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 650738
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: freedom
by tanishaj on Thu 9th Nov 2017 00:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: freedom"
Member since:

This is a ridiculous argument and it remains ridiculous.

Any argument that assumes as a fact that closed source in a for-fee product is wrong is ridiculous.

Any Open Source license that allows code to be used in a Close Source product provides a freedom to the maker of that product. That freedom is a good thing.

If the provider of a product chooses to make the code for their product available to others, that is also a good thing.

It does not follow that providing a product that does not provide access to the source code is a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with it. The potential users are free to use or not use the software based on that attribute just as they are free to choose software based on a number of other factors.

There is no difference, ethically, between a company writing it's own software and keeping the source closed than there is in using an Open Source license and keeping it closed. Insisting it is, without citing compelling reasons, is a ridiculous argument that remains ridiculous.

Free Software ( a la GPL ) is a different beast in terms of obligations. Again, it is up to the original author how they want to interact with the world.

For most things, I prefer Open Source to Free Software.

Reply Parent Score: 1