Sony in Licence Violation????

[StrontiumDog]

Reference:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt

Fact 1:
Sony release development software for the PSP that is covered by the GPL. to third parties.

Fact 2:
I (and probably many of you) have a copy of that GPL software.

Fact 3:
Sony can not prevent re-distribution of this software Clause 6 of GPL

"the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions."

So how you got a copy of this stuff is irrelevent, you have it, and you are allowed to have it. Sony cant stop you getting a copy of it. (You cant PIRATE GPL software)

Fact 4:
Sony must make a copy of the source code available for their modifications to the GPL code they distribute. See Clause 3 of the GPL.

In fact if you read the GPL, sony appear to just flagrantly disregard it. We can put a copy of the GPL packages from the dev kit on this site, with plain text links to them (instead of getting them out of bittorrents of codewarrior for the PSP, like i know many of us are doing.)

I think:
1. We should put the GPL stuff of the dev kit for download from this site, or at least put links to it, if there are bandwidth limits. We could at least put a bittorrent up for it.

2. Demand that sony release the source for their modified versions of the GPL tools. And fulfil their end of the GPL bargin, that they have agreed to. And if they dont, we should with one voice complain to the FSF.

3. We should stop skulking around feeling like we are doing anything wrong by having or using this software.

If sony want to run around and enforce their IP rights (which they are entitled to do, so long as they are valid), we should also enforce our rights, as afforded by the GPL.

Nuf Said.
StrontiumDog

[ooPo]

Before I begin, let's remember that the GNU toolchain (which I assume you are referring to) and the SDK itself are two separate pieces of code. One is GPL, and one is not. I'll let you guess which is which.

So how you got a copy of this stuff is irrelevent, you have it, and you are allowed to have it. Sony cant stop you getting a copy of it. (You cant PIRATE GPL software)

Wrong.

Where you get it is the primary thing you should be concerned with.

Source is only required to be given to people who have access to the binaries. If you're referring to the GNU toolchain then this would be the licensed developers themselves. These developers can further release if they choose to do so, but they are not required to.

So, unless you receive it from someone who has received it legally... shiver ye timbers!

Sony must make a copy of the source code available for their modifications to the GPL code they distribute. See Clause 3 of the GPL.

Sony does a good job in this regard. Take a look at this site for some examples:

http://www.sony.net/Products/Linux/Download/search.html

They also tend to respond favorably to reasonable requests and comply if they are in error.

In fact if you read the GPL, sony appear to just flagrantly disregard it. We can put a copy of the GPL packages from the dev kit on this site, with plain text links to them (instead of getting them out of bittorrents of codewarrior for the PSP, like i know many of us are doing.)

You are certainly free to obtain whatever software you wish in whatever method you wish, but you will be required to take responsibility for your actions. I suppose you'll have to get caught, though...

Regardless, this site does not condone or endorse piracy. We have a good handle on what we think is right or wrong, however... when you provide your credentials as an IP lawyer I'm sure we can make arrangements to give a crap about your opinion on the manner.

1. We should put the GPL stuff of the dev kit for download from this site, or at least put links to it, if there are bandwidth limits. We could at least put a bittorrent up for it.

As this is your first post, I assume 'we' means us, not you?

2. Demand that sony release the source for their modified versions of the GPL tools. And fulfil their end of the GPL bargin, that they have agreed to. And if they dont, we should with one voice complain to the FSF.

Complain all you like, but Sony has taken steps to comply with any legal obligations they have agreed to by using GPL software.

3. We should stop skulking around feeling like we are doing anything wrong by having or using this software.

I've heard the same logic to justify excessive masturbation.

Nuf Said.

If only I could believe this was true.

[pixel]

Not to forget to mention that gcc is pretty much tweakable alone: you don't NEED sony's gcc whatsoever. So, there's really no need to go on with that discussion. I'll let the thread open though...

[Guest]

Everyone once in awhile we get one of these. Same type of flame, same type of story concerning the state of our education system. Where do they come from ?

Fact 2:
I (and probably many of you) have a copy of that GPL software.

I am assuming you are, in actuality as well as incorrectly, referring to the legally copyrighted Sony SDK ? The same one for which your possession is breaking any number of laws ?

Fact for you maybe. But the vast majority of us do not have it, and neither do we need nor want it.

[Drakonite]

Sony isn't violating the GPL, get over it.

And when you get right down to it, the only GPL stuff they are using isn't all that interesting to us anyways. Sure, their copy of gcc likely has a bit better optimization for the psp, a couple opcodes we don't have (yet), and a few bugs fixed compared to ours, but otherwise we have tools that do virtually everything the sony tools do. The truely interesting parts (libraries, etc.) aren't under the GPL.

If Sony wants to release some of their stuff to us then we'd greatfully accept it, but we aren't going to sit here chastising them if they don't because they haven't done anything wrong.

[rinco]

StrontiumDog broke the law and then spread lies about Sony.

End of story.

[StrontiumDog]

Before I begin, let's remember that the GNU toolchain (which I assume you are referring to) and the SDK itself are two separate pieces of code. One is GPL, and one is not. I'll let you guess which is which.

Agreed, I was refering to the GNU tools Sony releases as part of its SDK, not the entire SDK, as obviously various bits would have various licences.

So how you got a copy of this stuff is irrelevent, you have it, and you are allowed to have it. Sony cant stop you getting a copy of it. (You cant PIRATE GPL software)

Wrong.

Where you get it is the primary thing you should be concerned with.

I respectfully disagree, There is no requirement in the GPL for anyone to disclose their source for their GPL material, and there is nothing to prevent anyone who receives it passing it on. Having received it, you are free to pass it on. The GPL is clear, there can be no restriction on a receiver of GPL software (binary or source) from distribution.

Source is only required to be given to people who have access to the binaries. If you're referring to the GNU toolchain then this would be the licensed developers themselves. These developers can further release if they choose to do so, but they are not required to.

True, but they can not be prevented either, and neither does anyone have to disclose who gave it too them, so once it escapes, it has escaped. You can not be charged with illegaly obtaining GPL software.

So, unless you receive it from someone who has received it legally... shiver ye timbers!

This is where we differ in opinion.

Sony must make a copy of the source code available for their modifications to the GPL code they distribute. See Clause 3 of the GPL.

Sony does a good job in this regard. Take a look at this site for some examples:

http://www.sony.net/Products/Linux/Download/search.html

They also tend to respond favorably to reasonable requests and comply if they are in error.

Im not suggesting they dont contribute, but they clearly have not added their targets for the PSP to GCC/GDB/Binutils mainline CVS.

In fact if you read the GPL, sony appear to just flagrantly disregard it. We can put a copy of the GPL packages from the dev kit on this site, with plain text links to them (instead of getting them out of bittorrents of codewarrior for the PSP, like i know many of us are doing.)

You are certainly free to obtain whatever software you wish in whatever method you wish, but you will be required to take responsibility for your actions. I suppose you'll have to get caught, though...

Yes, i did download the bittorrent for codewarrior for PSP. I extracted the GNU tools from it and proceeded to delete the rest. I dont use Windows, and CodeWarrior has no attraction for me. Did I break any laws? Not in the country I live in. Where I live, there are no copyright, patent or trademark laws. So, i havent broken any laws, I have obtained it legally in my home country. I have no idea where the packets for the torrent came from, presumably from my home country, but i dont know.

Regardless, this site does not condone or endorse piracy. We have a good handle on what we think is right or wrong, however... when you provide your credentials as an IP lawyer I'm sure we can make arrangements to give a crap about your opinion on the manner.

I dont condone piracy either. I define Piracy as breaking the intellectual property laws of your country for profit, and/or through said action damaging the intellectual property owner.

I have obtained the PSP GNU Tools legally, now i am free to re-distribute them however i please. I have not used CodeWarrior for the PSP, it was just the baggage that came with the GNU tools I could obtain.

As to my credentials as an IP Lawyer, well you dont need to be a IP lawyer to understand IP law. Just as you dont need to be a lawyer to understand the law in general. There is no such thing as "internationally and universally accepted IP Law". Just because you cant do something legally in your country, does not make it illegal for me to do it if my country has no such laws. I have however been involved in protracted law suits regarding IP law (Im talking 5+ Years of continuous litigation on various matters, in jurisdictions not my home jurisdiction). I have been successful in all instances. You tend to learn a lot when you are involved in litigation.

1. We should put the GPL stuff of the dev kit for download from this site, or at least put links to it, if there are bandwidth limits. We could at least put a bittorrent up for it.

As this is your first post, I assume 'we' means us, not you?

Yes, my first post. It doesnt mean im a moron.

We means the broader community interested in PSP development. As I have obtained the GNU Tools ultimatley released by Sony, legally for me, there is no restriction on me re-distributing them. I understand this site is provided through the hard work and dedication of others. Hard work and dedication i both recognise and respect. Consider this post as intended to provoke debate on the topic, i am not casting any criticism at anyone, and i appreciate the work of all those who have built this place on the net. Whats the point of these forums if not to debate topics such as this, especially in (for a lot of countries) the legal grey area of "homebrew development".

Im sure you realise that the mere effert of reverse engineering may be considered in some countries to be infringing peoples IP rights. This whole site is about reverse engineering. I higly doubt that there are no "you cant reverse engineer this device" in the licences that come with the PSP. I dont know for sure, cause I cant read Japanese. There certainly is in the PSP games I have. "You shall not Reverse Engineer, derive source code, modify, decompile, disassemble, or create derivative works of this program, in whole or in part". So im sure sony would say the same about the PSP. So lets be real, every post that says "I mananged to read this unencrypted file off of the [blah] umd, or from flash0://[blah], or "i have found out the format of .XXX files by looking at the [blah] file" is in violation of the licence. Lets not pretend what this site is about, its about reverse engineering. Now for me, thats legal, I dont know about you though, cause i dont know where you live, or what licences you were given/agreed to with your device/software.

2. Demand that sony release the source for their modified versions of the GPL tools. And fulfil their end of the GPL bargin, that they have agreed to. And if they dont, we should with one voice complain to the FSF.

Complain all you like, but Sony has taken steps to comply with any legal obligations they have agreed to by using GPL software.

Again, i must respectfully disagree, Sony surely have taken some steps, but all steps, I hardly think so. They will have taken as many steps as they feel they can get away with, and no more (in my opinion.)

3. We should stop skulking around feeling like we are doing anything wrong by having or using this software.

I've heard the same logic to justify excessive masturbation.

Whats wrong with excessive masturbation? Im not sure i follow the logic of the reply?

Nuf Said.

If only I could believe this was true.

It was enough said for my first post. Again, im not really pushing a course of action, im trying to open debate on the subject.

[StrontiumDog]

Let me make it clear.

I am not talking about the SDK.

I am talking about GCC, Binutils, LD, GAS, etc. Which is a seperate bundle of stuff. I do not have a copy of the SDK. I didnt say i did.

They distribute this stuff with their SDK, but so what, the licene of the rest of the SDK can not infect the licence of the GPL stuff.

[Guest]

Let me make it clear.

I am not talking about the SDK.

I am talking about GCC, Binutils, LD, GAS, etc. Which is a seperate bundle of stuff. I do not have a copy of the SDK. I didnt say i did.

They distribute this stuff with their SDK, but so what, the licene of the rest of the SDK can not infect the licence of the GPL stuff.

Ahh, ok, now you come around and are telling us something we already knew. You need not have spent huge parts of your first post getting all emotional and making things very easily misunderstood as to where you were coming from.

Anyhow, while it may be easy for us to come into legal possession of the PSP GNU toolchain, I think most of us here want it to be clear it was obtained legally.

None of this "its not illegal in my country". We are mindful that not all countries have the same laws, but neither is that an excuse for *wink* *wink* dissembling. This site makes a best effort to conform to the laws common across the primary regions to which Sony is selling their consoles. If you do not like it, you will not be welcome here.

As for reverse-engineering, licenses/contracts do not necessarily take away any rights you otherwise have under law. As for DMCA issues, for which there are legal allowances for reverse engineering, thats a whole separate issue that has gone both ways in the courts.

[PinkPeach]

nothing is gnu public license except gnu compilers (off course)

here they are (wait for my upload to finish, 20minutes by the post time):
[Link removed by moderator. Yeah, you heard me right, I removed it.]

[Drakonite]

The GPL doesn't give you the right to obtain things ilegally. Yes, it says if you legally have the source you can pass it on to someone else, however it does not say you can go steal the source from somewhere, and in the event that you did that you would be in violation and you could NOT legally distribute it.

EDIT: And for the record, my understanding is the GPL technically doesn't give you the right to distribute someone else's binaries at all.

[rinco]

Drakonite is half right. The GPL does not indicate whether you "legally
have the source", nor does it make reference to how you obtained the
source. But it's still a bad idea to redistribute stolen GPL software:

If the version has been released elsewhere, then the thief probably does have the right to make copies and redistribute them under the GPL, but if he is imprisoned for stealing the CD he may have to wait until his release before doing so.

If the version in question is unpublished and considered by a company to be its trade secret, then publishing it may be a violation of trade secret law, depending on other circumstances. The GPL does not change that. If the company tried to release its version and still treat it as a trade secret, that would violate the GPL, but if the company hasn't released this version, no such violation has occurred.

-- http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

[Guest]

Drakonite is half right. The GPL does not indicate whether you "legally
have the source", nor does it make reference to how you obtained the
source. But it's still a bad idea to redistribute stolen GPL software:

Thats because it doesn't need to. There is already legal recourse outside of the license for copyright holders to pursue against infringers.

[StrontiumDog]

How do you know PinkPeach obtained it illegally?

Why the assumption it was obtained illegaly?

He/She may be a licenced developer, they may have purchased CodeWarrior, or they may have been given the GPL tools for the PSP by a friend in the clear, in which case, Sony cant stop them re-publishing it, regardless of their licence, NDA's or whatever. Such restrictions would be a clear violation of the GPL in any event.

Has no one not noticed the ??? in the title of this thread, its a question. Im not saying they have, i suspect they have, and i havent heard much yet to convince me they havent.

To me, there is more than enough fear to indicate that Sony at least violate the spirit of the GPL through fear of unfounded recrimination.

Also the Sony version of GCC, et al. hardly qualifies as a trade secret, they have published it. Yes they charge $150K for the SDK its in, but its published none the less. It is not restricted to internal development only.

I didnt obtain my version illegally (for me), i can re-publish it wherever i please, and no one can stop me. If Argentina had a law that said "No reverse engineering at all, nada, none." would that stop you doing what you are doing? No, because you would say, Argentinan law doesnt apply to me (unless you come from argentina). Would you prevent someone from argentina participating in these forums? [Note, i just picked argentina from the air, it could have been anywhere not the USA].

NOTE: I dont propose to put a link up [yet] this is more opinion for the debate. And i think this debate is worthwhile, and i dont think its a flame.

Also, Re the reverse engineering leg of this debate, you are covered not just by law, but by your licence agreement with the provider of the software. They have only agreed to provide you the software, provided you agree not to reverse engineer it. So you are [arguably] in a licence violation (which is a breach of civil law) in any event. Unless your local laws preculde a licence from having this condition.

And to add to the point, say i had a copy of the SDK (which i dont) and i said "hey guys, ive been poking around in the memory of my V1.00 PSP and look at the registers ive found. And all id really done was redocumented information from the SDK (assuming it has hardware info in it, which i suspect it doesnt) you wouldnt know if i had done what i said, or just re-documented the register specs from sony. What do you do then?

Where do you draw the line, and on what basis? (genuine query)

Situation as i see it with the GPL Tools:

Sony --(releases to)-> Licenced Developer/Metrowerks

Licenced Developer/Metrowerks -(releases to)-> ???????

?????? --(releases to)--> Person A

Person A --(releases to)--> Person B

Then Person B has received the stuff in the clear from Person A, regarless of how Person A came by it. It isnt a trade secret, Sony distributed it. Whether ??????? is legal or illegal in some countries isnt the point, the GPL doesnt say "only if the person you obtained it off got it legally then..." it say "if you get it off person A, they cant stop you giving it to person C/D/E/F.... Thats it, nothing more. If Person A cant stop you, then Sony cant force them to stop you, or stop you themselves.

EDIT: And for the record, my understanding is the GPL technically doesn't give you the right to distribute someone else's binaries at all.

No, then what about:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.

You can read "the Program" to be the binary, but if you dont then "any work based on the Program" would certainly be the binary.

Also, this is saying if Person A distributes to Person B, then Person B has received a licence from Sony (in my example, being the original licensor of the modified works).

[pixel]

In all cases, we do NOT want to use sony's gcc.... We just don't care a single bit about it.

[PinkPeach]

In all cases, we do NOT want to use sony's gcc.... We just don't care a single bit about it.

And that is exactly the great thing behind the ps2dev toolchain adapted for psp :) plenty of opportunities.

As for whether i was legal or not, i don t really know... GPL thing is heavy to understand
sony may have an NDA with corporate for that but all employees are not aware of the terms. Confidentiality is verry well indicated where it applies so i guess that s why i thought it was ok. No problem at all for removing though. ma-

[Guest]

How do you know PinkPeach obtained it illegally?
Why the assumption it was obtained illegaly?

There was no assumption on anything. The opposite was true - he provided no context nor reassurance on the legalities of his action, nor do we know him all that well, and thus we could NOT assume it was legal.

To me, there is more than enough fear to indicate that Sony at least violate the spirit of the GPL through fear of unfounded recrimination.

We like to make decisions and take actions based on something more reassuring than fear. If you want to make recriminations against anyone, whether a person or corporation, please have the decency to back it up with facts.

Also the Sony version of GCC, et al. hardly qualifies as a trade secret, they have published it. Yes they charge $150K for the SDK its in, but its published none the less. It is not restricted to internal development only.

The GPL itself is very clear about who may and may not distribute GPL software. If a developer who legally obtained the software wants to legally distribute it to us, by all means, let him step forward.

I didnt obtain my version illegally (for me), i can re-publish it wherever i please, and no one can stop me.

We don't care what you do outside this site. But if you play at this site, you play by the site rules - they will be enforced.

Would you prevent someone from argentina participating in these forums?

Yes, if they do not abide by the rules of the forums. They will be enforced.

It is impossible to have rules that take into account what it allowed or not allowed everywhere in the world. Its silly to even try. The rules are made to be reasonable based on where they matter most, according to the people who run this site. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant, so long as you follow them.

Also, Re the reverse engineering leg of this debate, you are covered not just by law, but by your licence agreement with the provider of the software.

Law always takes precedence over the license agreement. I made that clear in my original comment. You will notice that many license agreements and contracts always have legalese near that end that refer to how different clauses are interpreted based on state or national location.

And to add to the point, say i had a copy of the SDK (which i dont) and i said "hey guys, ive been poking around in the memory of my V1.00 PSP and look at the registers ive found. And all id really done was redocumented information from the SDK (assuming it has hardware info in it, which i suspect it doesnt) you wouldnt know if i had done what i said, or just re-documented the register specs from sony. What do you do then?
Where do you draw the line, and on what basis? (genuine query)

That you have to ask that question says alot.

Legitimately finding information through legal means is one thing. But if someone thinks its ok to come around here and be a lying, cheating, stealing bastard, thats where we draw the line. If we find out you are a lying, cheating, stealing bastard, you will not be here anymore. Is that line clear enough for you ?

No, then what about:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.

You can read "the Program" to be the binary, but if you dont then "any work based on the Program" would certainly be the binary.

Also, this is saying if Person A distributes to Person B, then Person B has received a licence from Sony (in my example, being the original licensor of the modified works).

If person B (having NOT received a distribution from Sony or person A) copies, without permission, the software from either Sony or person A, then person B does *not* have a license to the software, because the software was not distributed by Sony nor A in that case.

[StrontiumDog]

Let me put it another way.

This is the exact circumstance as i understand it with how the PCP_gcc-1.3.1.tgz file came to be in general circulation (deny it if you want, its out there).

1. Sony released it to developers, including Metrowerks. (Legitimate Release)
2. Metrowerks Released Codewarrior, with it included (Legitimate Release)
3. Someone (presumably an employee of a company that purchased codewarrior) Release Codewarrior as a torrent:
3.1 The codewarrior portion of the release (illegitimate release)
3.2 The PSP_gcc-1.3.1.tgz portion of the release (legitimate release)
4. Person A downloads the codewarrior torrent:
4.1 Illegitimatley obtained codewarrior
4.2 legitimately obtained PSP_gcc-1.3.1.tgz

If Person A (in my case) then proceeds to delete codewarrior, because it is of no interest whatsover, I highly doubt metrowerks would be able to bring any action, because there is no damage that can be demonstrated, nor an attempt to profit from it.

Just because it is bundled with illegitimate software does not negitive the ability of the person who obtained Code Warrior to re-release the PSP_gcc-1.3.1.tgz portion.

That you have to ask that question says alot about your character.

Legitimately finding information through legal means is one thing. But if someone thinks its ok to come around here and be a lying, cheating, stealing bastard, thats where we draw the line. If we find out you are a lying, cheating, stealing bastard, you will not be here anymore. Is that line clear enough for you ?

Just because you disagree with someone does not excuse defaming the morality of ones mother. Proposing a legitimate scenario, which you can not check up on, is a valid "devils advocate" position. How it reflects on my character that i can identify potential logic holes in the "rules of engagement", im not sure. Im not sure what my character has to do with this debate, or this needless attack on my or my mothers character. I think im stating the obvious when i say, how can you take anyones word they "reverse engineered" something, when it is possible they are "leaking" or "re-writing" something.

It is also not "wrong" to repeat what you know, provided you do not "repeat your source substantially verbatim" (copyright breach) or "breach a commercial agreement" (NDA/Employment agreement) in the process.

Also, im not proposing you use any tools, use what you want. My legitimate question stands, and apart from:

1. We dont want to use those tools anyway.
2. They are illegal, cause sony dont want us to use them

Neither of which answer my basic question, what Sony want is hardly of relevence to this discussion. Thats the whole point of the GPL. If they didnt want any 3rd party getting a hold of them they should never have released them. Having released them, the genie is out of the bottle, they have obligations, and they cant be easily ignored.

Just becasue they may have been released to third parties beyond Metrowerks sphere, bundled with non GPL copyright material, does not change the fundamental nature of the GPL tools, and the fact that you cant prevent it being distributed. Who ever released codewarrior if they were taken to court, would face a case based on the codewarrior portion, they could not face charges on the PSP_gcc-1.3.1.tgz portion.

Im not sure how you say in this situation the PSP_gcc-1.3.1.tgz has been "illegally" released. How so.

And can we keep the abuse to a minimum?

[mrbrown]

My, license flamewars bring out the worst in the admins :).

StrontiumDog, we don't care about Sony's PSP GCC and we don't need it. Go peddle your warez somewhere else.

Locked.

[ooPo]

For the record:

3. Someone (presumably an employee of a company that purchased codewarrior) Release Codewarrior as a torrent.

Step 3 was actually someone using a password they found on the public metrowerks ftp site to access the private metrowerks ftp site. This person downloaded codewarrior+pspgcc and then started giving it away.

So, it still wasn't distributed by someone it was given to.