Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Open Letter to Intel

cs.vu.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 379 posts

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#2

Post by arximboldi »

> If nothing else, this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users.

Interesting conclusion, considering one of the "features" of the Intel ME is precisely to limit what the final user can do with their computer.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#4

Post by tarruda »

> when companies have told me that they hate the GPL because they are not keen on spending a lot of time, energy, and money modifying some piece of code, only to be required to give it to their competitors for free

Some piece of code that also cost time (and possibly someone's else money) to develop, and that they got for free?

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#5

Post by amelius »

arximboldi wrote: post #2

> If nothing else, this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users. Interesting conclusion, considering one of the "features" of the Intel ME is precisely to limit what the final user can do with their computer.

Yes. And it also allows others (e.g. the three-letter agencies) to spy on the user.

I wonder how Tanenbaum feels about all that.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#6

Post by Radim »

tarruda wrote: post #4

> when companies have told me that they hate the GPL because they are not keen on spending a lot of time, energy, and money modifying some piece of code, only to be required to give it to their competitors for free Some piece of code that also cost time (and possibly someone's else money) to develop, and that they got for free?

This struck me as bizarre as well.

You're thanking someone because you relicensed your hard work so they can use it for free (BSD) and you complied?

All for the stated reason that they don't have to relicense their work to other people so they could use it for free?

/facepalm

It's like some version of the Stockholm syndrome, deserves a name.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#7

Post by Buge »

Radim wrote: post #6
tarruda wrote: post #4

> when companies have told me that they hate the GPL because they are not keen on spending a lot of time, energy, and money modifying some piece of code, only to be required to give it to their competitors for free Some piece of code that also cost time (and possibly someone's else money) to develop, and that they got for free?

This struck me as bizarre as well. You're thanking someone because you relicensed your hard work so they can use it for free (BSD) and you complied? All for the stated reason that they don't have to relicense their work to other people so they could use it for free? /facepalm It's like some version of the Stockholm syndrome, deserves a name.

He relicensed MINIX for Intel? The letter doesn't say that.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#9

Post by Radim »

Buge wrote: post #7
Radim wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This struck me as bizarre as well. You're thanking someone because you relicensed your hard work so they can use it for free (BSD) and you complied? All for the stated reason that they don't have to relicense their work to other people so they could use it for free? /facepalm It's like some version of the Stockholm syndrome, deserves a name.

He relicensed MINIX for Intel? The letter doesn't say that.

"I have run across this before, when companies have told me that they hate the GPL because they are not keen on spending a lot of time, energy, and money modifying some piece of code, only to be required to give it to their competitors for free. These discussions were why we put MINIX 3 out under the Berkeley license in 2000 (after prying it loose from my publisher)."
Post reply on HN