OSNews

Ahh, but what if you build an app that does not use Sony's SDK? For instance, if someone were to do a "backup manager" using a non-Sony SDK?

Edited 2010-09-07 22:25 UTC

If you're want to run under GameOS, you _will_ use Sony SDK files.

1) The only homebrew application currently developed for the PS3 is the "Backup" Manager, written using Sony's leaked SDK;

You know why there is no more homebrew for it? Because it's has not been possible to install or use such! _Of course_ there is no homebrew yet then >_<

Now that the backup manager is out there people will start coding stuff and seeing what they can get out of PS3, it just takes time, you know.

Yes indeed.

And as for PSN (Playstation Network), I'm sure there'd be a few people out there who would have no interest in their network - they would just want the hardware. The PS3 itself.

Standalone apps wouldn't need the network.

Uh, the GPL places no restrictions on use. What you say is perfectly legal. In fact, it happens on almost every Linux installation: graphics drivers.

Wrong analogy - since that's a perfectly legal activity.

I think you meant - it would be like *distributing* a proprietary app linked against the GPL without also distributing your source, or providing the recipient with an offer to obtain the source code along with it.

It's ok - a common misconception.

I would guess that there will eventually be homebrew software that doesn't rely on Sony's SDK. At the very least, I would eventually anticipate a version of Linux which doesn't require the OtherOS feature - it's inevitable.

Even though the OtherOS feature was crippled, there was almost no news of PS3 piracy and jailbreaking the whole time it was available. I sometimes wonder if Sony will learn from this, but then I return to my senses.

Even a proprietary application dynamically linked against GPL libraries is OK to distribute, because the proprietary application does not include the GPL libraries. With dynamic linking, the libraries are assumed to be already installed on the end user system, and the proprietary application just calls them. This is fully within the GPL terms ... anyone may simply run the GPL code for any purpose.

A problem only comes about when a proprietary application statically links in a GPL library. This means that the GPL code is now included within the proprietary application. The proprietary application now becomes a derived work according to the definitions of copyright law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derived_work


When it is statically linked the GPL library is included in the proprietary application, the GPL code is a copyright-protected element of an original, previously created first work, and a whole library is indeed a "major element" of the whole work.

According to copyright law, rights to the derived work are in such a case jointly held by the authors of the separate elements that make up the work. The joint owners must come to an agreement about distribution rights with respect to the derived work. If the authors of the proprietary code within the derived work wish to have distribution rights for the derived work, then they must get permission from the authors of all other parts of the derived work which were written by other parties.

The GPL alone does not give such permission. Another license must be sought.

Note that the LGPL license DOES actually give such permission as an exception to the copyleft terms of the GPL. For this very reason, many libraries are licensed under LGPL rather than GPL.

Edited 2010-09-08 04:15 UTC

As far as I'm aware (I'm not a lawyer by any means) it is perfectly legal to do anything you want with GPL code. It only would only be illegal if you distributed GPL code with the proprietary application.