Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements pageSponsored link
Serve your customers, not your servers, with VERIO Linux VPS. Full-access test-drive here.
| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
QNX source released - sort of
(Log in to post comments)
QNX source released - sort of
Posted Sep 12, 2007 16:06 UTC (Wed) by larryr (guest, #4030) [Link]
It looks to me like essential the usual "source available", "free for non-commercial use" kind of thing... essentially they seem to be going with an approach that nowadays would be considered a minimal level of "open"ness. But then again, according to the announcement, this is a move that "revolutionizes software development practices by combining the best of the open source and commercial software domains", so I must be missing something...
Larry
QNX source released - sort of
Posted Sep 12, 2007 16:25 UTC (Wed) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link]
He did not say "the best of free software...". According to the "Open Source" paradigm, many eyes looking over code, and a community (people who write software for others in their spare time) are the way to success. And as marketing speaker, you must always add some "revolutionizes" and "best of" and other exaggerations, anyway.
I guess this is a half-hearted attempt to grab back some of the share embedded Linux has now. QNX probably is better in this domain (Linux is not really optimized for embedded realtime use), and adding some freeness may help. It also helps that the device makers, once they put QNX in, aren't forced to deliver sources as well.
From a Linux kernel developer point of view, people can now look into QNX sources, and judge whether it's really easier to write a monolithic or a microkernel OS.
QNX source released - sort of
Posted Sep 12, 2007 19:19 UTC (Wed) by larryr (guest, #4030) [Link]
He did not say "the best of free software...". According to the "Open Source" paradigm, many eyes looking over code, and a community (people who write software for others in their spare time) are the way to success.
I think a sine qua non of the application of the "Open Source paradigm" to software is that the software actually be Open Source software, which means that it conforms to the Open Source Definition, which includes "the license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software.... The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale..... The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed...."
I think it would be a specious abuse of the Open Source concept to suggest that the benefits for a software author (or anyone else) to be derived from using an Open Source license can be garnered simply by allowing people to see and talk about the source code. I think the essential distinction between Open Source and Free Software is that Open Source software is less restrictive for those to whom the software has been distributed than Free Software is.
Larry
QNX source released - sort of
Posted Sep 12, 2007 21:53 UTC (Wed) by vmole (subscriber, #111) [Link]
The distinction, such as it is, between "open source" and "free software" is that the former term was invented to avoid scaring the suits (aka "business friendly"). It was sold on the basis of "this is a way to improve your software development cycle", rather than "this is better for your users." The actual open software definition applies equally to either; it was written to ensure that users did indeed get free software; there are no extra restrictions associated with "free software". There *may* be license specific restrictions, of course. The GPL2 obviously has more restrictions than the BSD 3-clause, but both are free software licenses.
The problem is that companies have taken the term "open source" and applied to licenses that in no way pass the OSD.
They are trying to fight off Linux
Posted Sep 12, 2007 16:25 UTC (Wed) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link]
Perhaps not co-incidentally, a survey recently released (discussed on linuxdevices.com here) says that embedded developers like having access to the source code for the platforms they use. IMHO the GPL is also important, but probably not as much as simply having access to the source.
They are trying to fight off Linux
Posted Sep 12, 2007 17:32 UTC (Wed) by endecotp (guest, #36428) [Link]
Absolutely. Everyone I know who has used a closed embedded OS has a horror story of spending months finding subtle bugs that would have been apparent in seconds if they had had the code. This normally involves disassembling the code and logic analysers. From an entirely pragmatic point of view, this is the greatest strength of Free/open-source software in this market segment.
They are trying to fight off Linux
Posted Sep 13, 2007 3:58 UTC (Thu) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link]
> Everyone I know who has used a closed embedded OS has a horror story> of spending months finding subtle bugs that would have been apparent
> in seconds if they had had the code.
Exactly the reason they are doing this and their customers will almost certainly welcome this development. Personally I think this level of openness needs to be legally mandated.
Think about it, copyright exists to "promote progress in the Sciences and Useful Arts" not to prop up a business model or produce profit. The hope for profit IS supposed to be a motivation of course, the Founding Fathers were not Communists. But this idea of keeping the source locked away where it is often lost when companies die does NOTHING to promote Progress in anything except wheel reinvention. And it is just a technical artifact of the early computer hardware, increasingly requiring more and more twisted methods to keep the idea alive. (See the PHP/Javascript code obfuscation industry.)
No, we need a better way. Copyright should be granted only on SOURCE CODE on condition that the customer get a copy of it and all the bits they need to read/compile/etc the original vendor has (except of course 3rd party closed source tools) so the code is readable and understandable by the customer. In the case of commercial code, fully protected by Copyright and not redistributable without a license, etc. But readable. You can Copyright an expression of an idea but not the Idea itself, others should be able to see it and learn. (Leaving the whole subject of software Patents for another rant.) Customers could port to new platforms, patch bugs and generally keep a product alive after being abandoned by the original vendor by distributing patchsets.
Compiled binaries should only be protected as "derived works" of the actual copyrighted work, but a court should be able to declare it void if a vendor refuses to publish the actual source that the binary was built from.
QNX source released - sort of
Posted Sep 12, 2007 16:31 UTC (Wed) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]
It strikes me as somewhat ironic that the problematic meaning of the word free in "Free Software", the "gratis" one, is also the most solid guarantee the term will not be subverted.
A sales department that would misleadingly try to advertise "Free Software" would first need to tackle the misunderstanding about the term being price related, something somewhat doable with catchy punchlines about speech and beer and a grassroots effort, but definitely impossible by sheer force of marketing alone.
As far as the QNX story goes, it's almost Free Software. It could have been had it read "What they can't do is deploy the code commercially as QNX without paying royalties.", relying on trademarks instead of a EULA.
QNX source released - sort of
Posted Sep 12, 2007 16:58 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]
I don't think that would be enough. QNX would also need to allow redistribution of the modified code, perhaps with the trademarks removed.
QNX source released - sort of
Posted Sep 12, 2007 17:31 UTC (Wed) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link]
Trademark protection seems quite useless for their purposes here; I don't think any of QNX's customers are using the QNX name as part of their advertisements to start with. (If you were in the market for a car, dialysis machine, or oil rig, would the presence or absence of the QNX logo really affect your decision in any way?)
QNX source released - sort of
Posted Sep 12, 2007 19:30 UTC (Wed) by AndyBurns (subscriber, #27521) [Link]
> would the presence or absence of the QNX logo really affect your decision in any way?
In preference to a WinCE logo, yes
subverting "free software"
Posted Sep 12, 2007 18:24 UTC (Wed) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]
Counterexamples: Internet Explorer. Adobe (Acrobat) Reader. Loads ofother Windows software that's a free download but has no source.
"Free Software" was subverted long before the term "Open Source" was,
which was part of the reason the newer term was created.
subverting "free software"
Posted Sep 12, 2007 19:45 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
Well, I wonder who subverted who... I remember downloading and swapping a whole bunch of "free software" (and legal too!) for my parents' Apple // in 1983.
Some early Usenet "Free Software":
16 Jun 81: http://groups.google.com/group/fa.apollo/browse_thread/th...
11 Nov 81: http://groups.google.com/group/fa.works/browse_thread/thr...
03 Apr 82: http://groups.google.com/group/net.sources/browse_thread/...
21 Aug 82: http://groups.google.com/group/net.micro.pc/browse_thread...
etc. etc.
Clearly (and unsurprisingly), the term already had a widely accepted meaning when Stallman subverted it to refer to his version of "Free Software" around 1984 or 85. I don't really mind -- I much prefer Free Software over free software. But it really does seem silly to claim that the new term is being subverted by the original one!
subverting "free software"
Posted Sep 13, 2007 1:20 UTC (Thu) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link]
Could be. I have been in the business since 1981. I had never heard it talked of as free software until I ran into Free Software.
The terms I had run into are shareware and freeware.
The last link you gave indicates that you needed to send in the source code so that may have been free and Free software.
all the best,
drew
subverting "free software"
Posted Sep 12, 2007 22:06 UTC (Wed) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]
The Free in Free Software is an adjectival form of the word "Freedom". This is the primary and foremost objective of RMS and the FSF. What does one need in order to have Freedom wrt software? You need to be able to exercise the "Four Freedoms" (found in full in the Free Software Definition):
- Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
- Freedom 1: The freedom to study and modify the program.
- Freedom 2: The freedom to copy the program so you can help your neighbor.
- Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
The access to source code and the consequent efficiency of development, is a result of this freedom--a side effect. It is not the primary purpose (in the eyes of the FSF.)
Just trying to make that clear...
Good enough for developers
Posted Sep 12, 2007 17:43 UTC (Wed) by alex (subscriber, #1355) [Link]
In my experience with embedded software having the code available to see and tinker with is probably enough. After all most embedded platforms are paying per chip costs and the OS is just another one of those.
I guess the open-ness means people can play without having to sign up for a developer seat like Windriver used to (still?) sell. That makes it easier to evaluate.
Having said that the great joy with embedded Linux in my experience is the availability of drivers. Not having to code a new ethernet driver because you got a cheaper deal on a different chip is great.
In embedded OS selection being able to see/build/hack the source is high on my "must have" list.