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 650710
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: freedom
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 8th Nov 2017 15:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: freedom"
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

to negotiate patents, 3rd party code, general code ownership (even when 1st party) and potential exposure of trade secrets.



patents
-- No. There is no requirement in GPL V2 ( the one that governs the linux kernel) that any patents are licensed to anyone using the code. This is one of the reasons why there is a GPL v3.

3rd party code
-- Fair. you could see the pain that Sun went through in open sourcing Java. There were a number of bits for audio and sound that were licensed from third parties that Sun didn't have permission to open source.

code ownership
-- no clue what you mean here. The original authors that have copyright, have copyright. That doesn't change when things are open sourced. See Mysql for example.

Trade secrets
-- No argument here. If you have trade secrets in code, and you open source the code in any FOSS license. Well, they aren't so secret anymore...

Another issue is the cost of producing clean-room engineered drivers lacking patented code and ownership issues is quite expensive, relative to proprietary drivers.


Are you referring to the effort it would take to remove third party code that you didn't have permission to open source? If so, then yes as Sun discovered, its difficult and expensive. But if you own all the code, this takes no effort, because its completely unnecessary.

Reply Parent Score: 5