also, there is a project to use move on linux and linux kernel driver for the ps3 camera, that's been around for a few years - this might have also helped greatly with accomplishing this.
additionally, sony has been known to act quickly on offending github hosted projects. i'd take lack of their action here as a good thing.
from legal point of view, API is not subject to copyright (see the recent oracle vs google java lawsuit drama for good examples). API as in names of syscalls, the amount of arguments they take, the expected return values, etc. it's the implementation that is copyrighted.
i assume the former is what you mean here. the syscall names might have been derived either from the ps3 firmware (as there is an option to setup the move controller in firmware) or from any move-enabled application.
if that's your point, you might find that ps2sdk is just as illegal, because some modules are written to be a drop-in replacements for official ones, and work with apps written with official sdk on that platform. similarily on psp. and i would assume it's the same thing on other consoles ( which i do not have ) .
Let me quote you:This alone is illegal.Quote:
PSL1GHT is an SDK derived from the reverse engineering made on the ps3 and the official SDK
when you do "reverse engineering", what you do is understand how it works (but it's not really necessary to fully understand it) and be able to reproduce it. what it means? you can "reverse" something also just looking it: for example, if you have an handcart and you understand how to reproduce it, without the need to know why the wheel is made in that way, or why was built in that way, and you build an implementation of that, you have just done Reverse Engineering.
Now, if you take the PSEye/EyeToy (i don't remember which one works, but thanks for the example yoshi314) and try to connect to a pc with the latest kernel it will work. why it works? because somebody understood how to communicate to the hardware and got it working. how it does that? simply with reverse engineering. does it means that it used Sony drivers and reverse them? NO. does it means that his code is ILLEGAL? NO. does it means that what is released is under some kind of copywrite since it is using Sony hardware? NO.
So where is the ILLEGAL part? it's illegal if you use "reverse engineering" with the purposes of creating a competing product (and for "creating a competing product" i mean that you are going to sell it as a perfect clone).
PSL1GHT is not a clone, you can't even call it clone. it only has the main functions implemented to be similar to the original one. why isn't it illegal? simply because is something derived from a reverse engineering and implemented to get the code working with the hardware. they simply arranged a way to talk to the machine. it's illegal if your code is based on the original one. PSL1GHT is partially derived from the original one but not based from it.
let's take for example my homebrew that you have reversed to get the brewology api.
(Assume for example that my original code were under some strict copywrite) What you have done is an implementation of the use of the API. does it make your code "illegal" (in the case if my code was under some kind of copywrite)? NO. because it's YOUR implementation derived from my code. is it based on my code? NO. so it's not illegal. it's illegal that you have used the brewology api (but that's another thing and we already talked about that).
Whatever man... Whatever makes you happy. :)
I don't want to say in public. It's the only one I've ever had you made for me. It was about 9 months ago or so. If you still don't remember, let me know, and I will just send you a PM or DM (DM on twitter).