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.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-04-09
Member since:
2006-06-04
Member since:
2005-07-07
I'm always a little puzzled when companies go with Linux. Not that Linux is bad. It's a great kernel, but other kernels seem to do a similarly good job. In fact, NetBSD seems to be fully functional and is definitely more portable.
For the desktop/server, Linux makes sense. It easily has the best hardware support and is arguably more mature for the purpose. When you're going to be writing hardware support, why not go with the most portable? For the rest of the OS, you have the options of using the best of the GNU world (which is what most people would care about and wasn't even indended for Linux in the first place).
Further, as companies seem to like keeping details private, NetBSD would all them to do that. If Nintendo is using the Linux kernel, that's going to be one great piece of code to hack (not necesserally in a malicious way - hacking doesn't mean evil), but Nintendo would probably rather that code be private.
Member since:2006-06-04
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-04-05
NT used to be that way, before MS fudged it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Cutler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT
Member since:2005-09-01
Member since:2006-01-03
They don't need the most portable: it is enough that it is portable to the PowerPC -- which Linux already is. And by using Linux, they take advantage of the work of thousands more contributors than there are for NetBSD, whose penetration is marginal at best. Adopting NetBSD then maintaining their own branch in-house would be far more expensive than sitting mum and letting the world do the maintenance for them.
As for the privacy of the code, read again: the box will only execute signed binaries, so it won't run anything they don't totally control.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-08-26
No, they already have a working OS from the DS which was the basis/inspiration for the Wii. And actually, all Nintendo's use a sort of loader software to load the games. The Gamecube however was about the first to make that fact more clear and on the DS it's obvious.
Member since:
2006-01-03
If this is true, then there's not much to be happy about. Nintendo turns into the ultimate freerider, leeching the effort of thousands of people, then locking it in their sandbox where only their chosen are allowed to play, while raking the profits of selling tens of millions of machines.
Maybe I should be happy that 9 million machines with Linux preinstalled are going to ship this year, but all I get is this dry feeling inside.
But then, His very Highness, Linus Torvalds and most or all of the highest ranking Linux kernel developers have attacked rabidly the GPL version 3's provisions to avoid exactly this -- the possibility of welding the bonnet shut by means of signed binaries -- so I guess this is exactly what they wanted to achieve.
So far, companies using Linux in their products have mostly have to open them to users in exchange for the savings obtained, but if this trend continues, be sure that system-on-chip providers will very, very soon add the simple hardware needed to block unsigned binaries out of the system, and most Linux devices will be locked.
Bearing in mind I have contributed exactly zero lines of my own to the Linux kernel, I am clearly not the one to cry wolf. But still, I have the feeling that this is not how things should be.
Member since:2006-05-19
I don't understand you.. isn't opensource software supposed to be free for use by anyone? As far as I remember, opensource software gives the freedom also on the user side and not only on the code side. Being jelous about seeing your code used is really not in the spirit of opensource..why a programmer would license the software as opensource if he isn't happy with its usage?
Member since:2005-07-08
Please don't spread FUD. Open Source is not GPL. GPL is however Open Source.
GPL code is always free, any derivatives *must* be GPL as well. GPL is, in effect, viral. That's the intent of the license, so that anyone who distributes binaries of a given GPL product must also provide full source code. The idea is that the code remains free. This is opposite of BSD and it's ilk which allow derivative code to be placed under any license the licensor (ee?) wishes. Share and share alike.
TiVo and Nintendo follow the letter of the law, and not the spirit of it (according to the FSF). Rather than being open with the resulting hardware and software, they lock you down to their specific binaries and don't let you do what you want with it. This is completely against the idea of "copyleft". It's essentially stabbing the GPL in the back and robbing them. (again, according to RMS & Co.)
GPL v3 is supposed to fix this, by closing the letter-of-the-law loophole that allows this kind of hardware DRM on the machine code.
That particular clause in v3 is what has Linus so up in arms. How you believe is up to you.
BSD is "open source". The code is there for you to do what you want with it, including close it up after deriving and modifying.
GPL is "open source & then some". The code is there for you to do what you want with, except for changing the license. Only the Copyright holder of the software himself can do this.
(FYI, neither BSD nor GPL are retroactive when a license changes. Any code prior to the change is still under it's respective license.)
Postscript to Fellow moderators: before you mod people up, do some fact checking. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about and is getting licenses confused. 
Member since:2006-05-19
DittoBox, is this reply to my comment? because I don't refer to any license like BSD or GPL. I'm supporter of both licenses and I think every opensource license has its own purpose (otherwise why would they exist). For some of the software developers GPL is a good choice, for other BSD, I am happy there there are people coding under free licenses.
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.
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:2005-07-06
"GPL is, in effect, viral. "
http://www.metastatic.org/text/the-gpl-is-not-viral.html
The most oft-mentioned myth about free software -- aside from the fact that the "free" does not mean "gratis" -- is that the General Public License, the example of copyleft free software licenses, is a "viral" license. It is not, and please stop saying that it is.
Firstly, please acknowledge that no legal document can be viral. The word "viral" is defined to be:
viral: of, relating to, or caused by a virus.
And "virus" is defined thusly:
virus: 1. archaic: VENOM(1)
2. a: the causative agent of an infectious disease. b: any of a large group of submicroscopic infective agents that are regarded either as extremely simple microorganisms or as extremely complex molecules, that typically contain a protein coat surrounding an RNA or DNA core of genetic material but no semipermeable membrane, that are capable of growth and multiplication only in living cells, and that cause various important diseases in humans, lower animals, or plants; also: FILTERABLE VIRUS. c: a disease caused by a virus.
3: something that poisons the mind or soul (the force of this virus of prejudice -- V. S. Waters)
4: a computer program usually hidden within another seemingly innocuous program that produces copies of itself and inserts them into other programs and that usually performs a malicious action (as destroying data).
None of these definitions are applicable to a software license agreement, and it is silly to say that they do.
Of course, I am being (deliberately) over-precise in this regard, and that when people call the GPL viral they are speaking about its qualities, the specific quality that it is an infectious license.
Except it isn't infectious, either.
The GPL states a single, specific requirement, above all else: that if you create a software program that is a derived work of another software program, then that combined work must be distributed under these terms, no more, no less. Making a derivative work of a software program IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT. You, the hypothetical developer of the derived work, receive the program accompanied by its unambiguous terms of use, and IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO READ AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THOSE TERMS. If you do not, then that is your fault, and ignorance of the law does not excuse its transgression.
You therefore have a choice. You can use works distributed under the GPL to create your own software and license that under the GPL, or you can NOT USE the GPL software and use any license you want. If the GPL were infectious, then you would have no such choice; since you do have a choice it is clearly not infectious in this regard.
Also remember that the GPL clearly states your rights with respect to parts of a program you write: that the GPL only applies to the combined work as a whole. You retain all rights to do whatever you want with the parts of the program you wrote. Furthermore, if a developer combines a GPL'd program X with a proprietary program Y of which he is not the owner, then the combination does not, and cannot legally affect how Y is licensed. All that happens in this situation is that the developer will be unable to satisfy the conditions of the GPL and the proprietary license at the same time, making any release of the software -- however licensed -- in breach of copyright law. Copyright law is pretty clear on the notion that the owner of a copyrighted work has the sole ability to set the terms of use of his copyright.
Let me end with an example. I have a tennis court on my property, and I allow you, my neighbor, to use it if you want, but I do not allow you to stop my other neighbor from using it. You cannot complain about not having this right, because the tennis court is my property and I decide how it may be used. You can, however, not allow any of your neighbors to use your swimming pool, and you are not obligated to do otherwise simply because of what I allow you to do on my tennis court. Giving you permission to use my property does not, in any way, transfer ownership of my property to you, or your property to me. Saying that this sort of agreement is "viral" or "infectious" is disingenuous, and completely ignores the bounds of the law.
Member since:2006-10-06
"None of these definitions are applicable to a software license agreement, and it is silly to say that they do."
This one do...
"Viral phenomena are objects or patterns able to replicate themselves or convert other objects into copies of themselves when these objects are exposed to them."
Sorry for busting your bubble but it is viral...
Member since:2005-07-06
"This is opposite of BSD and it's ilk which allow derivative code to be placed under any license the licensor (ee?) wishes. Share and share alike. "
The BSD Protection clause that gets called a license does not grant the right to switch its derivative license. The BSD license in its original form and most popular use only cover protection from litigation pertaining to the use of the software code and nothing else.
The software code owner choose to not enforce is copyright over is own code in the derivative.
Its not the BSD protection clause that gets called a license that is at fault but the developper who allow the switching of there code without any compensation , having been tricked by the corporations who use it into thinking its allowed by the license.
Member since:2005-09-10
But still, I have the feeling that this is not how things should be.
Yup, me too. One side of me just want to sit in the darkest corner of the bar and mumble GPL commandments about this, whereas the other desperately longs for those party starting Wii tennis tournaments. Ah, the pains of geequality...
Member since:2006-01-03
Member since:2006-01-14
Which would you rather have? Nintendo use Linux and give back changes to the kernel which might be beneficial and have the Wii locked down. Or have Nintendo use something like BSD where they give nothing back and the Wii is still locked down. You guys seem to think that by changing the GPL, you are gonna magically force companies to do what you want, ie open the platform.
Member since:2006-01-03
They would not be *forced* to open the platform; they would have to open the platform only if they chose to use Linux (under GPL3 as it stands, I mean)
If they preferred to keep the platform shut, then they could adopt a different kernel and pay their way along maintaining their own branch of xBSD, or pay QNX / WindRiver / Microsoft / Symbian for licenses of their OS and also pay for having software transported to those platforms.
Linux offers them the way to not pay-pay-pay-pay every step of the way, enabling whole chunks of functionality they might not be able to afford otherwise. It is just sad that they take advantage of not even having to pay back in platform accessibility. But it seems it is the way the Founding Fathers of Linux (the kernel) want it, anyway, so who am I to complain.
Member since:2006-05-29
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:2006-01-03
Not necessarily: the router manufacturers were sued for keeping the modifications to themselves; Nintendo can avoid this by publishing any modifications, and therefore complying with the GPL. Only, it won't matter, because if you touch-up the source and rebuild, then the resulting *binary* won't run on the Wii because it is not signed by Nintendo.
That is why I say that if the scheme works, soon all system-on-chip manufacturers will be providing their customers with signed-binary hardware to do the same trick, and most of these devices will be welded shut again.
Member since:2005-12-31
> Nintendo can avoid this by publishing any
> modifications, and therefore complying with the GPL.
> Only, it won't matter, because if you touch-up the
> source and rebuild, then the resulting *binary* won't
> run on the Wii because it is not signed by Nintendo.
And that's perfectly within Nintendos rights (and I don't mean the legal rights). The point of the GPL is not to open the Wii up for modification; its point is to open up the *software* for modification.
Member since:2005-11-14
"The point of the GPL is not to open the Wii up for modification; its point is to open up the *software* for modification."
The point of the GPL is to enable end-users to run, distribute, modify, and to *run* and distribute the *modified* *code*. It's all very well being able to get the modified source code and to look at it, but if Nintendo and friends "DRM everything up" (the whole "trusted computing platform" stuff being pushed by Microsoft, Intel and friends) so that you can't get non-DRM'd hardware any more, having the modified source is about as useful as having it handed to you printed in a book.
Member since:2006-06-03
There is a certain ammount to be happy about. OK, so it would be nice to mod your Wii with unsigned code. But the fact that there will be 9 million machines with Linux preinstalled, gives a lot of added credibility to Linux. If Linux is going to break the OS market (for desktop and embedded), it (the community) needs to accept and welcome this sort of news.
Member since:2006-01-12
Member since:
2005-09-03
Member since:
2005-11-14
The GPL version 3 seeks to prevent the use of technical measures (eg. DRM) or dubious legal techniques (ie. patents) to circumvent the conditions of the licence in practice while claiming to adhere to them in principle. However, Linux is licensed only under the GPL version 2, so if this report is true, the best you can hope for is getting some source code that you'll never be able to build and then run on your device unless you find someone capable of "modding" it first. And they'll probably be on the run having violated some draconian "intellectual property" legislation.
Welcome to Linus' new world of Linux!
Member since:2006-01-12
They are not dubious legal techniques. they are flat out legal and perfectly acceptable.
Basically these companies are simply going to use a BSD licensed kernel because they wont be hounded by zealots.
Personally, I run a linux desktop, but if I were developing a set top box, i wouldnt even think about linux, simply because of people like you bitching to no end.
they are within the license get over it.
Member since:2005-09-01
Member since:
2006-02-17
Member since:
2006-01-10
Lets assume this story is true (which I personally doubt)
1. Being GPL, Nintendo MUST provide a copy of the source code for the kernel. Chances are though, they will make tiny changes that are ultimately not very interesting. In particular, note that using the linux kernel does NOT mean they need to provide the source code for any other software.
2. This does not in any way mean that the Wii will be an open platform. Nintendo are well within their rights to construct the Wii such that it will only boot a signed kernel, and you can be certain they would do so. GPLv2 permits this and the Linux kernel developers have explicitly supported such usage of their code.
So to summarise, if this story is true it would simply mean Nintendo would have to provide the source code for the kernel, 99% of which would be identical to what you can download from kernel.org . For us as potential users of the Wii, it means nothing.
Edited 2006-10-09 22:08
Member since:2005-09-06
They say it can only read signed code, this would have to be embedded into the kernel. Most likely they will also have video drivers that would have to be closed source that will be inserted into the kernel(that could violate the gpl). My bet out of all of this is that they are going to be a bunch of dicks, and lock down everthing unless you pay them big money. I hope a lawsuit comes out of this if they are indeed locking down the kernel, if it is linux(if it is a bsd, i feel sorry for who ever they are leaching off of).
Member since:2005-07-06
Most likely they will also have video drivers that would have to be closed source that will be inserted into the kernel(that could violate the gpl).
Since the games don't run in Linux, even according to the "insider", the drivers only need to provide a basic level of functionality (640x480 unaccelerated 2D graphics).
if it is a bsd, i feel sorry for who ever they are leaching off of
It's not "leaching" if the authors explicitly give permission to use the code anymore than reading articles here is leeching off of OSnews.
Member since:2005-09-06
"It's not "leaching" if the authors explicitly give permission to use the code anymore than reading articles here is leeching off of OSnews." What?
If you go to osnews, steal their articles and add parts to them and claim them as your own. well I wouldnt call it leaching, but reading thier articles isnt leaching. OSnews wants you to read their articles, look at their ads etc..
Going to a kernel and taking parts of the kernel based on netbsd or any type of bsd and not giving back is still leaching, but it is allowed in their agreement. The reason I feel sorry is because if I was one of the developers I would feel used(kinda like how the debain developers feel towards ubuntu).
Edited 2006-10-10 00:27
Member since:2005-07-06
OSnews wants you to read their articles, look at their ads etc..
You don't get it, do you? The authors of BSD-licenced code want others to take that code and use it. That's the entire point of the BSDL -- that the code is available for everyone and for every purpose.
The reason I feel sorry is because if I was one of the developers I would feel used
If you as a developer wanted to have others "share alike" you would have chose a different licence. It's that simple.
Member since:2005-09-01
Member since:
2006-06-01
Member since:
2006-03-23
Member since:
2006-01-16
TiVo and Nintendo follow the letter of the law, and not the spirit of it (according to the FSF). Rather than being open with the resulting hardware and software, they lock you down to their specific binaries and don't let you do what you want with it.
They might not be going with the FSF's version of the "spirit" of the license, but they're doing exactly what Linus (the lead dev and initial creator of Linux) want. He wants improvements to his code to be usable by everyone. That's what the GPL guarantees, and that's all he wants. Nintendo might make it hard for customers to run just any program on the product they've purchased, but the code of the Linux kernel continues to be free. That's the point of the GPL.
