GPL

Uh, not quite. Only if you release/distribute your changes in source or binary form.

Google, Amazon, and many other big players use a proprietary Linux kernel, but because they don't distribute it outside their organization they don't have to release it under the GPL. But obviously, in Nintendo's case, releasing a non-GPL kernel in the Wii would be a big copyright violation.

Re:Proprietary Linux is pure nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the "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." part of the GPL.

It all depends on the judge of course, but I'd say it's pretty clear that the above was meant to include whatever it takes to make the program run. The Tivo case hasn't gone to court, so that's why they get away with it.

Re:Proprietary Linux is pure nonsense

[Lord Kano]

It all depends on the judge of course, but I'd say it's pretty clear that the above was meant to include whatever it takes to make the program run. The Tivo case hasn't gone to court, so that's why they get away with it.

That's the difference between spirit and letter.

I'm sure that the original intent of the GPL was to include everything it takes to make a program work. However, if the binaries are signed by hand after compilation and later installed then the section of the GPL that you quoted wouldn't apply.

Or even if it was done using a script, the private key used to sign the binaries would not be covered.

LK

Vaportalk

[Doc Ruby]

Running Linux that can be downloaded to a Wii means old Wiis will still be around to compete with new ones. Combined with their dubious (no matter how you look at it) claim that their Linux will be a "proprietary Linux", that sounds a lot like the vaporware announcement game console makers are used to peddling to credulous game "journalism" media.

Will the new generation of game consoles get converted to the slightly more cross-examined PC press tricks from their generations of easy lying to game press? Or will they turn the tiny amount of PC journalism accountability into the standard lying that defines the much larger market?

Re:Vaportalk

[PygmySurfer]

Combined with their dubious (no matter how you look at it) claim that their Linux will be a "proprietary Linux", that sounds a lot like the vaporware announcement game console makers are used to peddling to credulous game "journalism" media.

Except its not Nintendo's claim, just some asshat blogger's.

Re:Vaportalk

[SilentChris]

It would vaporware talk if Nintendo actually said they're running Linux. They didn't. Nowhere in the linked article does it say this. The comments in the Slashdot summary were based off rumor.

As for "upgradable OSes" on consoles, not exactly a new concept. PS2 had several revisions. Both Xbox and Xbox 360 have updates via Xbox Live. The fact that it's going to be an online console should've been evidence enough that there would be udpates.

The *real* age old question:

[solevita]

Will it be able to perform cunnilingus on a hardwood floor?

Re:The *real* age old question:

[GrumblyStuff]

Yeah... about tha....

Wait, what?

Re:The *real* age old question:

[dozer]

...and get splinters in its tongue? I think not.

Re:The *real* age old question:

[tehcyder]

Will it be able to perform cunnilingus on a hardwood floor?

Best. Meme. Evar.

Where did you get that Wii runs Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did you get that Wii runs Linux?
The article only references an update-able operating system, which could be:
FreeBSD, Linux, AmigaOS, BeOS, (other OS), or a completely custom OS using modern package update concepts.

If there are other resources saying it uses linux, please link to those also or tone down the headline.

Shouldn't that be ..

[Anonymous Coward]

.. Liinux?

Re:Shouldn't that be ..

[notanatheist]

For once, an AC post worth a solid 5. Mod the poor nobody up already!

Re:Shouldn't that be ..

[Kuvter]

Wii assumed that was iimplied.

Re:Shouldn't that be ..

[Criffer]

People might finally get the pronounciation right.

"Hello, my name is Liinus Toorvalds, and I pronounce Liinux as Liinux."

Yes, but can it run Linux? (n/t)

[giminy]

Nothing to see here, move along.

I don't see cause for alarm

[Mike Savior]

As long as Nintendo frees up the parts that are supposed to be freed by law, and separates the proprietary modules somehow, then shouldn't they be okay?

Re:FUCK YOU ZONK AND FUCK YOUR GAMES STORIES

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, pal, if you don't like videogames it's time to turn in your geek card.

Re:FUCK YOU ZONK AND FUCK YOUR GAMES STORIES

[Anonymous Coward]

damnit you fed the troll. didn't you read the sign?

Brain fart

[Lorkki]

To be bluntly, --

Serves me right for posting in the wee hours.

Re:Imagine (A brief discourse on nerd psychology)

[Neovanglist]

Why is it that every time it comes out that anything can be compatible with Linux, one of the first things we nerds yell is Beowulf cluster? It happened for iPods, now it's happening for the Wii. I personally think it provides a major peek in to nerd psychology, the kind of psychology that gives rise to the open-source movement and freedom-of-information movements we so love. I think that nerds are, at heart, community driven. Whether so much of the internet exists as communities, from message boards to blogs, because the hackers who built it are so community minded, or if we, the Technocrati, are community-minded because of how the Internet is structured, I don't know. I do think, however, that this focus on community leads to much of our computer-related thought being focused on the idea of community, from how we make our programs (the idea of open-source) to how we do our computing (Beowulf clusters).

Just a thought.

Re:FIST SPORT!

[LindseyJ]

The only games I have ever "stolen" were the NES and SNES ROMs I had on my PSP before I sold it. It was nice having what basically amounted to a portable SNES and NES console (and Genesis and a load of others had I cared enough to put them on there), since there were no actual PSP games that interested me.

Since Nintendo is reportedly going to make every Nintendo game ever relased available for download on the Wii at a "resonable price", I don't see why you would even want to homebrew, unless you're one of those guys who puts Linux on your Xbox to 'stick it to The Man'. Or whyever the fuck people do that.

Also, I doubt Nintendo will patch it "whether you like it or not". If you don't like it, either don't plug a Cat5 into it, or code your homebrew so that it overrides the automatic updates. I'm sure somebody will figure out how if there's enough people interested in it.

Re:Imagine (A brief discourse on nerd psychology)

[Mr. Hankey]

Just out of curiosity and aside from hermits/loners, what generalized groups would you consider not community-minded? Beowulf clusters are certainly a long running joke here, but this is hardly the only forum where jokes tend to live ad infinitum. To further the stereotype though, I personally think the Wii would make a pretty sweet webserver - low heat and power consumption, more than enough CPU to do the job.

You have to give the source.

[Poromenos1]

The GPL says you can distribute the software and charge for distribution, but you MUST make sure the users get (or can get) the source.

Re:Imagine (A brief discourse on nerd psychology)

[RuiFerreira]

It's just because these types of devices sell the hardware below the cost of production. They make money from the games! Therefore it's a really cheap way of having computer power.

Re:Imagine (A brief discourse on nerd psychology)

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that's not true in the Wii's case. Nintendo is selling each Wii at break-even or profit, unlike the other major next-gen consoles.

If this is true...

[ADamiani]

What are the implications for PC-based Linux as a gaming platform? The reason I usually see people explaining games not being published to run on Linux is that there just aren't enough of them to make it economically viable, creating a chicken-and-the-egg problem. Does this slice through that particular Gordian knot?

Re:If this is true...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Nope. In the end, you still need a large audience of people running Linux ready to purchase games. (Not that it would ever be easy in Nintendo's case in the first place considering the controller.)

It's not so much a 'chicken-and-the-egg' problem, it's an installed user-base problem.

Re:If this is true...

[Anonymous Coward]

The installed user base isn't there because the software isn't there which is because the user base isn't there-- chicken and egg. But if the Wii is running under some variant of Linux, then you would, potentially, have a large installed base of Linux users. I suppose it's probably a moot issue because of the proprietary disc formats and, as you point out, the nonstandard controllers.

Re:If this is true...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"The installed user base isn't there because the software isn't there which is because the user base isn't there--"

There's plenty of software out there, just not games. PCs, for example, didn't start as a game console. They rose in numbers for productivity reasons, and the game market was born. It might help if there were more games, but honestly, I just don't see it being the catalyst. What company is going to invest all that money to make a game and sell a whoppin 10,000 copies?

"But if the Wii is running under some variant of Linux, then you would, potentially, have a large installed base of Linux users."

I cannot say I see that happening, really. Let's forget about the proprietaryness of the console for a moment. Just because it was built under Linux doesn't necessarily mean it'd be super-easy to port it to the PC. It would still involve a lot of play-testing, making it work with the KB/Mouse, making a proper installer for it (That runs under the proper distros/UIs of Linux), and testing across video cards. Again with a very small potential market. There used to be a game company that simply made PC ports to Linux, and it didn't last very long. Get more people using Linux, and that opens up. But a company (or several companies) would need to invest for several years to actually make that happen.

I apologize if I sound argumentative. I used to think years ago that more games would mean more adoption of Linux. But over time I've looked into it and I'm just not convinced. The biggest strides I've seen with Linux's marketshare came with apps like Open Office and FireFox. I see that being a stronger future for Linux. But until that userbase hits a certain number, it seems to me that gaming just won't take off.

Re:If this is true...

[aztektum]

Ok first off, my guess is no.

Why?

If you're running a Wii then the developers of Wii games will have a dev environment designed by Nintendo to run on their specific platform.

There are too many variables for designing Linux based games for PC's. Do you design for FC, Gentoo, Ubuntu, Slackware (yes please:), Mandriva, ... you get the idea.

No commercial developer that exists today wants to deal with that headache.

Second, hardware support. If you develop for Wii, you know all the *hardware* features that you can and cannot support. The poor support of 3D accelerators for Linux is well known. So again, in a market that wants to squeeze every ounce of processing power into the prettiest graphics, no one is going to deal with the hit or miss chance that someones hardware will even work with the game.

Re:If this is true...

[jZnat]

Uh, you design for the LSB, and that's it. If a user's distro doesn't comply with LSB, you can't support that user (to an extent).

Besides, things like UT2k4 work just fine, and it isn't really designed with any specific distro in mind.

Re:If this is true...

[Ash-Fox]

There are too many variables for designing Linux based games for PC's. Do you design for FC, Gentoo, Ubuntu, Slackware (yes please:), Mandriva, ... you get the idea.

Just use LSB?

No commercial developer that exists today wants to deal with that headache.

I don't think so? Here is my list of companies that develop games for Linux (it's in mozilla-bookmark format, so you can import them to bookmarks if you like).

Second, hardware support. If you develop for Wii, you know all the *hardware* features that you can and cannot support. The poor support of 3D accelerators for Linux is well known.

Isn't that why we use standards like SDL or OpenGL, which also determine what the system can and can't do (in some cases even providing alternative methods for doing things)?

So again, in a market that wants to squeeze every ounce of processing power into the prettiest graphics, no one is going to deal with the hit or miss chance that someones hardware will even work with the game.

Many games on the PS2, x-box don't take full advantage of the hardware from what I've seen. Also since people are running Oblivion, UT2k4, WoW on old Pentium 4s with 512MB ram. What games exactly are we talking about?

Re:If this is true...

[grumbel]

What are the implications for PC-based Linux as a gaming platform?

It would change nothing for Linux gaming, at least not in a positive sense, since the problem with Linux gaming are the pledora of incompatibilties that a developer runs into. On the Wii that won't be a problem, one platform, everything fixed. On the PC you will have the same problems as ever, a bazillion distributions, a bazzilion different graphics card each with its own more or less broken drivers and other stuff like that. Wii won't fix any of those problems.

If anything it might actually kill of Linux on PC completly, since if there is a piece of hardware that allows you to publish easily and cheaply to a large market, why waste time with a tiny tiny tiny gaming Linux-PC crowd?

Re:If this is true...

[squiggleslash]

FWIW, the Playstation 3 also runs Linux (and a version of GNU/Linux will supposedly be available from day 1.)

But... beyond that, and what everyone else said, it's probable that this will have no effect. Remember that a commercial game for GNU/Linux on PCs has:

1. To be compiled for x86.
2. To use OpenGL/X11.
3. To use ALSA or OSS.

None of these, with the possible exception of (3), are likely to be true for PS3 or Wii "Linux". That is, Sony and Nintendo will have their own ways to make it easy for the developers to hit the hardware.

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

No it won't. The devkits use the same RTOS from the GameCube.

Where is the source for this?

Re:What?

[LackThereof]

This probably means that the Wii is running on Linux the same way the Dreamcast ran on WinCE.

There's most likely a linux-based dashboard sort of thing, so all of the non-game functionality in the machine is done under linux. It was probably easier to adapt the PowerPC port of linux to run that stuff than to right their own general-purpose OS from scratch for it.

Re:What?

[KillerBob]

Does that mean they're using MAME for their emulation of old games? That may explain why it's able to run C64 games as well.... :-)

But...

[Null537]

...does it run linux^^^^^windows?

Re:But...

[Ruby Wednesday]

I doubt it... It's PowerPC-based.

Re:FIST SPORT!

[Quasicorps]

I modded my XBox and installed XBMC so I could watch movies and listen to music from my server on my main television set without making a dedicated Media Centre PC. I also play SNES games (that I legally own) on it; more than XBox games. I'm not sticking anything to any men, I just made a cut down PC more useful for a good price.

Translation

[ColaMan]

Wii is the first system from Nintendo that we can continue to be involved in (via operating system updates) after the customer buys it. This means that Wii will greatly expand and diversify the ways in which people will enjoy games in the future.

Translation: Firmware updates to prevent hacks, a-la PSP.

Re:Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

Nintendo doesn't need to recoup their losses from the sale of the console, since they are actually making money on the box itself. That's probably also the reason why owners of Nintendo DSs are not barraged with update after update, despite the existence of a homebrew community.

Who let's this sh... through?

[Britz]

A proprietary from of the Linux kernel? That can only come from someone who has just maybe Slashdot a bit and doesn't know a thing about Linux, free software or mabye software at all.

Any Linux kernel is per definition (of the GPL) free. That is the whole point of the GPL. There can't be a proptietary version. If they include the Linux kernel, they will have to include the source to it and to all the components that directly link to it, like drivers (proprietary drivers exist, but there is a discussion, sometimes on Slashdot as well, if that is legal). If they ship userland stuff along they can keep the source, for example for a gui.

What they can do is lock it all up so you can't mod it. Then the device will only accept signed modifications (like upgrades) from CDs or their server. Wether you do this with open or closed source doesn't matter. It might be easier to find security holes to smuggle in your mod this way. But OTOH they already mod the PSP this way even though it is closed source.
That is the big discussion about the GPLv3 btw. I guess what the FSF wants to achieve is that if you use GPLv3 code you may not lock down your device this way.

...Bad article summary

[Anonymous Coward]

and judging the posts here, no one fucking reads the article, THERE IS NO MENTION OF LINUX, and any other mentions of linux on the wii are purely rumors, prolly made up by people who want to envision linux existing in everything, as if it's some success for opensource.
No, the day your average person uses linux and prefers it over windows would be a success, otherwise, it's being used because it's just there and is merely a backend. nothing more.

If nintendo were putting XFCE or busybox on the wii (let's be reasonable, gnome or KDE would kill it) then you could make some noise.

But this is nothing but a stupid rumor, and has no relevance to the story, chances are the submitter added linux in to get attention.

Sensationalism? say it isnt so!

Re:...Bad article summary

[SanityInAnarchy]

I think being able to SSH in to the Wii, and be able to actually write homebrew games for it using a platform I know and love, is definitely a victory for opensource. Too bad it's just a rumor.

I don't see what the average Windows user will contribute to Linux, other than making it a target for spyware.

Re:...Bad article summary

[squiggleslash]

It's not even a rumour. The people talking about the Linux kernel being on the Wii are being explicit in saying it will not be available to end-users (though Nintendo-approved programmers will be able to build upon it.)

This is not like the PS2/PS3 Linux.

Homebrew + confused article

[dbIII]

Since Nintendo is reportedly going to make every Nintendo game ever relased available for download on the Wii at a "resonable price", I don't see why you would even want to homebrew

There's the stuff that is too small to be worth buying or Nintendo aren't sure they could sell. For example on the DS there is the little sampling keyboard toy, there is DSorganize (could Nintendo sell tens of thousands of something similar - maybe or maybe not), Moonshell (my mp3 player is a DS), a port of Heretic and a linux port that lets you ssh in via wireless networks. I don't know what possibilities there are for the Wii but I'm sure there are people out there waiting for the specs to put their drum machine program or whatever on there.

As for the article - I'm not sure the author knows what they are talking about and got some things confused based on what they wer told. I very much doubt it runs linux but I would not be surprised if there was an in house effort to port linux to it which may be released at some date - and the proprietry GUI may well be something like a Qtopia based front end running on linux. I'll stretch even furthur and speculate the bit about gnu/linux may mean there may be some effort to port gnu tools after the kernel and GUI front end is finished - remember the LiGnuX suggestion by RMS that later became the gnu prefix was talking about systems with the linux kernel, gnu tools and X windows. Without the gnu tools the advertising prefix makes no sense.

Re:Homebrew + confused article

[LindseyJ]

You're right; I wasn't even thinking about third-party aps, more responding to the GP's troll about "stolen games".

Maybe That's Why WII Graphics Appear to Suck

[Carcass666]

Maybe Nintendo couldn't get fully-functional, reliable drivers for current chipsets like the rest of us.

Re:Maybe That's Why WII Graphics Appear to Suck

[Ernesto Alvarez]

Maybe Nintendo couldn't get fully-functional, reliable drivers for current chipsets like the rest of us.

What you see as funny, I see as an oportunity.
Nintendo will get drivers for the wii chipset, and, being linux under the GPL, it could be an excellent oportunity to get some open source drivers.

Even if they use binary drivers, there will be some sort of stub module that can be used to interface with the binary portion. That driver will probably be useful somewhere else, unless the wii is 100% custom hardware.

Re:Maybe That's Why WII Graphics Appear to Suck

[FishWithAHammer]

Doesn't Wii use an ATI card...? Yeah, yeah, I know. Wishful thinking. But still!

This is getting way too predictable

[acvh]

Story: Company is allegedly thinking of using Linux as OS for new hardware device.

Response: I want the source. I want the source.

More responses: This does/doesn't violate GPL.

More responses: This is why we need/don't need GPL v3

Conclusion: The story was wrong, the device doesn't use Linux, there might be a way to boot Linux on it, but we don't know yet.

Re:This is getting way too predictable

[Anonymous Coward]

Conclusion: The story was wrong, the device doesn't use Linux, there might be a way to boot Linux on it, but we don't know yet.

Conclusion: you have no clue what the hell you're talking about.

The Wii will ship with Linux as the one and only operating system. This is a done deal - there is zero chance that it will be switched to something else this late in the game.

Re:This is getting way too predictable

[Anonymous MadCoe]

Do you have any (credible) source for this, I'm curious since I missed that completely then...

If that is the case it would be very interresting, if not the parent is quite right.

Re:This is getting way too predictable

[Anonymous Coward]

So when the Wii ships and everybody discovers it runs Linux, will he still be right (despite the fact that I refuse to provide you with a "credible source")?

So now they can pull a Tivo

[Animats]

This may be a bad sign. Now they can turn off features by remote control, insist that you connect frequently to get updates, introduce new bugs remotely, and try to force you to sign up for new "revenue streams". Just like Microsoft and Tivo.

Re:So now they can pull a Tivo

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

In addition to that, there's also a web-browser. They could show Goatse to the whole family! The ability for them to do that is downright terrifying!

Re:So now they can pull a Tivo

[RMB2]

Think of the chiildren!

Re:So now they can pull a Tivo

[Anonymous Coward]

...while looking at goatse!
GLAHGLAHGLAHGLAH
Pffffffttt Pft Pffft

You're Right

[Doc Ruby]

You're right, every reference to the OS apart from being "updatable" is apparently made up by eldavojohn, who submitted the story without sourcing the "Linux" allegations.

Re:FIST SPORT!

[Anonymous Coward]

So you expect people to believe you put the ROMs on there but never any games?

You stole the games because you had no valid license; finding them on an "abandonware" site for download means nothing. Neither does owning the original cart.

Re:FUCK YOU ZONK AND FUCK YOUR GAMES STORIES

[Anonymous Coward]

He fed the sign to the troll.

Fun with linux?

[killercentipedes]

This is cool and all, go Open Source! But i at one point looked at the cube as a viable alternative for something cool and interactive (GUI), but i couldn't get past a 640x480 screen resolutions. Good luck on the Wii doing this since it too will not due any resolutions high (most likly). Maybe i can come up with a nice computer for my car.

If it DOES run linux...

[Kankraka]

I will defintely be purchasing one. Retro gaming, linux, sexy looking machine to accent my living room. I've been pretty much disappointed by nintendo since the release of the cube, however I do have hopes for this console based on what's been stated. Hopefully it actually does run linux, because the pay-for-download retro games will probably just be roms :). I can think of a few good emulators for linux, if not, I'm sure there's a way to get the wii software to load the roms :D.. at least, will be a way.

Re:If it DOES run linux...

[tehcyder]

sexy looking machine to accent my living room

I think the Apple Fanboys' room is down the hall.

Re:Imagine (A brief discourse on nerd psychology)

[Neovanglist]

Capitalistic society as a whole. Look at the driving forces behind proprietary software and tell me that it's community-minded. My comment on the Beowulf clusters was meant to say that, as much as it is an in-joke, we're almost subconsciously attracted to the idea of the Beowulf cluster-it's a raw, literal example of community providing far more power then the individual.

Regioning?

[atomicstrawberry]

If this article proves to actually be true - and I'm taking it with a rather large grain of salt - is it possible that we might be able to turn off region coding? At the moment I'm refusing to buy a Wii because of the regioning, especially on the virtual console games. PAL games from the 8/16-bit era were usually absolutely horrible.

Sony was rumored to use Linux as well

[aplusjimages]

Sony and Linux. So was Sony ever confirmed?

Re:Sony was rumored to use Linux as well

[SanityInAnarchy]

In a very, very Tivo-ized way, yes. You can buy Linux for your PS2, and it will come standard on the PS3, but based on how crippled PS2 Linux was, I don't have much hope for the PS3.

Re:Sony was rumored to use Linux as well

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux for the PS2 wasn't functionally crippled although it did require you boot from the office Sony Linux CD. That aside, it was a fully fledged Linux dist (a variant of RH6). It was just that the platform it was running on was underpowered and unsuitable for Linux. The cost of the kit (network adapter, keyboard, mouse, harddrive & Linux CD) + console meant you paid as much as a cheap and more powerful PC rendering the concept pretty pointless. Even so, there is still an active PS2 Linux community out there which suggests it is not entirely useless.

If the PS3 shipped out of the box with Linux, then you would have a sweet system. Not only would it be a kick ass games console (& music / video player etc.) but a home computer too. Homebrewers should be delighted if it happens since in the past Sony have stamped on the homebrewers since they were synonymous with the pirates. A pre-installed Linux would give the homebrewers a nice sandbox to play in while letting Sony implement whatever copy protection controls they felt like. Imagine if it let someone port MythTV to it for example. Aside from the pirate angle, shipping Linux on the console might allow Sony to legitimately pass the thing off as a computer and get a tax break.

Re:Sony was rumored to use Linux as well

[SanityInAnarchy]

Linux for the PS2 wasn't functionally crippled although it did require you boot from the office Sony Linux CD.

I think you mean "official" Sony Linux CD. That's the first complaint, especially because they aren't selling the kit anymore, and they would never sell the CD separately from the whole kit. Thus, if you'd already bought a hard disk or a network adapter, you had to buy them again when you bought Linux.

This is also extremely annoying for me, because I didn't want to use a whole hard disk. I wanted to run a tiny kernel+ramdisk, booted from a memory card (which I already had), and run diskless over the network. I already had the means to boot -- an exploit of a buffer overflow in the firmware -- and I had the means to transfer files to the memory card, but I ended up having to use extremely crippled binaries which ran on the bare hardware, instead of a nice, full-fledged Linux.

That aside, it was a fully fledged Linux dist (a variant of RH6).

It also did not contain any drivers for the PS2's native hard drive format. This means you either had to use a separate disk for Linux from the one you used for games, or use an odd hack to be able to partition them.

I do not know if it recognized the memory card format.

In any case, it was certainly Tivo-ized, in that it required binary blobs which only Sony had the rights to, leading to my troubles above: It's possible to distribute a modified PS2 Linux, and indeed, Black Rhino Linux is Debian for the PS2, but that still requires the standard PS2 Linux to install and run.

I do not know if it was possible to modify and upgrade the kernel, but there is no way to download those modules online to make it work. I certainly hope it was possible, because they were using a 2.2.1 kernel, which is definitely crippled by today's standards.

And all that said, I suppose it was technically possible to develop a game for PS2 Linux that had all the power of a native PS2 game, but I don't think they helped out much with APIs.

there is still an active PS2 Linux community out there which suggests it is not entirely useless.

That there is a community out there does not imply it's useful. There is certainly a community built around obfuscated Perl, for instance. Is it cool? Yes. Is it fun? Probably. But neither obfuscated Perl nor PS2 Linux is actually useful.

If the PS3 shipped out of the box with Linux

This is pretty much confirmed. I believe they'll be using Linux for their "dashboard".

Not only would it be a kick ass games console (& music / video player etc.) but a home computer too.

This is Sony's line, but I'm skeptical. My home computer is not armed to the teeth with DRM. I can change just about any line of code on my system, and it'll still at least try to work. I can crack open the case and upgrade, or add completely new functionality. Taking your MythTV example, I can actually create that, the PS3 probably can't, if it doesn't already have a capture card.

Also, I can run a fairly large RAID array, especially compared to the PS3's 60 gig drive.

Homebrewers should be delighted if it happens since in the past Sony have stamped on the homebrewers since they were synonymous with the pirates.

And since Sony (and apparently you) are convinced that homebrewers are synonymous with pirates, I don't expect this to change. My brother uses his PSP to play SNES games, not necessarily because he doesn't want to pay for them, but also because he no longer has a working Gameboy.

A pre-installed Linux would give the homebrewers a nice sandbox to play in while letting Sony implement whatever copy protection controls they felt like.

See? No longer a computer, I don't want protection controls in hardware. So how, exactly, do you propose to create

Straw that broke microsoft's back

[GrEp]

If nintendo were to release the a PC version of the GUI this could mean big trouble for microsoft. The only reason I boot into "wintendo" is to play games. Who needs wintendo when you can run nintendo :)

Wii will?

[humble.fool]

"Wii will have an updatable Linux OS" I thought we already had that?

Will Wii Win With Wifi ?

[GodWasAnAlien]

Anyone know Whyy Wiiiii is a siiillyy name?

Re:Will Wii Win With Wifi ?

[Tarlus]

Because it's synonymous to the word 'penis'.

Re:FIST SPORT!

[cduffy]

I don't see why you would even want to homebrew, unless you're one of those guys who puts Linux on your Xbox to 'stick it to The Man'. Or whyever the fuck people do that.

Well -- I'm anxiously awaiting hardware to allow me to run homebrew on my DS so that I can help out a guy who's developing some DS-native tools for learning Lojban. (Actually, helping him out is the whole reason I bought the DS, though Brain Age has turned out to be quite an excellent secondary reason).

Part of the point of doing homebrew is being able to build niche games or apps that no commercial developer would ever fund.

Quite a workout

[cno3]

And you thought your arm would get tired waving one remote around?

Re:360 owner and PS3 drooler here

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell are you smoking? Unlike this cracked-out rumor, the PS3 is actually and legitimately confirmed to run Linux. IIRC user-created content was even listed as a selling point in Sony's dubious "it's more computer than console" marketing.

Re:360 owner and PS3 drooler here

[Travoltus]

Yes, but the Wii strategy implies more freedom for the end users.

I doubt you'll have that much freedom on the PS3, Linux system or not.

BSD

[Blackknight]

It would make a lot more sense for them to use NetBSD. You can run NetBSD on anything and there's no GPL zealots asking you for source all the time.

So

[valkabo]

I think the real question is.. will link ride a penquin instead of Epona now?

Nvidia doesn't link against the kernel.

[Ayanami Rei]

Nvidia supplies the source to an interface module. This module is linked against the kernel, and then it links in a seperate binary blob that lets the rubber meet the road.

Also, loading it taints your kernel. This means nobody is allowed to distribute the combination of linux kernel + NVidia driver in the kernel module tree, strictly speaking. That's why you have to jump through a few hoops to get it installed.

Hackability; the next Dreamcast?

[SalaciousPucker]

I'm waiting for either/both the PS3 and the Wii to be hacked. Microsoft seems to have put alot of thought into putting the XBOX & its predecessor online. They don't offer a browser or any means to navigate the internet and offer no user created content that I know of, etc. If they DID offer way to move around, they would own the code - not let Opera build it. if Sony & Nintendo leave even one door open and you'd have a console that could browse to a hackers site, download a (pirated) game, and play it.

Re:360 owner and PS3 drooler here

[jZnat]

According to the folks at Nintendo, Wii doesn't have high-end specs because it was designed to be small (about the size of 3 DVD cases), quiet (so you can leave it on 24/7), and very power efficient (again, for leaving it on 24/7). Take a look at the Xbox 360 and current models of the PS3; these things are huge and can run very hot if not ventilated correctly. This is due to their huge amount of computing power.

Re:FIST SPORT!

[dbIII]

So you expect people to believe you put the ROMs on there but never any games?

Let's look at the DS for an example. For the Nintendo DS the cheapest bit of hardware that lets you run homebrew is not capable of running a single pirated game - but runs homebrew written for the adapter perfectly and lets you put whatever size of compact flash card you wish in the thing. With a small CF card and the GBAMP that ends up being less than the price of a new release game. One of the more useful bits of homebrew is Moonshell which can play mp3s among other things. I don't think the "DSmem" in development can run pirated games either, but it is there to let the homebrew software have eight times more memory at the speed of the bus than is on the DS.

Re:Imagine (A brief discourse on nerd psychology)

[Mr. Hankey]

I would say that the end result of a successful product is community minded, even if the development process is not by necessity. Many defunct software companies have found this out the hard way. Unless you're writing a custom app, you need more than one customer if your product is intended to make money. While capitalism tends to stress power for the individual, community it is still important lest one spend their life ostracized. Japan's society is an excellent example of this. On the other hand, communist ideals might not involve hoarding power as such, but community is still (obviously) central to the concept.

wrong

[oohshiny]

The GPL is only required (i.e., only applicable) when copyright is involved; i.e., making a derivative work.

That's not true. You accept licenses in return for being allowed to copy the code. The license you accept is just a contract, and a contract can say pretty much whatever it wants to. It can impose requirements on you that have nothing to do with copying the code or derivative works. Many licenses, for example, require you to open your wallet and transfer money to someone else. Other licenses require you to adopt specific kinds of marketing--telling your buyers that your software uses other software, or not telling them. Microsoft's shared source and Qt's old source licenses also impose lots of requirements on code that use the library.

The GPL happens to be designed such that it imposes relatively few requirements that don't relate to copying and distributing the code, but that's by choice, not by legal necessity.

you'll see that code dictated by external requirements (i.e., pretty much every piece of software running on a UNIX/Linux system has to use malloc, etc., and thus must either call the system calls directly or via the C Library) is specifically filtered out of the copyright comparison.

Correct. And what that means is that your code doesn't violate any Linux copyrights merely by using Linux header files. However, the Linux kernel license could still impose restrictions on how you use your code and the Linux kernel together, because in order to use them together, you have to copy the Linux kernel, and you cannot do that without agreeing to the terms of the Linux kernel license.

Re:wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL is not a contract, it's a copyright license that describes a way to redistribute a work without committing copyright infringement. If you redistribute without fulfilling your obligations under the GPL, you are committing copyright infringement contract law doesn't enter into it.

Re:wrong

[mrchaotica]

You accept licenses in return for being allowed to copy the code. The license you accept is just a contract, and a contract can say pretty much whatever it wants to. It can impose requirements on you that have nothing to do with copying the code or derivative works.

Right, and you need only accept the GPL if and only if you intend to copy (i.e., distribute) the code. The grandparent's statement (that the GPL is only applicable when copyright is involved) is correct because you don't have to accept the GPL to merely use the software!

This is in contrast to so-called "End User License Agreements," by the way, which try to trick you into thinking that agreement is required for mere use. It's not, because by the time you see the EULA the relevant "consideration" it allegedly affords (i.e. the use of the program) has already been obtained and it can't add new terms to the agreement retroactively.

Re:wrong

[crankyspice]

To clarify, I was responding to the particular point that software "making ... use of the interfaces" of GPL'd software thus fell under the ambit of the GPL, that is, the simple act of linking or using an header would make an otherwise stand-alone piece of software somehow a derivative work and thus GPL-infected.

THIS IS ALL WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

They are just gonna burn their kernel into a ROM and only allow the CPU to boot from it. duh.

PS3 and Wii and Linux

[Monsuco]

I know the PS3 will use Linux, and now it looks like the Wii will too. I suppose this "propriatary Linux" will be done TiVo style, were the source is released, but can't really be changed. That isn't all that bad though. Game developers often want their games avalible on many different platforms. Consols are nice because if it works on one PS3, it works on all PS3s the same way. A Wii is a Wii is a Wii. It also means game studios will be making versions of their software that use OpenGL and run on Linux, so when they release the PC version, they might as well make a Linux port of a game since it would cost next to nothing to make a binary since the code has been ported and it uses OpenGL. Already it is getting cheaper to port to linux, thanks to wine. No I am not talking about running the program on Wine per se, I mean taking the google Picasa approch and using Wine code (which uses the LGPL instead of the GPL for this exact reason) to make a Linux version. Between the two, it will cost probably less that a few hundred to port a major game from Wii or PS3 to Linux.

Also, there is one advantage to porting to linux, you pretty much go unchallenged as far as competition if you port to linux. Think about it, Unreal Tournament is very popular on Linux, why? Because they are the biggest major shooter for Linux. If Loki hadn't had managment issues, they would have had potential to make a lot of money.

I am sorta thinking out loud here, but I wonder if another console maker will just make a PC and sell it as a consol. MS did this with the origional XBox sorta. The origional Xbox was simply a PC with a Celeron processor, an ATI graphics card with a special connector. A DVD-ROM drive with a special power supply. An 8 or 10 GB HDD which was formated with a modified FAT filesystem called "FATX", the Win 2000 Kernel and directX graphics, an ethernet adapter, the memory cards were all standard USB flash drives that had a propriatary connector, 64 MB of RAM with a paging file, the controller ports were modified USB 1.1 ports, and if you cut one up you could plug flash drives into it and they worked. The XBox came close to using the PC as a console idea well, but they didn't do that for the 360. I wonder if some console maker will eventually take the idea further, and use a normal X86 (or X86-64) processor, normal PC style hardware and drives and stuff but use FOSS software. Not just a Linux kernel, but also linux software that would help game devs. Stuff like wine to help with PC to consol ports, license Java to help Java programmers make games, license Flash and Shockwave, and put a copy of Firefox on there to browse the web. A media player (though the codecs for MP3 and DVD support would be licensed) for multimedia, such as Xine or MPlayer. The only reason for consols to exist is for devs to have a standard platform for games to run on that use predictable hardware, why not make is as PC-like as possible?

SCO

[stud9920]

Does this mean the Wii will cost $249 + $699 in license fees ?

Re:How to destroy the Wii is by...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the best way to destroy a console is by putting any form of Windows on it. See the Dreamcast for a good example, particularly the bit where Microsoft refuses to assist in making a WinCE driver for the broadband adapter.

Sony PS2 linux

[homer_ca]

Sony did something similar with the Linux kit for the PS2. The kernel was completely open source, but it ran in a VM that didn't expose any native hardware interfaces to prevent console modding.

Re:Sony PS2 linux

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK, only the DVD drive was actively "locked out" - there was a community-made "direct mode" driver that let you hit the graphics hardware directly that was (is?) available on the Linux-PS2 site.

You don't have to be a lawyer

[DrSkwid]

All you have to do is read it

It's not that hard to understand.

So? I don't get it?

[peterpi]

IF it ran linux, what difference would it make? How would that make it any more or less desireable than if it ran some other OS? It's not as if it's going to boot into a login prompt.

Updatable consoles? This is not good.

[Channard]

The ability to update an operating system and games is a bad thing, as far as a consoles are concerned. One of the reasons I bought an X-Box was so I wouldn't have to deal with patches. And by and large, the games for that console were released bug-free - because Microsoft explicitly said that Live could not be used for patches (I believe it was used once, for a patch for Unreal Tournament). Yet now, Live on the 360 appears to act as a standard patch and OS delivery system. Hence we've had games released that deleted saves, wiped your online score and worse. If I wanted patching/updating, I'd buy a console.

Re:Updatable consoles? This is not good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah but even the original xbox had an 'updating' system. You just never noticed it. There were several dozen updates to the os shell software. There were no 'functional' changes but changes to stop hacking. They usually came on the latest greatest game.

Re:FIST SPORT!

[mlk]

f you don't like it, either don't plug a Cat5 into it,

Or play any new games that will require the functions.

code your homebrew so that it overrides the automatic updates

Leading the fun cat + mouse game that exists on the PSP.
Sony releases an update, killing all the current homebrew.
A few months later someone finds a new bug in libXYZ, all the old games/toys need to be ported over to the new loophole. Alas the one you are interested in does not get ported, so do you play UberGameX or CoolHomeBrewToy.

Lucky the big N has been quite nice so far, and just left Homebrew alone. Hopefully they will continue this, or (better yet) go the 360 route, and release a cheep dev kit.

The point of a GUI is to look better...

[Rix]

So that's a bit of a contradiction.

But yes, the point stands.

Re:FUCK YOU ZONK AND FUCK YOUR GAMES STORIES

[OrangeTide]

I happen to like crappy old hardware.

So your objection is these "rip off prices". Yea. maybe you should point your bad attitude at all the non-nintendo game publishers that are charging in excess of $50. The problem isn't that Nintendo is evil, it is that they are just going with the flow on the whole videogame rip off thing.

(xbox 360 controllers are about $60 each. that almost made me cry when I found out)

Nintendo, like most capitalist businesses tend to charge what the market will bear. If people weren't so willing to shell out $200-$600 for a game system maybe things wouldn't be so expensive.

-1 non sequitur

[TuringTest]

There is hardware published under open licenses. But GPL V3 is not about hardware licenses but DRM encription (and thus algorithms i.e. software), so how is your conclusion related to the grandparent's post?

Re:FUCK YOU ZONK AND FUCK YOUR GAMES STORIES

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Care to justify any of that?

What exactly do you want then? High definition with games at unheard of prices? With the same ol' control scheme?

Hell, I can barely tell the difference between SD and HD. Well, not in anything but price.

The Wii may be a stupid name, and the price may be a little above cost price. So what? You pay them for the R&D so you can enjoy it. Or you can wait a while and buy in late.

Or you could not buy in at all, and just STFU.

Totally

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if they did want to bring in an OS instead of developing their own (unlikely) they would use BSD instead, because that's what it's for.

False. Patents.

[tepples]

You are free to build a machine which runs the modified software.

False. Patents.

Re:FIST SPORT!

[LindseyJ]

So don't play Wii games with your homebrew'd Wii.

The fact is, that's life. You can't always have your cake and eat it too. If you want to use your new toy for homebrew, use it for home brew. If you want to use it for official games, use it for that instead. If you want both, buy two systems. Frankly, Nintendo has zero obligation to make homebrewers happy. They will have plenty of marketshare without them.

Probably not linux.

[ravyne]

I think that Iwata was simply refering to the firmware being updatable via the internet. They've never had this ability until now, so it makes sense to mention it. Certainly the Wii has alot more built-in functionality (such as the 'Channels') but nothing that would require an OS to be intruduced (with all of it's complexity and overhead.) The author of the article clearly took what was said and added his own addendum. I believe the original report used the language "Reportedly a proprietary form of the Linux Kernel" which is interesting because its not often that someone misspells "I speculate" as "Reportedly" (well, actually that DOES happen quite often :) )

Besides, with a system that's only 1.5x as powerful as a gamecube, do you want to be eating into ANY of that additional power? Add too much OS and you're back at square-one, albeit with a fancy controller.

A Big...

[berenixium]

'F00k You, Gates San' to Redmond. Or... 'Stay of Our Japan, and take your bulky XP Vista with ya.'

THIS IS OUTRAGIOUS!!!!1!11!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

How dare they get out of complying with the GPL, everyone SPAM EVIL SONY & DEMAND that they RELEASE THE CODE! I want codemonkeys to have this so they can crack any protection measures, with the benefit of me being able to warze their games easily & ASAP!

Oh wait, I forgot who this was.... I LOVE NINTENDO, they are soooo innovative, I love paying $5-8 each for old games, and they can steal the GPL any time they want! And I love paying $50+ for a bunch of glorified, gimmicky tech demos!

Re:360 owner and PS3 drooler here

[squiggleslash]

There's nothing about the Wii's rumoured strategy that suggests there will be more freedom for end users. The PS3, on the other hand, will apparently have a full version of GNU available for it, so if the worst comes to the worst, you'll be able to do full development on a PS3. We don't know, and have no reason to believe, that the same is true of the Wii.

Let's wait and see. But right now the available evidence is that the Wii and X-Box 360 will be fully locked down, and the PS3 will be at least fractionally user programmable.

Re:FUCK YOU ZONK AND FUCK YOUR GAMES STORIES

[Babbster]

(xbox 360 controllers are about $60 each. that almost made me cry when I found out)

It would make me cry, too, if I found out something that was false but I believed it to be true anyway.

In truth, even with taxes, neither wireless ($49.99) nor wired ($39.99) 360 controllers are "about $60 each." I assume they cost more in Canada and Australia (two other large countries that use the word "dollars"), but since you didn't specify (and mentioned $200-600 for new consoles) I assume you're talking in US dollars...