A Free Software Inquiry regarding Nintendo DS
Zen Lunatic
and supporting the Nintendo DS. In case you didn't know here is a
wikidedia.org summary of what is a Nintendo DS:
The Nintendo DS (which is short for Dual Screen, although Nintendo has
also promotionally said it to be short for Developer's System, due to
the ease of development for the handheld), is an innovative
dual-screen portable video game console developed and manufactured by
Nintendo.
Here is what this supposed free software supported has said in praise
regarding the DS:
"Anyway, what I am really impressed with is that Nintendo have made it
with a wireless lan for multiplayer, now what's great about this is
that for multiplayer games you only need one catridge.... Nintendo are
basically allowing us to share the game with our friends Very Happy
you basically just download the multiplayer part over the wireless lan
and can join a multiplayer game... Now to play single player you still
need your own cartridge, but really I don't mind..."
Here is the feature he is talking about (from wikipedia.org):
Nintendo's own custom firmware boots the system: from here, the user
selects to run a DS or Game Boy Advance game, use PictoChat, or search
for downloadable games. The latter is an adaptation of the Game Boy
Advance's popular "single cartridge multiplayer" feature, adapted to
support the system's Wi-Fi link capabilities: players without the game
search for content, while players with the game broadcast it. In
November 2004, Nintendo announced its entry into the feature animation
business, suggesting that these features would broadcast game content
to Nintendo DS units via this same feature.
Now having grown up on non-free software and video-games, just as I
ate more candy and soda as a kid but now am smart enough to know this
isn't healthy, I know that when you purchase a game you are free to
sell the game and lend it to your friend. But I never thought this
meant the games were free software. What do you think? Should the DS
be praised by free software users because it allows users to download
for gratis the games wirelessly from other users who wish to versus a
user in a game? To me it still doesn't seem like these software-based
games are libre free. I'm hoping to share your response privately with
this free software user to hopefully enlighten him on the issue.
I have sent this to RMS and this list. Is gnu-misc-discuss the correct
list to send this to?
Richard Stallman
ate more candy and soda as a kid but now am smart enough to know this
isn't healthy, I know that when you purchase a game you are free to
sell the game and lend it to your friend. But I never thought this
meant the games were free software.
If the game's source code is not available, it certainly is not free
software.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html for the definition of
free software.
Alexander Terekhov
Hey RMS, I suspect that 'first sale' is nonexistent in the GNU
Republic (at least with respect to "free software").
Please confirm.
regards,
alexander.
Rui Miguel Seabra
On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 14:55 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Hey RMS, I suspect that 'first sale' is nonexistent in the GNU
> Republic (at least with respect to "free software").
I see you still continue to confuse distribution of the "item" you have
with distribution of *copies* of the item.
While the first case falls under 'first sale', the second one is
copyright, and your logic fails utterly.
Goodbye.
--
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Alexander Terekhov
Rui Miguel Seabra <r...@1407.org> wrote:
[...]
> I see you still continue to confuse distribution of the "item" you have
> with distribution of *copies* of the item.
Hey mini-RMS, first sale is about "particular copies", not "items".
Modifications aside for a moment, I mean distribution of downloaded
"copies" of publicly available [L]GPL'ed works on a tangible medium
(together with non-GPL'ed works). Compilations, you know.
regards,
alexander.
Rui Miguel Seabra
> Rui Miguel Seabra <r...@1407.org> wrote:
> [...]
> > I see you still continue to confuse distribution of the "item" you have
> > with distribution of *copies* of the item.
>
> Hey mini-RMS, first sale is about "particular copies", not "items".
Yes. Thankfully we agree. item == particular copy.
> Modifications aside for a moment, I mean distribution of downloaded
> "copies" of publicly available [L]GPL'ed works on a tangible medium
> (together with non-GPL'ed works). Compilations, you know.
The conditions of distribution of copies are as stated. If you don't
like them, don't distribute, but don't come here with the pretense of
knowledge whilst applying irrelevant "first-sale" logics. Irrelevant, of
course, because you're not talking of giving your copy, but a copy of
what you got.
Rui
Alexander Terekhov
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
[...]
> you're not talking of giving your copy, but a copy of
> what you got.
Bzzt. I'm recipient of electronically distributed copies of works.
Nothing illegal. And no contract. It falls under first sale. Even
Time Warner agrees. I don't need your permission to REdistribute.
And I can do it under my own (very draconian) contractual terms.
regards,
alexander.
Rui Miguel Seabra
You really love to play with words trying to pull other meanings that
are not inside the top-hat.
You *can* redistribute *your*copy* under first sale doctrine, but you
can't redistribute *copies*of*your*copy* under first sale doctrine. That
is Copyright.
Now crawl back under the rock you sleep, please.
Alexander Terekhov
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
[...]
> can't redistribute *copies*of*your*copy* under first sale doctrine.
Do you seriously want me to hit download button "sufficient" number of
times? Hey, global warming, you know.
> That is Copyright.
You don't get it. Downloads aside for a moment, suppose I admit
copying. You are not going to claim unauthorized copying on my
part. All those copies are lawfully made thanks to your unilateral
permission. Quoting Moglen: "The GPL, however, is a true copyright
license: a unilateral permission, in which no obligations are
reciprocally required by the licensor." The simple thing is that
subsequent REdistribution doesn't violate your copyright (17 USC
109) and hence just can't violate your copyright license no matter
what it says and/or implies with respect to copyright law in the
GNU Republic, so to speak.
regards,
alexander.
Rui Miguel Seabra
> Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> [...]
> > You *can* redistribute *your*copy* under first sale doctrine, but you
> > can't redistribute *copies*of*your*copy* under first sale doctrine.
>
> Do you seriously want me to hit download button "sufficient" number of
> times? Hey, global warming, you know.
>
> > That is Copyright.
>
> You don't get it.
Its you who don't get it. Shut up. You're talking about generic terms:
First Sale Doctrine
I'm talking generic terms:
Copyright
If you give *your* copy to someone else, there applies first sale.
If you give out copies of your copy, there applies copyright.
And you can only redistribute GNU GPL'ed software under the distribution
terms.
So stop behaving like a robot, ok?
Alexander Terekhov
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
[...]
>
> First Sale Doctrine
>
> I'm talking generic terms:
>
> Copyright
Copyright includes "first sale" limitation. In the EU it's called
"copyright exhaustion."
>
> If you give *your* copy to someone else, there applies first sale.
> If you give out copies of your copy, there applies copyright.
Each copy of my copy is my copy. Each is lawfully made thanks
to the GPL. "Adobe asserts that its license defines the
relationship between Adobe and any third-party such that a
breach of the license constitutes copyright infringement. This
assertion is not accurate because copyright law in fact provides
certain rights to owners of a particular copy. This grant of
rights is independent from any purported grant of rights from
Adobe."
s/Adobe/FSF
>
> And you can only redistribute GNU GPL'ed software under the distribution
> terms.
That may be the law in the GNU Republic. Elsewhere it doesn't
really work that way.
regards,
alexander.
Ingo Ruhnke
> But I never thought this meant the games were free software. What do
> you think? Should the DS be praised by free software users because
> it allows users to download for gratis the games wirelessly from
> other users who wish to versus a user in a game?
Aehm, no. That is really nothing more than an implementation detail on
how multiplayer works. The games are still copyrighted as always, you
don't get the code, nada. Beside from that, this feature is all but
new, the GBA already had the same (but less usefull due to not enough
RAM) and even in the PC world there have been a bunch of games
(Warcraft2) that had seperate multiplayer installs which allowed to
play against other people on the LAN without buying a game for each
and every player. In the end the whole thing is useless for
singleplayer, the game only get transfered into the RAM, so no matter
what it goes bye,bye once you reset the console, beside from that it
doesn't allow singleplayer in the first place.
The NintendoDS could be an interesting toy to run Free Software on it
if somebody manages to figure out how the upload of software to the
NintendoDS works via a normal WLAN connection, but thats it.
Nintendo never was much open about their hardware and they have even
tried successfully to outlaw flash-cards for their devices.
--
WWW: http://pingus.seul.org/~grumbel/
JabberID: gru...@jabber.org
ICQ: 59461927