Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th Sep 2007 11:51 UTC
Original OSNews Interviews 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.
Thread beginning with comment 270713
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom_Holwerda
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.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1

wannabe geek 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.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1