| Is it legal to commercially release software for a system without the | manufacturer of that system's concent?
If it's your hardware, why not? All you're doing is setting the memory state of _your_ hardware's memory cells with the knowledge that said hardware will probably behave according to that state. If the system maker wanted you to do be able to do that, there are ways to prevent it in most cases.
Apparently many "hardware makers" are really wanting to sell you some kind of software, instead, and thus fear their subsidized hardware not providing that sales revenue returns if you use something else such as Linux. I say, if that's what they want to do, they need to seal their box better.
Sony does have some history in this regard, including an especially abusive incident.
|> | Michael Schnell wrote: |> |> The Linux on a PS3 runs in a virtual machine (similar to VMWARE). It |> |> can't directly access the graphic hardware and the VM only provides a |> |> limited interface, Linux is forced to use. The interface prohibits the |> |> hardware 3D rendering. |> | |> | Right; thanks for the additional clarifications. But the question |> | remains: could an indie ship a commercial title using these rather |> | limited capabilities, and pay Sony nothing? |>
|> You mean package it in with Linux and have it run under Linux doing no |> more than what Linux can do? Presumably that would be a yes. But such |> games better be good w/o the graphics to be worthwile commercially. |>
|> I do suspect the chance of that catching the attention of Sony would be |> proportional to the commercial success. |>
|> -- |> |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------| |> | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |> | |> | first name lower case at ipal.net / snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net |> | |> |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------| |