Linked is my patch for the current psptoolchain binutils to add in VFPU assembly support to gas. It should be noted that I was not the original author of this code, Sony was, however it is patches to a GPL piece of code, I only modified it to work in 2.16.1 of binutils, it should thus be perfectly legal for redistribution, if it isn't then you can always delete the post.
To use you will need to either manually apply the first binutils patch then this one, alternatively create your own merged patch.
Anyway the URL. I pasted it to one of those paste code sites so it will only last about 24hours from this post so get it while it is hot.
http://www.rafb.net/paste/results/ErepHR98.html
VFPU patch for binutils
-
SirOinksAlot
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:55 am
Well you will have to explain to me in what way I could possibly
acquire the patches in an illegal manner. The GNU binutils is a GPLed
work and the Sony patches are direct derivatives there of and thus are arguably
inseperable from the rest of the source code. The fact that they are in
this manner inseperable ensures they must fall under the provisions of the
GPL license as attributed in the source files they modified.
As I am sure you are aware the GPL doesn't just force companies to provide
source distributions for any executable they supply but also confers
the same rights and responsibilities on the recipient of said works, some of
which include the right to redistribute the work to whomever they please
without requiring permission from the copyright holder of the modifications
as long as they comply with the GPL license as it stands. Therefore if said
person acquires the source for the modified PSP binutils then there is no
legal (depending on who you ask at the time :P) impedement on them
being permitted to redistributing the work to a 3rd party, who can in turn
also do exactly the same thing as long as the GPL is adhered to. The only
general way a person or company could get away without respecting the
provisions of the GPL would be to only use the derived works internally and
not distribute them to arbitrary 3rd persons (which is what Sony is doing
after all). Even in that limited case it could be argued that any user
of the work internally could request the sources and confer the rights of
the license to distribute to a 3rd party. They might just get fired for it :)
I fully appreciate the distribution of the complete sdk (libs/non GPL derived
tools/headers) would be a direct violation of Sony's copyrights, gcc and its
associated applications goes to great pains to ensure that programs built
with them do not automatically acquire the GPL license, that said the only
way I could imagine of illegally acquiring the patches would be to do something
like crack the pro-dev site, but even in that example it is the act of cracking
which is the illegal act not the redistribution of the works.
Of course standard disclaimer, IANAL :)
acquire the patches in an illegal manner. The GNU binutils is a GPLed
work and the Sony patches are direct derivatives there of and thus are arguably
inseperable from the rest of the source code. The fact that they are in
this manner inseperable ensures they must fall under the provisions of the
GPL license as attributed in the source files they modified.
As I am sure you are aware the GPL doesn't just force companies to provide
source distributions for any executable they supply but also confers
the same rights and responsibilities on the recipient of said works, some of
which include the right to redistribute the work to whomever they please
without requiring permission from the copyright holder of the modifications
as long as they comply with the GPL license as it stands. Therefore if said
person acquires the source for the modified PSP binutils then there is no
legal (depending on who you ask at the time :P) impedement on them
being permitted to redistributing the work to a 3rd party, who can in turn
also do exactly the same thing as long as the GPL is adhered to. The only
general way a person or company could get away without respecting the
provisions of the GPL would be to only use the derived works internally and
not distribute them to arbitrary 3rd persons (which is what Sony is doing
after all). Even in that limited case it could be argued that any user
of the work internally could request the sources and confer the rights of
the license to distribute to a 3rd party. They might just get fired for it :)
I fully appreciate the distribution of the complete sdk (libs/non GPL derived
tools/headers) would be a direct violation of Sony's copyrights, gcc and its
associated applications goes to great pains to ensure that programs built
with them do not automatically acquire the GPL license, that said the only
way I could imagine of illegally acquiring the patches would be to do something
like crack the pro-dev site, but even in that example it is the act of cracking
which is the illegal act not the redistribution of the works.
Of course standard disclaimer, IANAL :)
What I wanted to know is if you received the original GPL-licensed patch from someone who was a legal recipient of it in the first place, or if you are in fact the recipient itself.but also confers the same rights and responsibilities on the recipient of said works
Otherwise, you wouldn't be allowed to release the information... correct?
-
SirOinksAlot
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2006 4:55 am
Okay fair point. I received said patches from a 3rd party who was originally permitted to obtain them who gave them to me on the basis that they were GPL and therefore redistributable. More importantly for the legal eagles in the audience he did not provide me with any other related stuff from the sdk.