Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 26th Mar 2002 20:24 UTC, submitted by Jean-Baptiste Queru
Syllable, AtheOS Bill Hayden did the obvious: He forked AtheOS (which is technically similar to BeOS) and used its app_server and Interface Kit (without the use of X11) and rest of its kits on top of the 2.4.x Linux kernel. While the AtheOS kernel has some very nice features, by being modular, semi-microkernel, with good preemptive/multithreading support etc., it lacks a solid VM and swap support and of course, it lacks a good driver support, things that the Linux kernel provides. Bill Hayden accounced his fork on the AtheOS mailing list and made known that the "Atheos API has been merged with the BeOS API, there is PowerPC support, gcc 3.0.X compatiblity and OpenTracker/Deskbar as the desktop manager".
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Blah blah
by clone304 on Thu 28th Mar 2002 19:43 UTC

""AtheOS is GPLed, OpenBeOS is under the MIT license. Thus, we cannot include code from AtheOS in OBOS.""

"GPL strikes again. Source contamination by the GPL is precisely why I don't even bother to take a look at such systems despite how good they might look."

I'd laugh, but I really don't think this issue is that funny. In fact, I think it's sad that OpenBeOS has locked itself out of the ability to use GPL'd code by not choosing the GPL as a license. Were there any real advantage to OpenBeOS not using the GPL, it would be a different story. But, IMO, the real reason the GPL is not used for it is a political one, rather than a practical one with regard to the characteristics of the license. Is there any reason that the OpenBeOS code needs to be licensed in a way that allows outside developers to take some or all of that code, close it and charge money for it? From all evidence that I have seen, the BSD-ish licenses are just glorified versions of the public domain. The reason that the GPL was created is that selfish people take advantage of public domain software, because compilation and binary distribution allow them to pull an embrace and extend. The only licenses that prevent that are the GPL-compatible licenses. I think it's sad that the OpenBeOS developers have chosen to open themselves up to being taken advantage of while simultaneously depriving themselves of the opportunity to save time by reusing code that has been entrusted to the community for that very purpose. But what do I know..