6 ms·

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 t

by Radim 9y ago

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.

Buge 9y ago
He relicensed MINIX for Intel? The letter doesn't say that.
- Radim 9y ago
  "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)."
  - 0ld 9y ago
    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
  - Wintamute 9y ago
    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.
    - Radim 9y ago
      Your point being? It makes absolutely no difference whether the "you cost, me profit" corporation was Intel, Nvidia, Acme Inc or all above.
      - Wintamute 9y ago
        My point is that you are drawing odd/bad conclusions from a misreading of the information contained in the letter. > You're thanking someone because they asked you to relicense your hard work so they can use it for free (BSD) and you complied? Nowhere in the letter does it imply that the entity being thanked (Intel) is the same entity that motivated the author to change the license. Intel used open source software according to the license they found it with. The author is pleased his software is powering global infrastructure, and is likely pleased he's contributed to human progress, but is slightly peeved he received no personal thank you as a matter of politeness/etiquette. I'm struggling to understand what criticism you have for this process. No-one has been dicked.
Wintamute 9y ago
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.
- tgragnato 9y ago
  There's not an absolute in licensing; it depends on what your thoughts and motivations are. In practise, seeing ME as a competitive advantage is something that's at least questionable.
- kunimu 9y ago
  Nobody is denying the freedom for commercial use is a core part of open source software. However no developer has to make a certain business model easy for you, and I think it is well within the correct view to discourage such a business practice which restricts the freedom of users by making that impossible but allowing a "competitor" (if we really must think of it this way) to generate "economic value" (i.e selling open source software, which the GPL does allow you to do). The freedom debate is unending. Personally I am very skeptical of all forms of economic freedom, as frequently they have the result of pidgeonholing people and their freedom is restricted.
  - digi_owl 9y ago
    Never mind that RMS' intent with GPL is to preserve the initial freedom into the distant future. If you get access to the source, so should everyone that comes after you. And he formulated this after he had some hard earned experiences with suppliers at MIT.
    - Wintamute 9y ago
      > If you get access to the source, so should everyone that comes after you. Why should they? That is up to the software author.
matthewmacleod 9y ago
I don't think there's any implication that MINIX was relicensed specifically for Intel. I'm surprised how much difficulty some people have in understanding that others might make different licensing choices. If I license software under a BSD/MIT-like license, it's not an accident – it's specifically done so that there are as few restrictions on that software as possible. Don't get me wrong – the GPL is important and making the choice to license under it is a totally legitimate personal choice with various pros and cons versus a BSD license. But it's not the only rational choice to make, and I wish you'd be a bit more open-minded about that.
zouhair 9y ago
It's not free, it's Free http://wiki.c2.com/?FreeAsInBeer http://wiki.c2.com/?FreeAsInBeer
ptero 9y ago
MINIX was first and foremost an educational system -- simple OS so that students can see how every OS component works on a real end to end system during a single semester course. And easily try their own changes. As such wider acceptance is something to celebrate. It might also be a (partial) vindication that an alternative design you absolutely hate and tried to kill is a huge success and is everywhere from supercomputers to cell phones.
ksk 9y ago
>You're thanking someone because you relicensed your hard work so they can use it for free (BSD) and you complied? That sounds like an argument against open sharing of source code and ideas.

by Radim 9y ago

Buge 9y ago

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

Radim 9y ago
"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)."
- 0ld 9y ago
  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
- Wintamute 9y ago
  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.
  - Radim 9y ago
    Your point being? It makes absolutely no difference whether the "you cost, me profit" corporation was Intel, Nvidia, Acme Inc or all above.
    - Wintamute 9y ago
      My point is that you are drawing odd/bad conclusions from a misreading of the information contained in the letter. > You're thanking someone because they asked you to relicense your hard work so they can use it for free (BSD) and you complied? Nowhere in the letter does it imply that the entity being thanked (Intel) is the same entity that motivated the author to change the license. Intel used open source software according to the license they found it with. The author is pleased his software is powering global infrastructure, and is likely pleased he's contributed to human progress, but is slightly peeved he received no personal thank you as a matter of politeness/etiquette. I'm struggling to understand what criticism you have for this process. No-one has been dicked.

Wintamute 9y ago

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.

tgragnato 9y ago
There's not an absolute in licensing; it depends on what your thoughts and motivations are. In practise, seeing ME as a competitive advantage is something that's at least questionable.
kunimu 9y ago
Nobody is denying the freedom for commercial use is a core part of open source software. However no developer has to make a certain business model easy for you, and I think it is well within the correct view to discourage such a business practice which restricts the freedom of users by making that impossible but allowing a "competitor" (if we really must think of it this way) to generate "economic value" (i.e selling open source software, which the GPL does allow you to do). The freedom debate is unending. Personally I am very skeptical of all forms of economic freedom, as frequently they have the result of pidgeonholing people and their freedom is restricted.
- digi_owl 9y ago
  Never mind that RMS' intent with GPL is to preserve the initial freedom into the distant future. If you get access to the source, so should everyone that comes after you. And he formulated this after he had some hard earned experiences with suppliers at MIT.
  - Wintamute 9y ago
    > If you get access to the source, so should everyone that comes after you. Why should they? That is up to the software author.

matthewmacleod 9y ago

I don't think there's any implication that MINIX was relicensed specifically for Intel. I'm surprised how much difficulty some people have in understanding that others might make different licensing choices. If I license software under a BSD/MIT-like license, it's not an accident – it's specifically done so that there are as few restrictions on that software as possible. Don't get me wrong – the GPL is important and making the choice to license under it is a totally legitimate personal choice with various pros and cons versus a BSD license. But it's not the only rational choice to make, and I wish you'd be a bit more open-minded about that.

zouhair 9y ago

It's not free, it's Free http://wiki.c2.com/?FreeAsInBeer http://wiki.c2.com/?FreeAsInBeer

ptero 9y ago

MINIX was first and foremost an educational system -- simple OS so that students can see how every OS component works on a real end to end system during a single semester course. And easily try their own changes. As such wider acceptance is something to celebrate. It might also be a (partial) vindication that an alternative design you absolutely hate and tried to kill is a huge success and is everywhere from supercomputers to cell phones.

ksk 9y ago

>You're thanking someone because you relicensed your hard work so they can use it for free (BSD) and you complied? That sounds like an argument against open sharing of source code and ideas.