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 650660
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: freedom
by Serafean on Tue 7th Nov 2017 16:57 UTC in reply to "RE: freedom"
Serafean
Member since:
2013-01-08

The GPL only requires you to distribute your code along with the binaries. Doesn't have to be published. But I admit this is a strawman-ish argumen.

"I believe if you want true software freedom, the MIT/BSD licenses are the way to go."
Now this is where the real discussion begins:
From a purely code perspective, I agree with you. "Here is the code, do as you wish with it" is about the most liberal you can get. Yet it also implies that this code is subject to modifications which will never see the light of day (outside of the author's company) in source form.

What about the end user's freedom to use the product as they wish? Take the IME. Google, Purism (the first companies that come to mind) and many other individuals spend many hours on figuring out
a) what the IME actually does.
b) How it does what it does
c) How to strip parts that I don't need/find dangerous.

I personally want my light switches + bulbs to turn on when I deem it necessary, not when the vendor thinks it is best for me. Sorry for the non-car analogy...

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: freedom
by przemo_li on Wed 8th Nov 2017 12:58 in reply to "RE[2]: freedom"
przemo_li Member since:
2010-06-01

Not even that.

GPL requires that You make source code available with possible payment covering costs of making them available to USER of your software.

So GPL internal tools can stay inhouse.

And why AGPL was introduced for websites.

Reply Parent Score: 3