-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Greg Ewing wrote:
> If you know enough about the platform to be able to "install > and execute", then I think you know enough to be able to write > your own tool to get from the source to the executable. I respectfully disagree - writing an installer and running an executable is vastly different and easier task than implementing a compiler for an undocumented hardware. Good compiler is a huge task even on fully documented and open system. > I > can't see there being anything in the compiler itself that's > tricky Did you ever try to write one? Especially for a multi-processor architecture? I guess not. Then you need code libraries to go with it - the compiler alone is not very useful. Where do you get those from? You can't use what is on the system already - no header files and it could be also illegal due to license restrictions on those files. > -- it's things like proprietary disk formats and > built-in DRM chips that will trip you up. That is the least of your worries. You need an executable to begin with. E.g. there is no toolchain for PS/2, PS/3 nor Wii, unless you are running Linux on them, which in the case of PS/[23] is not a full-featured system (e.g. crippled GPU access). Of course, then the whole "tivoization" issue is moot, because there is no DRM any more. Do you think that the reason why there is no such toolchain is the DRM and proprietary disk format? > Given the same > information that the manufacturers themselves have about > such devices, building the necessary tools is just a matter > of programming. Yes, but you first need to HAVE the documentation! Why do you think the DRM and NDAs and all this is in place to begin with??? Try to ask Sony for development documentation - they will either politely show you the door or laugh in your face directly. >> Actually, neither - it is about maintaining the freedom. > > Well, that's what RMS *says* it's about, but that's never > made any sense to me. I think that this is your problem. Try to make sense of it first, before you advocate changes you do not understand. > If someone takes a free program and > makes something proprietary out of it, the original version > is still just as free as it ever was -- you don't need > a viral licence agreement to ensure that. Well, that's partially true. However, if you had only a standard license, the work could just disappear - e.g. you obtain the copyright, get the source under your control and then change license to a proprietary one and yank the project off the web. This has happened before. It is all legal, but suddenly with a non-free license it could be rather tricky to get to the older versions of the source. GPL requires the distribution of the source, so you would still be obliged to provide the source to the older versions you distributed before, even though you are not shipping it any more. The second point of the virality is that you are *not allowed* to take my work, enhance it with proprietary extensions and start distributing it (selling it, for example) without making the code for those things available. This prevents forks and splintering of the code base into incompatible versions. It is not intended to prevent you from profiting from my work. Regards, Jan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFH1RP2n11XseNj94gRAlncAJ4jNhFH6eoVZ42Vtg1KG6Nt2a37iQCfZ6vR Q6yHvR8NDCBylI96LfgX8VU= =X/p+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Soya-user mailing list Soya-user@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/soya-user
