Linked by Brynet on Thu 15th Jul 2010 16:55 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 433619
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
QNX was open source only by the definition that you could see the source and check it out but it was so restricted that it wasn't worth the hassle.
As for the community in the foundry, well there one or two active people.
It seemed more like a PR stunt.
As for the community in the foundry, well there one or two active people.
It seemed more like a PR stunt.
Exactly, it was never open source by the most widely known definition, that is, OSI open source. I think that calling "open source" what is more often called "shared source" is just creating confusion. I remember the RiscOS guys did the same.
Actually, it's much preferable for the source to be closed, because with "shared source" there's more risk they can wrongly or falsely accuse someone of copyright infringement, whereas that's not the case when the source is not available.




Member since:
2005-07-06
QNX was open source only by the definition that you could see the source and check it out but it was so restricted that it wasn't worth the hassle.
As for the community in the foundry, well there one or two active people.
It seemed more like a PR stunt.