Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NatCh
...I don't think I agree that that actual cooperation is necessary -- did Mobipocket require Palm's or MacroHard's cooperation, or did they just develop their product to run on well documented OS's?
I don't know the answer to that, but I'm pretty confident that MacroHard doesn't actively cooperate much with too many software developers. Aside from releasing developer tools & references, it seems to me that most OS's just let developers figure it out for themselves. Also, consider that the OS we're discussing them portaling for is Linux -- true, they haven't done it before (that I know of  ), but I suspect they may see some increased advantage in it now, with the arrival of three separate Linux using e-ink readers. (shrug)
I really think that the OS is the more important variable here than the hardware itself.
iRex is releasing at least part of the SDK for free, and selling the beefed up one. I suspect that if Mobipocket wanted to, they could develop for iLiad without an agreement -- Linux is open, isn't all they really need the details of how this version of Linux interfaces with the hardware? Isn't iRex pretty much obligated to release that much by the GPL? Or am I off here? |
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
http://www.gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html
If I got it right, for everything which is somehow derived from a GPLed program (be it a modification of a GPLed program or a program linked against a GPL library), there has to be the source code available (not neccessarily in form of a download).
And GPL-violations sheds some light on the GPL and embedded devices, especially interesting is the part about programs needed to install the software (read flashing tools).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by gpl-violations.org
What are "scripts used to control installation"?
After having translated software from its source code form into executable format, the program quite often needs to be installed into the system. The process of installation is often automatized by installation scripts. Exactly those scripts are referred to by the GPL.
Please note that this is of special practical importance in the case of embedded devices, since the executable program(s) need to be somehow installed onto the device. If the user is not given a way to install his own (modified) versions of the program, he has no way of exercising his freedom to run modified versions of the program.
Sometimes, the process of installation is not facilitated by scripts, but by some other means (such as executable programs). The GPL text only mentions the word "scripts". But when reading and interpreting the license, it is clearly understood that the license doesn't specifically only mean "scripts", but any kind of software programs that are required to install a (modified) version of the compiled program.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NatCh
Of course, iRex does seem to be trying to exercise some control over what apps go on the iLiad via their IDS, but I think that the reason Mobipocket and iRex are apparently talking is more likely interest on iRex's part in having the Mobipocket reader on their platform, making it more useful, and therefore more saleable. I think this, again, because I suspect that Mobipocket could likely do a port without them, though that port might never make it through the IDS....
Sony has also chosen Linux, is therefore under the same GPL requirements that iRex is as far as the OS/hardware interface, and hasn't said anything at all about 3rd party content, unless you count that we know that they are also planning to release an SDK.
For me, those things just don't add up to Sony trying to keep everyone from trying to make apps for their device. I understand that someone else may see it differently, but it just doesn't look that way to me. (shrug)
|
If I look back in the history of devices with embedded Linux where the source code and installation tools were first not available on the free will of the vendors, they only needed a small note from GPL-violations and from one moment to another there was the source available.
Obviously there were some cases where it needed a lawsuit, but I think everyone here knows the result.
So, either some specialists/hackers find a way to do what they want (and what the GPL allows) or the vendor makes the source available on it's own.
To make it short, I count on the fact that history often enough repeats itself.