At this week’s Smart Network Developer Forum, QNX Software Systems Ltd. was to unveil the latest version of its RTOS and a new open-source licensing model. Also, QNX Software Systems announced that its comprehensive suite of pre-integrated protocol stacks now supports IKE, RADIUS, SSH, and SSL, as well as other advanced security features. Running on the QNX Neutrino RTOS v6.3, the new additions leverage the powerful security engine on selected PowerQUICCTM processors from Freescale Semiconductor, a wholly owned subsidiary of Motorola Inc., to deliver highly optimized encryption and authentication for next-generation network elements.
QNX Shows HW-Accelerated Security Stacks; New Licensing Model
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
‘For designers looking for source code, QNX has built a licensing model that will allow access to key parts of the RTOS, such as file sharing and networking modules. “Designers can access some modules for around $10,000, not the few hundred thousand that it would have cost in the past,” said Dave Curley, vice president of marketing at QNX.’
Anyone see the problem w/ the term now?
Open source? No. The term is perfectly fine, it’s people’s preconceptions that are flawed.
It is not the listeners fault if a speaker is vague and non specific w/ their words.
“It is not the listeners fault if a speaker is vague and non specific w/ their words.”
Nor is it the speaker’s fault if the listeners jump to conclusions before analyzing the speaker’s words and acknowledging the various possible interpretations.
Don’t take this as trolling, but I personally feel that RMS is responsible for alot of this. I do believe that his heart is in the right place, though at the same time, I find his words misleading and just a little deceptive at times.
Not that the proprietary software advocates are any less guilty of that.
*shrug*
I personally care more about being empowered by (for example) software, rather than being “free.”
RMS is responsible for people’s misuse of the term open source, or that fact that it seems ripe for misuse?
Please.
Yes, the term “open source” does indeed get misused. Shameful really.
“Don’t take this as trolling, but I personally feel that RMS is responsible for alot of this. I do believe that his heart is in the right place, though at the same time, I find his words misleading and just a little deceptive at times.”
He has always been verry clear and honest in his opinions from everything I’ve heard.
Difference of opinion I suppose. But like I said, “I do believe that his heart is in the right place.”
actually RMS is very strict about calling GPL/etc… free software instead of open source. Try and get into a conversation with him and accidentally say open source instead of free software and he will make sure to mention it to you and will make sure you correct yourself in this regards. Though I personally havn’t talked to him there are plenty conversations online with him where you can see this happening.
Yeah, that’s true (from what I’ve read) but I was refering more to his uses of “free software.”
Free Software and Open Source are NOT the same thing. The free does not mean “no dollars,” it means, “free to modify and redistribute.” These days, you can buy something and have access to view the source but be restricted from installing the binaries on multiple machines and/or recompiling and/or redistributing. Just look at RHEL. And Xandros.
As soon as the concept of the EULA came to the Linux platform, the terms forked into two very different categories.
QNX is not an open source company and does not intend to be. It plays nice with open source libraries to get them ported and has added stuff to Eclipse but make no mistake: QNX is a high end embedded OS developer. It is not aimed us regular joes.
Oh, get off your soapbox. This is not open source in even the vaguest definition of the term. Being able to get the source does not make the source open. You have been able to get the source to lots of products for decades, but that doesn’t mean that they are open-source products. Access to source code is very commonly one of the privleges of paying thousands of dollars for a major piece of software. For example, you can bet the major studios have access to the source of Softimage, Maya, etc. When you buy a big library for a programming environment, you often get the source for that too. Heck, universities have had access to the Windows source code for years — that doesn’t make Windows open source by any strech of the imagination.
Open source has always meant the ability to not just have access to the source, but build upon it. The term had this meaning long before RMS came around. Nobody ever referred to the original AT&T UNIX sourcecode, for example, as “open source,” even though all the universities had a source license!
Heh. Some “community” you’ve got here. Frankly, you’re an idiot if you don’t understand the meaning of such an obvious term, and to hell with the soapbox.
As to open source meaning “Open source has always meant the ability to not just have access to the source, but build upon it,” is pure BS, propagated by GNU fanatics and those that have been brainwashed by them.
The availability of source code for example, Windows, costing thousands of dollars isn’t “open source,” because it’s still closed (as in not viewable) to the general populace.
Freedom has nothing to do with it whatsoever, but I know I’m just pissing in the wind, because like most of the people here, you’re so far out of touch with reality that no logic will ever penetrate your many mental barriers.
And no, the old Unix source code licenced to the various universities ages ago was not “open,” despite the fact that a number of now well known (amongst us) hacker types were familiar with it.
As to open source meaning “Open source has always meant the ability to not just have access to the source, but build upon it,” is pure BS, propagated by GNU fanatics and those that have been brainwashed by them.
That’s complete bullshit. The ideology of open source existed a long time before GNU, and is rooted in academic computer science. One of the fundemental principles of an ‘open’ academic environment is that people are free to learn from and build upon each others’ work. If you aren’t free to build off the work, then its not ‘open’.
Hell, just look at the term itself: “open” source. Its not called “disclosed source.” Open, in the computer world means freely usable — just like when the term is used for open standards vs closed standards. By your definition of “open,” all patented technologies are “open,” just because the details of each are made public, even though the whole purpose of a patent is to create a temporary monopoly by allowing a company to keep a technology proprietory.
The availability of source code for example, Windows, costing thousands of dollars isn’t “open source,” because it’s still closed (as in not viewable) to the general populace.
How is this different from the QNX program, where it costs $10,000 and only customers can get access?
And no, the old Unix source code licenced to the various universities ages ago was not “open,” despite the fact that a number of now well known (amongst us) hacker types were familiar with it.
Can you read? That’s what I said! Even though the source was available, it wasn’t “open” by any definition.
That’s complete bullshit. The ideology of open source existed a long time before GNU, and is rooted in academic computer science. One of the fundemental principles of an ‘open’ academic environment is that people are free to learn from and build upon each others’ work. If you aren’t free to build off the work, then its not ‘open’.
You’re still missing the true nature of things, both as they are now and as they were then. There was no “ideology” involved before RMS.
By your definition of “open,” all patented technologies are “open,” just because the details of each are made public, even though the whole purpose of a patent is to create a temporary monopoly by allowing a company to keep a technology proprietory.
Yes, that’s exactly right. The knoledge embodied by the technology is open to inspection by all (well, at least util recently in the USofA), the synthetic monopoly is just that, and has no bearing on the openess. It just prevents the freedom to use it.
How is this different from the QNX program, where it costs $10,000 and only customers can get access?
I don’t recall claiming that it was. My issue is with the ridiculous open source == free software delusion that so many of you have become afflicted with.
Can you read? That’s what I said! Even though the source was available, it wasn’t “open” by any definition.
Can you think?! I was agreeing with you!
well, at least util recently in the USofA
What I meant by this is that patents nowaday over there are really too vague to be useful in any real sense, except as they are employed to abuse the already braindead IP system.
It is at times like this that I feel very much like smacking RMS (aka R. M. Stallman) and his “ideological” friends.
“Open Source”, “Free Software”, “Free Electrons”, “Cold Plasma”… Those terms CONTAIN NO MEANING IN THEMSELVES! RMS decided that he’d like to make HIS VERY OWN INTERPRETATIONS of the terms “Free Software” and “Open Source” publicly known. No problem with that one. But then he decided to “monopolize” those terms, to convince the rest of the world that HIS understanding of those terms is “THE One True Way”(TM) to understand them. That’s kind of ugly, but not really a problem per se.
The problem is, that by this point, the only portion of the rest of the world that actually got CONVINCED that RMS’ interpretations of “OS”/”FS” are indeed “THE One True Way”(TM) is… a handful of junior l33t c0d3rz hacking away at a couple of GPL projects. THAT’S ALL! Of the SIX BILLIONS of people in the world, perhaps a THOUSAND can recall what GPL really talks about, perhaps FIFTY THOUSANDS really bothered to read the GPL, or at least have a look at it, and a COUPLE OF MILLIONS probably heard about it (and a good majority of them – hated it or misunderstood it!). THAT’S ALL. That’s not even on the bloody map!!!
You’re very brave, lads – much like all fanatics – but you’re alone. Don’t be insulted when people throw you out the door like Muslims would throw out a preaching Protestant missionary – if you choose to shove your understanding of the world down other people’s throats, be prepared to have their boots shoved up your butt!
“Open Source” and “Free Software” and NOT concrete terms, because NOT all INTERESTED parties have reached a consensus as to what they mean (as opposed to “Free Electrons”, e.g. :p ), let alone the mankind as a whole!
Portions of QNX source can be called “open” because pretty much ANY 3rd party developer has a chance to look at that code without having to buy out the entire QNX Software Systems Ltd., moreover, he can do so for a relatively puny amount of money. That “openness” is opposed to the way MS Windoze source is “closed” – you must either be the government of some industrial world country or buy out Microsoft Corp. as a whole to have a chance to peek at Windoze code.
YOU, or RMS or your aunt Molly don’t like that definition of “Open Source”? Too bloody bad for YOU, RMS or aunt Molly, as the bad news are that neither YOU, nor RMS nor the aunt, NONE OF YOU HAVE ANY MONOPOLY ON THE TERMS “OPEN SOURCE”/”FREE SOFTWARE”/WHATEVER! Now live with it. And the next time people who happen to understand those terms in different, yet NO LESS LEGITIMATE ways call you a zealot or a fanatic after you start your PREACHING – blame RMS. He’s the one who brainwashed you.
Yup. It is for this brainwashing that I feel like smacking RMS (aka R. M. Stallman) and his “ideological” friends.
I say – poppycock. All of it. All the way. Bloody poppycock!