Wii Will Have an Updatable Linux OS 330
eldavojohn writes "There's bits and pieces of information floating around that revolve around Iwata Asks interviews on Nintendo's website. What I found interesting was the tidbit about the updatable operating system: 'Wii is the first system from Nintendo that we can continue to be involved in (via operating system updates) after the customer buys it. This means that Wii will greatly expand and diversify the ways in which people will enjoy games in the future.' The Wii is reported to operate on top of a proprietary form of the Linux kernel, although there are already efforts to make a GNU/Linux for the console. So, the answer to the age old question is that it already runs Linux."
"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" (Score:3, Interesting)
How does this work with respect to the GPL, requirements to release sourcecode, copyright, etc?
Re:"proprietary form of the Linux kernel"? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a loophole that GNU GPL version 3 is meant to prevent.
This is New? (Score:3, Interesting)
Tsk. Pure BS. (Score:5, Interesting)
/greger
where does it mention Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
Where exactly in the Iwata Asks article does it say it runs on a proprietery version of the Linux kernel?
Infact where does it mention the Wii runs Linux on it at all?
I think I found the story, thanks google. And it says that its a rumor from one of the designers who said:
Since when did "GUI applications" count as in the kernel?
Story found on:
http://wii.qj.net/Wii-Will-Use-Linux-as-Operating
Another quote direct from the so called "insider" I bet Nintendo are thanking their lucky stars that GPLv3 isn't out and that Linus Torvalds prefers v2 anyway, isn't there going to be something in it about locking out modified versions?
I am skeptical about this guy, but make up your own mind,
Orriginal blog post about Nintendo Wii having Linux on it: http://saruwatari-wii.blogspot.com/2006/07/softwa
If anyon can find a quote about a proprietery kernel please post a reply,
Vaportalk (Score:5, Interesting)
Will the new generation of game consoles get converted to the slightly more cross-examined PC press tricks from their generations of easy lying to game press? Or will they turn the tiny amount of PC journalism accountability into the standard lying that defines the much larger market?
Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" (Score:3, Interesting)
If this is true... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Tsk. Pure BS. (Score:3, Interesting)
Who let's this sh... through? (Score:5, Interesting)
Any Linux kernel is per definition (of the GPL) free. That is the whole point of the GPL. There can't be a proptietary version. If they include the Linux kernel, they will have to include the source to it and to all the components that directly link to it, like drivers (proprietary drivers exist, but there is a discussion, sometimes on Slashdot as well, if that is legal). If they ship userland stuff along they can keep the source, for example for a gui.
What they can do is lock it all up so you can't mod it. Then the device will only accept signed modifications (like upgrades) from CDs or their server. Wether you do this with open or closed source doesn't matter. It might be easier to find security holes to smuggle in your mod this way. But OTOH they already mod the PSP this way even though it is closed source.
That is the big discussion about the GPLv3 btw. I guess what the FSF wants to achieve is that if you use GPLv3 code you may not lock down your device this way.
Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly (Score:5, Interesting)
You are wrong; you're thinking of the BSD-style licenses. Anything under the GPL (or software that extensively uses GPL-software's interfaces) must have source released if it's released.
Actually, you are wrong. The GPL is only required (i.e., only applicable) when copyright is involved; i.e., making a derivative work. For there to be a derivative work, there has to be a copying within the ambit of the copyright act. If you look to the Altai test (adopted by pretty much every court), you'll see that code dictated by external requirements (i.e., pretty much every piece of software running on a UNIX/Linux system has to use malloc, etc., and thus must either call the system calls directly or via the C Library) is specifically filtered out of the copyright comparison. So any interface calls, even symbols brought in from include files, are [strongly] arguably not even copyrightable (a 'method of operation'; see, e.g., 17 U.S.C. 102, and Lotus v. Borland, 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995)) and even if they are, would be stripped out of any comparison of code done in an infringement action. Absent an infringement, there's no need for GPL applicability...
Further, the COPYING file for the Linux kernel (http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING [kernel.org]) specifically carves out "user programs that use kernel services by normal system call." So, with appropriate facts, one could easily argue copyright estoppel in the (unlikely) event that Linus (as the copyright holder for much, if not most, of the kernel, AFAIK -- the FSF, etc. would not have standing to sue, it would have to be Linus or some other kernel contributor whose work was in the Wii) brought suit.
Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly (Score:3, Interesting)
Regioning? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly (Score:3, Interesting)
Sony PS2 linux (Score:4, Interesting)