Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th Nov 2017 11:50 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes

Andrew S. Tanenbaum, creator of MINIX, has published an open letter to Intel regarding Intel's use of MINIX in the IME:

The only thing that would have been nice is that after the project had been finished and the chip deployed, that someone from Intel would have told me, just as a courtesy, that MINIX 3 was now probably the most widely used operating system in the world on x86 computers. That certainly wasn't required in any way, but I think it would have been polite to give me a heads up, that's all.

If nothing else, this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users. If they want to publicize what they have done, fine. By all means, do so. If there are good reasons not to release the modified code, that's fine with me, too.

I can still barely believe this whole story.

Permalink for comment 650659
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: freedom
by Alfman on Tue 7th Nov 2017 16:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: freedom"
Member since:


+Companies producing open-source drivers would have to negotiate patents, 3rd party code, general code ownership (even when 1st party) and potential exposure of trade secrets. proprietary code negates these issues. Another issue is the cost of producing clean-room engineered drivers lacking patented code and ownership issues is quite expensive, relative to proprietary drivers.

I'll grant you that that companies like Intel don't have much incentive to grant users additional rights or reveal trade secrets. However your point about patents is wrong. Intel can release the code for patented technology even while the patents are being enforced. In fact patents are supposed to encourage public disclosure by design. Intel is absolutely free to distribute the source code whether it's patented or not and patent restrictions would only apply to 3rd party alternatives (ie not Intel) who have not paid the royalties.

So can you provide a reasonable argument refuting my claims, or are you going to resort to "ZOMGZORS UR TALKING BOLLOCKS AND UR FACE IS UGLY AND U SMELL!!!"

Many developers like myself oppose patents because of some of the detrimental effects we feel they cause to the industry, but still, it isn't correct to invoke patents as a reason Intel cannot publish the code.

Edited 2017-11-07 16:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5