| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
QNX source released - sort of
QNX source released - sort of
Posted Sep 12, 2007 16:25 UTC (Wed) by forthy (guest, #1525)In reply to: QNX source released - sort of by larryr
Parent article: QNX source released - sort of
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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.