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 650795
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Silly Andrew
by Alfman on Fri 10th Nov 2017 15:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Silly Andrew"
Member since:


I think if it would have been the GPL-3 though, Intel would have needed to provide a way to install user-modified versions, in order to provide the software freedoms that license seeks to enforce.

Yes a goal of GPL3 was to combat this tivoization, but it really seemed too late to have much impact. We can't even get linux under it. Had GPL2 been GPL3 from the get-go, things might have been different, but unfortunately we didn't have the foresight to mitigate the kinds of restrictions that corporations are imposing to lock out owners. Back then it wasn't conceivable that manufacturers would work against owner control like they do today. The business models have done a complete 180, it used to be about delivering the power to users, and now it's largely about platforms that control what we do.

Reply Parent Score: 3