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: (Score:3, Interesting)
How does this work with respect to the GPL, requirements to release sourcecode, copyright, etc?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There is also the fact that MkLinux is directed at PowerPC, which is what the Wii uses.
Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. The important difference is that Nvidia is making their kernel module accessible through the website. Then YOU have to download it and LINK it against the kernel. They are legally doing nothing wrong with that - it is the users deciding to use the proprietary module with the kernel.
In the case of Kororaa, they distributed it together already linked.
Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" (Score:5, Insightful)
How about: "If you use ANY operating system, you won't be able to use the latest and greatest hardware available unless you're willing to accept some bitter terms from the manufacturer to protect their intellectual property". Using Linux doesn't subject you to terms that are more bitter, it's just that we Linux users have grown to expect freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Sony PS2 linux (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I Phrased That Badly (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not a lawyer so I'm not too clear on the GPL. I thought you could modify the software under it and release it without ever being forced to hand out the source code. I could be wrong though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But under GPL 2, there's no guarantee that the hardware provided with the software will allow an improved version to run, which makes an end-run around FSF freedom #1 [gnu.org]. Linus Torvalds reportedly likes GPL 2 much better than the GPL 3 drafts [google.com], deliberately not caring about freedom #1 for hobbyist end users of proprietary hardware.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Granted the first person to do that then has a right to post the complete source code minus Nintedo's trade marks on any website they choose.
It just makes more sense to hook it up to your web site and alllow people to
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
My TiVo manual includes a written offer for example (also with their download site URL); anyone (not just TiVo customers) can request a copy of the source from TiVo.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yeah, I Phrased That Badly (Score:5, Informative)
As a general rule, yes. There are things which definately require you to release it, using GPL'd code or a GPL'd library. There are various shade of gray with different encapsulations of the code, I won't go into that. But there's also a few very clear cases where you do not have to distribute source:
a) By mere aggregation, i.e. the software has to actually work together, not just come on the same media
b) Using standard OS API calls (otherwise there could be no GPL'd softwara for Windows, or proprietary applications on linux)
c) Using libraries that come standard with the OS/compiler (e.g. Microsofts standard C/C++ library)
So in the example he quoted, yes Nintendo could use the Linux kernel, but not release any of the userspace code if they built that from scratch, or only the modified libraries if using GTK (which is LGPL). They do need to distribute any chances they make to the kernel, but since binary drivers are tolerated it need not be more than a stub. Also, there's nothing preventing them (and I imagine they will be) using a digitally signed kernel, so that modified kernels can't be used to copy game disks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But you don't have to distribute the compiler or especially the linker along with the source code, do you? I would imagine that the Wii linker includes a digital signing step to keep out hobbyists and other unlicensed developers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why almost all proprietary X software uses GTK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nvidia doesn't link against the kernel. (Score:2, Informative)
Also, loading it taints your kernel. This means nobody is allowed to distribute the combination of linux kernel + NVidia driver in the kernel module tree, strictly speaking. That's why you have to jump through a few hoops to get it installed.
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: (Score:2)
I think Nintendo could have a modified Linux kernel for which they offer the source code to Wii owners to satisfy the GPL requirements. Atop that they could have any proprietary system without needing to release that code, just as various proprietary software packages run atop Linux. The only potential issue would be a binary-only video driver, though Linus' stance is that this is not a derivative work of the Linux kernel.
Re: (Score:2)
So as long as they don't actually modify the kernel, and ship it with a custom GUI (under any license), they are fine.
I'm sure if Nintendo finds the need to fix/modify the kernel, or any other GPL'd software they use, they'll release the changes.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they're certainly free to write their own proprietary modules and have their own GUI, that's for sure.
Mike.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To be bluntly, you don't seem to be a software engineer either. It wouldn't be the first time that rumour sites would be mixing up technical terms and concepts, though.
A graphical user interface would most likely sit completely in userland [wikipedia.org], while the Linux kernel [wikipedia.org] would only contain a device driver for communicating with the hardware. The user-mode parts can be as proprietary as Nintendo wants them to be, but any changes to the kernel itself must be released or they'll be violating the terms of use of th
You have to give the source. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The short answer is, yeah, it's incorrect, and it is a little alarming to read, but people are probably overreacting with their responses to this one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other lic
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"a proprietary form of the Linux kernel" (Score:5, Insightful)
That is, they'll provide the source code with their proprietary modifications for the Wii hardware, but it'll be totally useless as the Wii hardware will be designed so that it will only run code signed by Nintendo. So the modified code will be useless to Wii owners, and also useless to everyone else as PC hardware won't have any use for the Wii hardware support.
And Linus will no doubt say that this is just peachy.
I think it's exactly the kind of crap the GPL was supposed to stop. If I purchase hardware and software that's GPL licensed, I should be able to modify the software and run the modified version on the only hardware it's useful for, the hardware I own. That's why I support RMS's efforts with GPL v3 [ath0.com] and think they're a good thing. In fact, I think they should go further.
This is New? (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux on Wii, since when? (Score:2, Insightful)
Who is reporting that? Its the first time I hear that and the linked webpages don't really give any more detail, the Iwata interview simply states that the Wii will have upgradable firmware, nothing Linux related.
Re:Linux on Wii, since when? (Score:5, Informative)
The person who posted the original story really should have done the 5 minutes research I just did, there is zero credible evidence that Nintendo has done anything at all with Linux. The "source" of the original speculation is someone named "Kiyoshi Saruwatari", who claims to be a designer who doesn't work for Nintendo, but has worked with them. He never names a company, specific business interactions, the nature of his work, nothing. His "facts" seem to consist of pure conjecture and swizzling of common publically released information (Virtual Console, etc).
In the months before the Wii controller was revealed at Tokyo Game Show 2005, there was a rash of "insider" blogs, with a lot of suspiciously made-up sounding Japanese names, with calculatedly poor English skills. These blogs were the source of a lot of the early misinformation, the "VR helmet" nonsense, the "secretly more graphically powerful than both Xbox 360 and PS3", the "Kid Icarus sequel", etc. My guess is half of them were American or European fanboys who were trying to stir things up.
In short I don't consider it responsible to call the single, highly dubious rumor that Nintendo is using Linux "reporting", and I hope this doesn't touch off a lot of controversy over what began with nothing more than a big fat lie / hoax.
Tsk. Pure BS. (Score:5, Interesting)
/greger
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.tivo.com/linux/linux.asp [tivo.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
in other words.. the claim of an open platform is completely specious..
we won't have anything similar to xbmc for wii without the standard modchips because theyre greedy (*)#$@$#'s
Re: (Score:2)
Oh he's a fake alright. The most obvious reason is that if he did have any connections with Nintendo he'd of been fired or sued for NDA breach by now. Another obvious reason is that some of his previous statements have already been proven false.
As for a Linux OS on the Wii, I doubt it. It's memory footprint is too large for one
Proprietary Linux is pure nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
You would imagine that people would know this by heart by now...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Restricting the hardware to only run signed binaries, would allow them to comply with the letter of the GPL if not the spirit. Any modifications could be released under the GPL and no one would be able to compile a custom kernel for the Wii.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Except its not Nintendo's claim, just some asshat blogger's.
You're Right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As for "upgradable OSes" on consoles, not exactly a new concept. PS2 had several revisions. Both Xbox and Xbox 360 have updates via Xbox Live. The fact that it's going to be an online console should've been evidence enough that there would be udpates.
The *real* age old question: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Shouldn't that be .. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but can it run Linux? (n/t) (Score:2)
Nothing to see here, move along.
If this is true... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much a 'chicken-and-the-egg' problem, it's an installed user-base problem.
Re: (Score:2)
There's plenty of software out there, just not games. PCs, for example, didn't start as a game console. They rose in numbers for productivity reasons, and the game market was born. It might help if there were more games, but honestly, I just don't see it being the catalyst. What company is going to invest all that money to make a game and sell a whoppin 10,000 copies?
"But if the Wii is runn
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
If you're running a Wii then the developers of Wii games will have a dev environment designed by Nintendo to run on their specific platform.
There are too many variables for designing Linux based games for PC's. Do you design for FC, Gentoo, Ubuntu, Slackware (yes please:), Mandriva,
No commercial developer that exists today wants to deal with that headache.
Second, hardware support. If you develop for Wii, you know all the *hardware* features that you can
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, things like UT2k4 work just fine, and it isn't really designed with any specific distro in mind.
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: Firmware updates to prevent hacks, a-la PSP.
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.
Maybe That's Why WII Graphics Appear to Suck (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe Nintendo couldn't get fully-functional, reliable drivers for current chipsets like the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
What you see as funny, I see as an oportunity.
Nintendo will get drivers for the wii chipset, and, being linux under the GPL, it could be an excellent oportunity to get some open source drivers.
Even if they use binary drivers, there will be some sort of stub module that can be used to interface with the binary portion. That driver will probably be useful somewhere else, unless the wii is 100% custom hardwa
This is getting way too predictable (Score:4, Insightful)
Response: I want the source. I want the source.
More responses: This does/doesn't violate GPL.
More responses: This is why we need/don't need GPL v3
Conclusion: The story was wrong, the device doesn't use Linux, there might be a way to boot Linux on it, but we don't know yet.
So now they can pull a Tivo (Score:2)
This may be a bad sign. Now they can turn off features by remote control, insist that you connect frequently to get updates, introduce new bugs remotely, and try to force you to sign up for new "revenue streams". Just like Microsoft and Tivo.
Re: (Score:2)
Regioning? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sony was rumored to use Linux as well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Straw that broke microsoft's back (Score:2)
BSD (Score:2)
SCO (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"proprietary form of the Linux kernel"? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a loophole that GNU GPL version 3 is meant to prevent.
Re: (Score:2)
The openness of the software doesn't necessarily reflect on the hardware it runs on. And in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would the kernel developers as distinct from a seperate group that does not contribute to the kernel want to stop them? RMS is described in computer magazine that should know better as the co-creator of linux but he is obviously not and has his own projects.
Re: (Score:2)
Homebrew + confused article (Score:2)
There's the stuff that is too small to be worth buying or Nintendo aren't sure they could sell. For example on the DS there is the little sampling keyboard toy, there is DSorganize (could Nintendo sell tens of thousands of something similar - maybe or maybe not), Moonshell (my mp3 player is a DS), a port of Heretic and a linux
Re: (Score:2)
Well -- I'm anxiously awaiting hardware to allow me to run homebrew on my DS so that I can help out a guy who's developing some DS-native tools for learning Lojban. (Actually, helping him out is the whole reason I bought the DS, though Brain Age has turned out to be quite an excellent secondary reason).
Part of the point of doing homebre
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt you'll have that much freedom on the PS3, Linux system or not.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see what the average Windows user will contribute to Linux, other than making it a target for spyware.