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 439767
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Ridiculous
by umccullough on Tue 7th Sep 2010 22:29 UTC 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[4]: Ridiculous
by nt_jerkface on Tue 7th Sep 2010 23:50 in reply to "RE[3]: Ridiculous"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

The lesson is to not allow standard ports or a foreign OS. Both are unneeded security risks. Consoles should be black mystery boxes that only connect to non-standard devices.

The security on the ps3 is rather impressive and they deserve credit for keeping it uncracked this long. After the ps3 was first released I read endless comments about how trying to prevent hacking was futile and that it would be cracked in a year.

Their efforts were not futile given the number of games they were able to release without piracy. They still control access to PSN and they can keep playing the firmware update game. Not only can they tie games to firmware but blu-ray movies as well.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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[4]: Ridiculous
by saynte on Wed 8th Sep 2010 07:03 in reply to "RE[3]: Ridiculous"
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10


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.


You realize that the FSF disagrees? They (and I believe Richard Stallman) hold that even dynamically linking constitutes a derived work, although that is only their opinion.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Ridiculous
by danieldk on Wed 8th Sep 2010 07:09 in reply to "RE[3]: Ridiculous"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

This is the interpretation of some. Others, for instance the Free Software Foundation, believe that dynamic linking is creating a derivative work. For this reason, they have created the LGPL (which does allow dynamic linking in proprietary applications, but not static linking).

Reply Parent Score: 2