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 650669
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: freedom
by tidux on Tue 7th Nov 2017 21:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: freedom"
Member since:

> 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:

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

Ethical ?
by cade on Wed 8th Nov 2017 01:39 in reply to "RE[7]: freedom"
cade Member since:

The ethical thing is to at least respect the source code licence; be it BSD, MIT, GPL, etc. That is, respect the software-code author's wishes.

"subverts end user rights" ... what "rights" ?

In fact, the user has a choice. The user can either use the respective technology or not use the technology.

"open source" and "control" do not belong in the same sentence, conerning a political conext. You either use open-source or do not use open-source but open-source should never be forced onto someone since this would impinge upon someone's "freedom" of choice. A person should be free to choose a proprietary system over an open source system, it is their choice. The nature of GPL (not LGPL) represents a "force" (i.e. obligation) applied to a software developer in an extreme fashion not present if a BSD-like licence was operative. I have no problems with the existence of GPL/any licence since developers exercise their own psychology while selecting an appropriate licence for their open-source code. It is the devloper's "right" to select a licence for their work in which they deem appropriate.

Proprietary technology does not limit your freedoms per-se.
You only limit your freedoms if you still keep using proprietary technology in which you had made the previous assessment that aspects of the proprietary technology were limiting your effectiveness.

If you feel you need access to open technology then you are free to seek an open solution or you can attempt to develop your own technology with yourself/friends or you can compromise.

Part of the problem is that the theme of open technology is a non-issue for most of society and so commercial entities do not address this issue more adequately.

I do not have problems with binary drivers (helping most of the Windows-only "sheeples" and being a "bonus" for open-source OSes) but it would also be nice to have "open" hardware documentation so that open-source (hobbyist/non-hobbyist) operating systems can truly be non-BLOB based for reasons of security/integrity/completeness/etc.

Sure, commercial entities have to protect their investments/IP but examples such as the increasing betterment of the open-source {radeon GPU driver, Mesa} graphics-stack to the point of nearly rivalling the Windows driver is an indication that good strides in the direction of open technology can happen. A more open-source friendly Nvidia would be a nice complement to AMD's open-source stance.

"freedoms for developer control" are evident and getting better.
For my game-engine development, Apple's non-interest in maintaining first-class support for OpenGL (> 2.1) and Vulkan have caused me to plan a migration of ny cross-platform {tooling, C++ code-base} from OSX to FreeBSD at some future date. Implicit was the notion that this would be a NVidia-GPU only environment. I can now envisage a near-term future where I can also exercise the radeon GPU option for open-source OS like FreeBSD/Linux.

See, I chose to use the Mac (2009 iMac), it was not my "right" to use the Mac. The Mac "just works". However, since my technological interests are OpenGL/Vulkan-based and that Apple's stance is against this (Metal 2) then my "rights" were not "subverted" but it was that my options were diminished and a solution to this is my future migration to FreeBSD as my primary software development platform.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: freedom
by zima on Wed 8th Nov 2017 15:28 in reply to "RE[7]: freedom"
zima Member since:

Without open source control of humanity's information will eventually become closed off.

However, with the continuing push to the "cloud" (which even mostly runs on open source!), source code access doesn't guarantee the access to information.

Perhaps we should call it "fog"...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: freedom
by jockm on Wed 8th Nov 2017 17:21 in reply to "RE[7]: freedom"
jockm Member since:

GPL Code is the only code that is ethical.

There isn't a universal set of ethics. Ethics, like logic, starts from a set of asserted information, and then builds from there.

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:

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

And of course there's the multiple attempts the NSA has made to get Linux to put one into his kernel...

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[8]: freedom
by Kochise on Wed 8th Nov 2017 12:33 in reply to "RE[7]: freedom"
Kochise Member since:

Ever heard of HeartBleed vulnerability in OpenSSL ? And the fact that strangely NSA try to push/modify some weaker cryptography algorithms instead than other (TrueCrypt affair) ?

Reply Parent Score: 3