GPL, ScummVM and violations | Hacker News Reader

GPL, ScummVM and violations

sev-notes.blogspot.com

65 pointsCrazedGeek11 comments

Any particular reason this is coming up now? Has there been a change in the situation since June 2009? Honest question; I'm not saying this isn't interesting, I'm just curious if there's any particular reason to bring it up again today.

Not really, no. The VLC in App Store thing a few days ago reminded me of it is all.

Why on earth would Nintendo ban open source software on the Wii?

My suspicion is that GPL'd software linked against the official Nintendo SDK could require release of parts of that SDK, which Nintendo wants to keep tight control over.

I don't think any sane reading of the GPL would imply that it "taints" a host platform (via its libraries), whereas the inverse, non-GPL code linking against GPL libraries, certainly can be argued. Maybe that's something that they don't want to go to court to prove though.

I doubt they're banning open source per se (though that's certainly possible), but rather that the GPL ought to be incompatible with the Wii's licensing for exactly the same reason it's incompatible with Apple's App Store licensing. (Even if I'm wrong and they do ban open-source software explicitly, I still see the Wii and iPh?o(d|ne) situations as analogous from a GPL-compliance standpoint, which would still prevent ScummVM games from running on the Wii.)

Is it possible for anyone to start a GPL-infringement suit, or does everything have to pass through the FSF?

Of course anyone can do that. The EFF or FSF can be of great assistance though.

As far I understand it, if you are a copyright owner and your copyright is being infringed, you can start the suit.

In fact, generally (at least) the FSF will only take up lawsuits when it involves infringement against their own copyright. That is one reason why they suggest that if you are writing GPL software, then you should assign copyright to them.

For the record I don't think the FSF asks that all GPL software gets assigned to them. However for all GNU software (bash, gcc etc) They want copyright assignment.

My bad. I knew that they didn't really ask for assignment to them for all GPL software, but I was under the impression that at some point, at least, they were suggesting something along the lines of "if you want our legal representation then feel free to assign the copyright to us". Not in a mafia 'protection' way, either, but more of a logistics thing than anything.

Either way, that doesn't seem to be the case.

I can completely understand why they want copyright assignment with the GNU software, though. Having everyone keep their copyright 'feels' nice, but how many projects have we seen that end up almost frozen because they want to do something with the license but can't find all of the copyright owners, let alone get them to agree?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com