Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th Nov 2017 11:50 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes

Andrew S. Tanenbaum, creator of MINIX, has published an open letter to Intel regarding Intel's use of MINIX in the IME:

The only thing that would have been nice is that after the project had been finished and the chip deployed, that someone from Intel would have told me, just as a courtesy, that MINIX 3 was now probably the most widely used operating system in the world on x86 computers. That certainly wasn't required in any way, but I think it would have been polite to give me a heads up, that's all.

If nothing else, this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users. If they want to publicize what they have done, fine. By all means, do so. If there are good reasons not to release the modified code, that's fine with me, too.

I can still barely believe this whole story.

Thread beginning with comment 650649
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: freedom
by The123king on Tue 7th Nov 2017 16:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: freedom"
The123king
Member since:
2009-05-28

+Companies producing open-source drivers would have to negotiate patents, 3rd party code, general code ownership (even when 1st party) and potential exposure of trade secrets. proprietary code negates these issues. Another issue is the cost of producing clean-room engineered drivers lacking patented code and ownership issues is quite expensive, relative to proprietary drivers. This is added cost for very little benefit when you take into account the limited market share of open-source operating systems. Hence, 1st party open source drivers are almost non-existent.

So can you provide a reasonable argument refuting my claims, or are you going to resort to "ZOMGZORS UR TALKING BOLLOCKS AND UR FACE IS UGLY AND U SMELL!!!"

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: freedom
by ssokolow on Tue 7th Nov 2017 16:07 in reply to "RE[3]: freedom"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

That kind of "doing the right thing would be a lot of work for little to no improvement for the big guy" argument isn't a very convincing one, since it can just as easily be used to defend decisions we now all agree were wrong.

For example, refusing to switch away from a slave-based economy in the southern United States.

Edited 2017-11-07 16:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[5]: freedom
by The123king on Tue 7th Nov 2017 16:38 in reply to "RE[4]: freedom"
The123king Member since:
2009-05-28

Do i even need to explain what's wrong with that argument?

Open source is not inherently right, and closed source is not inherently wrong. No-one is getting physically or mentally hurt from the license a piece of software is released under. blanket pooh-poohing of closed source is analogous to aparthied and the racism experience in America in the mid 20th century, and i think you should be ashamed of yourself. All 0's and 1's should be treated equally, regardless of their license!

Edited 2017-11-07 16:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: freedom
by Alfman on Tue 7th Nov 2017 16:42 in reply to "RE[3]: freedom"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

The123king,

+Companies producing open-source drivers would have to negotiate patents, 3rd party code, general code ownership (even when 1st party) and potential exposure of trade secrets. proprietary code negates these issues. Another issue is the cost of producing clean-room engineered drivers lacking patented code and ownership issues is quite expensive, relative to proprietary drivers.


I'll grant you that that companies like Intel don't have much incentive to grant users additional rights or reveal trade secrets. However your point about patents is wrong. Intel can release the code for patented technology even while the patents are being enforced. In fact patents are supposed to encourage public disclosure by design. Intel is absolutely free to distribute the source code whether it's patented or not and patent restrictions would only apply to 3rd party alternatives (ie not Intel) who have not paid the royalties.

So can you provide a reasonable argument refuting my claims, or are you going to resort to "ZOMGZORS UR TALKING BOLLOCKS AND UR FACE IS UGLY AND U SMELL!!!"


Many developers like myself oppose patents because of some of the detrimental effects we feel they cause to the industry, but still, it isn't correct to invoke patents as a reason Intel cannot publish the code.

Edited 2017-11-07 16:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: freedom
by The123king on Wed 8th Nov 2017 11:25 in reply to "RE[4]: freedom"
The123king Member since:
2009-05-28

I don't agree with patents either, and i think they're a bane on the world of computing. That doesn't mean it's not a good idea to pay a developer for the work he's done producing a product though. One of the symptoms of this complete disdain for paying for software has been the explosion in ad-riddle applications. You can't even buy an Android phone nowadays without the lock screen being filled with adverts. I'd rather pay a feee to use the software a-free, than have hal;f my screen real-estate taken up by an advert trying to sell me crap.

Edited 2017-11-08 11:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: freedom
by Vanders on Tue 7th Nov 2017 19:40 in reply to "RE[3]: freedom"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

If I'm a competitor and I want to discover how your Super Secret Driver works, get this: I can decompile & reverse engineer your driver.

Most hardware is so ridiculously simple at the driver interface anyway that me knowing which registers control a ring buffer is hardly going to clue me in to any trade secrets.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: freedom
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 8th Nov 2017 15:21 in reply to "RE[3]: freedom"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

to negotiate patents, 3rd party code, general code ownership (even when 1st party) and potential exposure of trade secrets.



patents
-- No. There is no requirement in GPL V2 ( the one that governs the linux kernel) that any patents are licensed to anyone using the code. This is one of the reasons why there is a GPL v3.

3rd party code
-- Fair. you could see the pain that Sun went through in open sourcing Java. There were a number of bits for audio and sound that were licensed from third parties that Sun didn't have permission to open source.

code ownership
-- no clue what you mean here. The original authors that have copyright, have copyright. That doesn't change when things are open sourced. See Mysql for example.

Trade secrets
-- No argument here. If you have trade secrets in code, and you open source the code in any FOSS license. Well, they aren't so secret anymore...

Another issue is the cost of producing clean-room engineered drivers lacking patented code and ownership issues is quite expensive, relative to proprietary drivers.


Are you referring to the effort it would take to remove third party code that you didn't have permission to open source? If so, then yes as Sun discovered, its difficult and expensive. But if you own all the code, this takes no effort, because its completely unnecessary.

Reply Parent Score: 5