QNX has announced that they are going to open up the source code to their QNX microkernel operating system. The press release reads: "Effective immediately, QNX will make source code for its award-winning, microkernel-based OS available for free download. The first source release includes the code to the QNX Neutrino microkernel, the base C library, and a variety of board support packages for popular embedded and computing hardware." Read on for more information, as well as an interview with Dan Dodge, CEO of QNX.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-06-29
So, again, it's NOT Free Sofware, it's NOT Open Source (maybe the caps help to clarify?) and if you disagree, just Google it. You seem to have been deceived by their announcement, just like they planned.
You can do whatever the hell you want with the code - you just can't commercially exploit it.
It is not Free Software as defined by the FSF. It's not open source software as defined by OSI. But, it it can still be called open source by another defintion - namely that of being able to do whatever the hell you want with it, except sell it.
Like I said before, OSI and FSF haven't patented the definition of open source.
Member since:2006-09-27
"You can do whatever the hell you want with the code - you just can't commercially exploit it."
What's exactly to "commercially exploit it"? Can you set up a business with 100 workstations running QNX without their permission? I don't think so. What sets Free Sofware apart from other licensing models is that you can effectively avoid vendor lock-in. I couldn't find their exact licensing terms in their website, but it seem to be designed to keep vendor lock-in as a business model. Hence, it's fundamentally different from Free Sofware as defined by FSF, which is by far the most widely accepted definition, and calling it the same is arguably misleading. "free for personal use" would be acceptable, but in any case it's a VERY different licensing model.
Member since:
2006-09-27
Thom, frankly, do you think they would carefully avoid calling it "open source" or "free sofware" if it qualified as that? I won't remind you the OSD or the FSF definition of Free Sofware. So, again, it's NOT Free Sofware, it's NOT Open Source (maybe the caps help to clarify?) and if you disagree, just Google it. You seem to have been deceived by their announcement, just like they planned.
Oh, and it would help you think more clearly if you avoided buying into their speaking about "selling" the sofware or "commercial deployment". That's very confusing and they know it. They try to blur the distinction between making a derivative under a proprietary license, and setting up a project to distribute sofware and provide support for profit, which are two VERY different things. Software is either free or proprietary. Free software can be deployed commercially (as Red Hat and other do). You can use Free Software at home and in the office, and you can set up your business around Free Sofware, without fears that anyone will charge you for making "commercial" use of said sofware.