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 650698
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: freedom
by Kochise on Wed 8th Nov 2017 14:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: freedom"
Member since:

Yeah, but the limit is scarce between "modify" and "copy"...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: freedom
by Alfman on Wed 8th Nov 2017 14:48 in reply to "RE[7]: freedom"
Alfman Member since:


Yeah, but the limit is scarce between "modify" and "copy"...

Yes that's a valid point: manufactures may not want to provide the code because they don't want people copying code. And while this can be problematic for the open source community, at least I understand where they're coming from.

However what is unacceptable is when they deliberately take steps to impede users from replacing the proprietary code with their own code. This "tivoization" of the industry, if you will, is unethical because it's clearly not about protecting the manufacturer's code so much as it is deliberately taking control and rights away from the owners.

I really think that the principals of "ownership" should automatically grant us a right to modify it and manufacturers should not be allowed to forcefully impede this right by blocking alternative software.

Edited 2017-11-08 14:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3