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 650658
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: freedom
by The123king on Tue 7th Nov 2017 16:38 UTC 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[6]: freedom
by ssokolow on Tue 7th Nov 2017 17:45 in reply to "RE[5]: freedom"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

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!


However, it is morally right to not artificially maximize the effects of planned obsolescence in technology which could otherwise be maintained and repaired to reduce the amount of pollution and wasted energy involved in recycling or landfilling the artificially obsolete stuff. (Especially given the pressure we're putting on the environment as countries like China and India industrialize.)

While arguments can be made for non-driver code, when you're talking about drivers, there's a very good reason that "a car with its hood welded closed" has been the metaphor widely used by Free Software proponents to describe closed-source software for decades.

(Sort of like how we're seeing more effort to spread this technique back out to hardware that was formerly reusable and/or user-serviceable, as with putting lockdown chips in print cartridges and John Deere using copyright law to sue farmers who repair their own tractors.)

Edited 2017-11-07 17:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[7]: freedom
by Kochise on Wed 8th Nov 2017 07:46 in reply to "RE[6]: freedom"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Then tell me how to maximize profit, not only for moguls and shareholders, but also pay the monthly wages ?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: freedom
by tidux on Tue 7th Nov 2017 21:33 in reply to "RE[5]: freedom"
tidux Member since:
2011-08-13

> 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.

This argument is fucking retarded in a post-Snowden world.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[7]: freedom
by Darkmage on Tue 7th Nov 2017 23:21 in reply to "RE[6]: freedom"
Darkmage Member since:
2006-10-20

GPL Code is the only code that is ethical. Anything else subverts end user rights and freedoms for developer control. It's not worth running closed source code. Computing is too powerful to leave as closed source. Without open source control of humanity's information will eventually become closed off.

Edited 2017-11-07 23:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: freedom
by The123king on Wed 8th Nov 2017 11:21 in reply to "RE[6]: freedom"
The123king Member since:
2009-05-28

You seem convinced that backdoors and spying is impossible to do on an open source operating system...

http://www.zdnet.com/article/hacker-hundreds-were-tricked-into-inst...
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/09/allwinners_allloser_custom_...
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/15/openbsd_backdoor_claim/
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/02/malicious-bac...
https://www.scmagazine.com/malicious-plugin-installed-backdoor-on-20...
https://blog.sucuri.net/2014/04/joomla-plugin-constructor-backdoor.h...
https://betanews.com/2015/03/03/what-the-freak-huge-ssl-security-fla...

And of course there's the multiple attempts the NSA has made to get Linux to put one into his kernel...
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/54in5s/the_nsa_has_tried_to_...

The idea that open source is somehow inherently safe is a fallacy. Sure, it's much easier to audit the code for bugs, exploits and backdoors, but being open-source doesn't necessarily mean it's safer. If anything, it makes it as easy as spreading misinformation on Wikipedia, as long as your patch is accepted.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: freedom
by Iapx432 on Thu 9th Nov 2017 15:14 in reply to "RE[5]: freedom"
Iapx432 Member since:
2017-09-30

Totally agree neither is more wrong or more right, so you and I share a philosophy. Those who differ are not analogous to racists (I know you did not mean that they are actual racists), they simply have different philosophies. To quote your own argument, opinion on open vs closed source does not cause human suffering, unlike racism. Great point none the less.

Reply Parent Score: 0