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

11–20 of 379 posts

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#11

Post by simias »

I can't tell if this is earnest or 2nd degree. Can people more familiar with Mr Tanenbaum's style enlighten me?

Because if this is earnest I'm quite seriously baffled. I don't mind BSD at all and I won't comment on the political side of things but why on earth would you rejoice that you worked for free (I assume?) for Intel only to have your work end up in some user-hostile module forced on the users? Is Tanenbaum egotistical enough that merely having his work be "the most widely used computer operating system in the world" justifies everything? And then he uses that to argue that BSD is superior to GPL because this way big companies can use the code without giving anything back? Great success.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#12

Post by pulse7 »

amelius wrote: post #5
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.

If Minix's license wouldn't be BSD, they would use some other BSD licensed OS or develop it's own...

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#13

Post by Wintamute »

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.

You seem to be having a problem understanding why people would be motivated to release genuinely free software. Open source can mean complete freedom, including the freedom to take the software, modify it, gain a competitive advantage and generate economic value, according to the license choice of the original author.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#14

Post by mankash666 »

How many non-copyleft mini OSes exist? It's likely that Intel engineers were more familiar with the author's OS given the popularity of his book.

All that aside, Intel did exactly what the license allows them to do. The license doesn't require a thank you note.

If it makes HN feel any better, Intel is among the leading contributors to Linux, and MANY other open source projects. Intel doesn't expect a thank you note for it

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#15

Post by 0ld »

Radim wrote: post #9
Buge wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)."

So where exactly does this quote say MINIX was relicensed for Intel?

Well, maybe only if you think 17 is "several years":

> several years ago when one of your engineering teams contacted me

> we put MINIX 3 out under the Berkeley license in 2000

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#17

Post by Wintamute »

Radim wrote: post #9
Buge wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)."

Nowhere does it say that discussions with Intel in particular motivated the license change away from the GPL. Only discussions with unnamed corporations as long ago as 2000.

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#18

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: An Open Letter to Intel

#20

Post by jvdh »

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?

It should be noted that Minix is code that was developed by university researchers. Researchers who are payed for by (primarily) European and Dutch tax euros.

Also note that many of that time, energy and money to modify GPL code is not just programming time, but also a lot of legal advice time. With BSD-like license it should be immediately clear what you can do with the code (i.e. almost everything).

Post reply on HN