-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greg Ewing wrote: > Jan Ciger wrote: > >> This is a red herring - neither PS nor Wii are able to run code unsigned >> by either Sony or Nintendo. >> >> Please, find a better example. > > Surely this is *exactly* the kind of problem being talked about? > All the source code of the Playstation's OS and its games could > be disclosed under the GPL, yet it wouldn't do anyone any good. > > Whether this matters to you depends on whether you want to > prevent a company from profiting from your code in a manner > like this. >
Greg, the problem is that the "profiting from your code" is illusory at best in this example. Explain me how exactly would e.g. Sony profit from having to port an obscure game engine to their console. And nobody else can do it due to the issues with the keys and all. Sony could very well release a modified version of their PS firmware that will allow unsigned versions of Soya to run if they were so hell-bent on getting this great 3D engine on their console. They would comply even with GPL v3. like this (no key required any more), BUT: You *still* wouldn't be any closer to compiling a modified version yourself - GPL v.3. does not force anyone to release the compiler and development kit. It requires only the *installation information*, defined as: “Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made." You would have a hard case proving that it means that Sony or whoever needs to give your their compiler too just because it was used to compile GPL v3 code. The clause speaks about installation and execution, not about creating the modified work. This wasn't a problem for Tivo, because the gcc toolchain is available. The official (not the Linux devel kit) PS/2 and PS/3 toolchain is not. Moreover, preventing people from profiting from your code is actually not what GPL is about - if you do not want commercial use, then use a different license than GPL. This is a common mistake and GPL abuse, leading to all kinds of problems when people think that GPL ensures only non-commercial use. Still, I am not against re-licensing and I am not really a copyright holder in Soya, so I am not the one to make the call. However, I would like such decision to be made based on facts and real issues, not on red herrings, FUD, and straw man arguments. Regards, Jan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH0ayjn11XseNj94gRArFjAJ9/6P7M+ffkz2RZPsLCS5+PgaoO+ACeNIft OxMKiovm87FWsFsXnBzW3WA= =dK8w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
