Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th Sep 2010 21:52 UTC
Games I've often harped on Apple for its policy regarding jailbreaking, but of course, Apple isn't the only company engaging in such practices. We already talked about Motorola, and now, we have Sony - already a company with a checkered past when it comes to consumer rights. As it turns out, Sony don't want you jailbreaking your their Playstation 3.
Thread beginning with comment 439759
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Ridiculous
by thebluesgnr on Tue 7th Sep 2010 22:18 UTC in reply to "Ridiculous"
thebluesgnr
Member since:
2005-11-14

Sure, you own it. But Sony owns PSN, and they're free to limit its access to those running the latest firmware update.

Also, the article written by Thom fails to mention a couple of things:

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

2) Any and all apps built with Sony's SDK are unlicensed and therefore a copyright violation. It'd be like running a proprietary app linked against a GPL licensed library: not legal.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Ridiculous
by obsidian on Tue 7th Sep 2010 22:23 in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
obsidian Member since:
2007-05-12

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

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Ridiculous
by viton on Wed 8th Sep 2010 03:45 in reply to "RE[2]: Ridiculous"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

For instance, if someone were to do a "backup manager" using a non-Sony SDK?

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

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Ridiculous
by WereCatf on Tue 7th Sep 2010 22:28 in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

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.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Ridiculous
by obsidian on Tue 7th Sep 2010 22:31 in reply to "RE[2]: Ridiculous"
obsidian Member since:
2007-05-12

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Ridiculous
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 7th Sep 2010 22:28 in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Any and all apps built with Sony's SDK are unlicensed and therefore a copyright violation. It'd be like running a proprietary app linked against a GPL licensed library: not legal.


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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Ridiculous
by umccullough on Tue 7th Sep 2010 22:29 in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

It'd be like running a proprietary app linked against a GPL licensed library: not legal.


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.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Ridiculous
by Moredhas on Tue 7th Sep 2010 22:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Ridiculous"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

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.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Ridiculous
by lemur2 on Wed 8th Sep 2010 03:59 in reply to "RE[2]: Ridiculous"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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.


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
A derivative work pertaining to copyright law, is an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first 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

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Ridiculous
by T-Bone_142 on Wed 8th Sep 2010 00:56 in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
T-Bone_142 Member since:
2010-09-08

It'd be like running a proprietary app linked against a GPL licensed library: not legal.


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.

Reply Parent Score: 1