QNX source released - sort of [LWN.net]

QNX source released - sort of

Posted Sep 12, 2007 16:31 UTC (Wed) by Zack (guest, #37335)
Parent article: QNX source released - sort of

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.

(Log in to post comments)

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 of
other 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

http://openphoto.net/gallery/index.html?user_id=178

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...