Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th Sep 2007 11:51 UTC
Permalink for comment 270610
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-15
Okay, so what exactly _are_ the licensing terms?
It's not any of the [L]GPLv[23] licenses, it's not MIT/X/BSD licensing, it's more than likely not an OSI approved license - so it's not "Open Source" at all. This is "look but don't touch open".
This is (maybe) good for existing customers of QNX and that's it. I'm sure their internal processes will be more open too, and they probably did the work to vet where all their copyrighted code came from, which is healthy too.
But this is definitely not an "Open Source" move.