Blogger Kiyoshi Saruwatari claims that Nintendo's upcoming Wii console runs on the open source Linux operating system. According to Saruwatari, who claims to be a Nintendo insider, the company reduced development costs by leveraging open source software and incorporating a Linux kernel into the Wii software platform. A wide variety of additional features like web browsing, video playback, file management, and emulation all run on Nintendo's custom Linux operating system, which uses a proprietary interface. Unlike the other specialized software components, the actual games will not run under the Linux platform, and can be played without booting Linux if the user holds down the "A" button while the Wii is starting up.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-03
I'll explain this once more, though it is very simple.
The reason why privateA.c can only be distributed as GPL after being linked with openB.c is because the author of openB.c stated he would let anybody use his file for any purpose, but ONLY AS LONG AS IT WAS ONLY LINKED WITH GPL FILES.
I have not asked you, but it is not Borg-like: GPL files won't come from outer space and nullify your intellectual property. They are OFFERED to you to freely use if you accept that tit-for-tat relation.
If I say to you: "you can borrow my cabin by the lake, but you have to paint it and leave the pantry provisioned", you can: a) say thanks, do as told, enjoy yourself, improve my cabin; b) pay for a room in a hotel c) stay home and complain I'm a monster of selfishness and a communist.
Member since:2005-09-01
Otherwise GPL wouldn't be much different from BSD.
The linking provision is meant to protect the licenced content from being closed by simple file mangling. Remember, the main GPL provision is: you have to share the changes.
I don't know any other licence based protections that would be as efficient and less strict in the same time.
Member since:
2006-09-21
GPL's "viral effect" is completely unnecessary in protecting open source. If I have two source code files, privateA.c that is proprietary and another openB.c that is GPL'd, and I link privateA.c with openB.c, why should the GPL dictate that privateA.c now be distributed as GPL when it is completely seperate and shares nothing with the GPL openB.c?
.. It's quite Borg-like if you ask me..
On the other hand, other license like the LGPL and CDDL enforce the original works (source of libs in the case of LGPL and files for CDDL) to still retain the original open source license but do not place demands on other works that are combined or linked with the original.