9 ms·
All Dr. Tanenbaum is saying is that it would have been the classy thing to let him know, nothing more. Professor Tanenbaum is one of the most respected compute
by gtrubetskoy 9y ago
All Dr. Tanenbaum is saying is that it would have been the classy thing to let him know, nothing more.
Professor Tanenbaum is one of the most respected computer scientists alive, and for Intel to include Minix in their chip and not let him know is kind of unprofessional and not very nice to say the least. That is his only (and quite fair) point.
- jhasse 9y ago> and for Intel to include Minix in their chip and not let him know is kind of unprofessional and not very nice to say the least. I guess Minix' license, which allows this kind of behaviour, is the very reason Intel chose Minix in the first place. I imagine it would be very complicated to get management approval for informing Dr. Tannenbaum about the usage in Intel's ME. IMHO if he has a problem with the way things worked out, he should have chosen a different license. For example the MIT license requires the copyright and license to be included in distributions.
- varjag 9y agoBSD 3-clause license requires that as well.
- rahiel 9y agoThe Minix 3 license contains [0]: * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. So it looks like Minix's license does require the copyright/license to be included in distributions. [0]: https://github.com/Stichting-MINIX-Research-Foundation/minix/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/Stichting-MINIX-Research-Foundation/minix...
- mtgx 9y agoSo could he sue Intel for about a billion dollars now? Also, my guess is this is part "security through obscurity", part Intel not wanting everyone to know that they used someone else's code for its chips' firmware.
- vanderZwan 9y agoIANAL, but assuming this is breaking the licence agreement, wouldn't suing for money only make legal sense if he could show that this infringement had cost him in some way? Beyond the valid complaint of this being a personal insult, that is.
- wslh 9y agoThe first good faith claim to do is to notice Intel to add the copyright notice.
- mcv 9y agoIt's rather late now, though, considering it's been around for years now without anyone knowing exactly because they did not include that copyright notice. I have no idea what copyright law says about damages in a case where the infringing party tries to keep their large-scale infringement secret.
- jimmydddd 9y agoThe statutory damages option discussed above does not require a showing of actualy damages. It's just x dollars times the number of instances of infringement. Also, while delay in providing notice of infringement can work against the copyright owner, in this case, because Intel is a sophisticated party (i.e., big company with many in house lawyers and outside law firms advising them), the delay in making a claim would likely not help Intel's case.
- todd8 9y agoIt does cost him. More people would know of MINIX and more would have heard of its creator. More people would buy his books, hire him for consulting on OS design, etc.
- scott00 9y agoUS copyright law lets you sue for either actual damages plus the infringer's profits OR statutory damages. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504
- teilo 9y agoThe strict meaning of "Redistributions" in that clause means that Intel would have to be distributing the OS itself as a product in binary form. Deploying it in an embedded system, and selling that embedded system, particularly in a form where the user does not have access to the OS as a product, does not meet that definition. Tanenbaum himself concedes this point in this letter.
- varjag 9y agoThis is quite debatable, not something I'd bet a court case on. One of my libraries with BSD 3-clause license was used in a U.S. government project. It did require particular hardware and couldn't really be deployed by any random user but they honored the mention clause without any prodding on my part. My Bosch kitchen appliances came with a whole bunch of software licenses for embedded subsystems, even GPL ones. So it seems actual lawyers in a huge international corporation decided it constitutes distribution.
- xyzzyz 9y agoGPL3 was practically created to cover this case, as FSF lawyers didn’t feel that GPL2 is enough to enforce that. Check out the TiVoization clause in GPL3 and its history.
- dchest 9y agoNo it didn't. GPLv3 was created to cover the case of hardware vendors not allowing to run modified code. They still have to abide by the terms of the license even if they use GPLv2 -- that is, releasing the source code.
- katastic 9y agoI thought GPLv3 was for many issues, not a single issue. For example, the software-as-a-service loophole that GPLv3 (and AGPL) closes. We actually had an exploitation of said loophole for the open source Space Station 13 game. People were making changes to the game (each server runs their own modifications, and, the game is pure client/server so the entire 'game' is server-side binary only with dumb clients connecting) and some people were making important modifications and not sharing them with the community AND it was intentional because their mods made them the most popular server to play on (because nobody else had the features). It was a big stink, and eventually someone "leaked" the code, but then nobody could tell if that was legal to use or look at and it became a big, confusing legal grey area. All because they didn't start with AGPL or GPLv3 (or some other SaaS-aware license). The original authors probably didn't think anything of it and just thought "GPL is 'good'. So GPL it is." and that was the extent of it.
- riffraff 9y agothis can be just a footnote in some manual coming with the cpu, which is likely the thing that actually made the information public.
- wolfgke 9y agoIn > http://wiki.minix3.org/doku.php?id=faq&s[]=license#what_is_the_minix_3_license http://wiki.minix3.org/doku.php?id=faq&s[]=license#what_is_t... you can read: "What is the MINIX 3 license? The MINIX 3 license is a clone of the Berkeley (BSD) license. In plain English, it says you can do whatever you like with the system provided that (1) you agree not to sue us under any conditions, and (2) you keep the credit lines in the source, documentation, and publicity unless other arrangements have been made. Specifically, you are free to modify the source code, redistribute it, incorporate it into commercial products with only the above restrictions." Note the passage "unless other arrangements have been made". I am pretty sure Intel made such an agreement with the MINIX 3 developers for this reason.
- soapdog 9y agoLots of other non-GPL FOSS projects suffer a similar situation. Here in Brazil, the Lua creators having a hard time finding out who is using the language as the license permits people to pick it up, patch, distribute without ever saying "hi!". They are always quite happy when they learn about usage in the enterprise, entertaiment and other cool uses. Companies using such projects should be more courteous, if only to encourage more of such licenses...
- gnode 9y agoThere's a difference between publishing with attribution, and informing the original author.
- fpoling 9y agoMIT license only states: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. This is weaker than what is in a BSD license: > Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. That is, BSD license explicitly requires copyright attribution for binaries, while MIT does not.
- jhasse 9y agoSo ... Intel violated the BSD license?
- fpoling 9y agoThat is a good point and explains the letter better. Apparently Intel cannot fulfill even minimal attribution requirements and the letter is a polite reminder for the company of its duties.
- TallGuyShort 9y agoWhich is pretty sad - even most crappy mobile apps have a page where they list all open source projects including links to source, license terms, copyright attributions, etc.
- wolfgke 9y ago> So ... Intel violated the BSD license? I wrote in > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15651860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15651860 that the MINIX 3 developers openly say in their FAQ that different agreements with them are possible. I would bet such an agreement exists - I don't believe Intel's lawyers would have tolerated such a legal liability.
- burntsushi 9y ago> IMHO if he has a problem with the way things worked out, he should have chosen a different license. This is a classic conflation of legalese and ethics/decorum/professional courtesy. Just because something is legal doesn't make it good, and just because something is good doesn't make it legal. For example, I abhor those who take credit for other peoples' work. But I use a license on software I write that permits folks to do just that.
- foodstances 9y agoWhat license allows one to take credit for another's work?
- Spivak 9y agoAny license without required attribution like "The Unlicense" .
- dionidium 9y agoThat's an extreme reading. If I make a library, don't require attribution, and then you use it in your project without attribution, that's emphatically not the same thing as "taking credit" for my work.
- SAI_Peregrinus 9y agoThe WTFPL for one.
- vortico 9y agoCC0 is another one.
- vorotato 9y agoSure but polite is often not profitable. Instead make your licenses line up with your wishes. It's another way of saying, "Hey you didn't say you needed it".
- deleted 9y ago
- laumars 9y agoHe did cover those points in the letter: > I guess Minix' license, which allows this kind of behaviour, is the very reason Intel chose Minix in the first place. I imagine it would be very complicated to get management approval for informing Dr. Tannenbaum about the usage in Intel's ME. Tanenbaum: Some people have pointed out online that if MINIX had a GPL license, Intel might not have used it since then it would have had to publish the modifications to the code. Maybe yes, maybe no, but the modifications were no doubt technical issues involving which mode processes run in, etc. My understanding, however, is that the small size and modular microkernel structure were the primary attractions. > MHO if he has a problem with the way things worked out, he should have chosen a different license. Tanenbaum: I don't mind, of course, and was not expecting any kind of payment since that is not required. There isn't even any suggestion in the license that it would be appreciated. Tanenbaum: The only thing that would have been nice is that after the project had been finished and the chip deployed, that someone from Intel would have told me, just as a courtesy, that MINIX 3 was now probably the most widely used operating system in the world on x86 computers. That certainly wasn't required in any way, but I think it would have been polite to give me a heads up, that's all. ----- All in all, I think Tanenbaum's open letter is partly an exercise in self promotion and partly venting a little frustration that his work has gone uncredited given the scale of its deployment. I might be reading between the lines a little here but I also wonder if he's venting little because he dislikes nature of this particular deployment: Tanenbaum: Many people (including me) don't like the idea of an all-powerful management engine in there at all (since it is a possible security hole and a dangerous idea in the first place), but that is Intel's business decision and a separate issue from the code it runs.
- gpvos 9y agoTanenbaum has clearly been updating and editing his later added note; I saw an earlier version that didn't include the parts in parentheses and a few other parts.
- abiox 9y ago> partly an exercise in self promotion if so i don't begrudge that, as it's not like intel was saying much about it. :P
- monochromatic 9y agoProfessional courtesy is not legally required. But it would have been the polite thing to do.
- mrstorres 9y agoMinix is crazy how can you use Dr Tannenbaum's chip without informing him. Just insane.
- snksnk 9y agoBut as clearly indicated in the text, dr. Tannenbaum does not have a problem with how things worked out: > I don't mind, of course, and was not expecting any kind of payment since that is not required. There isn't even any suggestion in the license that it would be appreciated. > The only thing that would have been nice is that after the project had been finished and the chip deployed, that someone from Intel would have told me, just as a courtesy, that MINIX 3 was now probably the most widely used operating system in the world on x86 computers. That certainly wasn't required in any way, but I think it would have been polite to give me a heads up, that's all. > If nothing else, this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users. If they want to publicize what they have done, fine. By all means, do so. If there are good reasons not to release the modfied code, that's fine with me, too.
- sgroppino 9y agoThey could have sent Dr Tanenbaum MINIX chip #50,000,000 and politely requested he did not make the info public? A small gesture of appreciation I guess?
- chmike 9y agoThis shows the cultural difference between private companies and scientists or open source developers.
- agumonkey 9y agoIs it close to being the most used OS with the IME embedding ? lots of mainstream devices don't use Intel chips... I'm sure A.Tannenbaum is flattered (and duly so, Minix 3 is very interesting) but I'm feeling he's patting himself on the back here.
- jhoechtl 9y agoFor the first time I would have hoped that Prof. Tanenbaum included a backdoor in the MINIX network stack. Now that would be kind of ... cool?
- dhimes 9y agoExactly. When I see something that my friend has found on facebook and I share it, I always acknowledge them for finding it. It's simply intellectual honesty/courtesy. A "thank you" would have been enough. Intel goofed; hopefully they'll make amends. This has nothing to do with legal requirements or financial compensation.
- kbutler 9y agoLearning about something from someone's social media post is completely separate from using someone's copyrighted work... You have a legal and ethical responsibility to the creator of the work, not to whomever put it in your feed. Of course, we should credit our grade school teachers each time we do arithmetic - Thanks, Mrs. Ashliman!
- dhimes 9y agoI'm not sure I follow you here. When a friend shares an article, for example, the article comes as the owner put it on the web- page, author, etc. When I share that article, I say something like "h/t to kbutler for the find" That give credit in my circle to the person in my circle who found it. It's just a courtesy.
- kbutler 9y ago> When I see something that my friend has found on facebook and I share it, I always acknowledge them for finding it. That's suggesting Intel should say, "We're using Minix in our chips - h/t Joe Random who posted about it on Facebook" The courtesy they owe is to Andrew S. Tanenbaum, the /creator/ of the work they are using, not to some individual who happened to blog about it.
- dhimes 9y ago???? I don't even think we're talking about the same thing any more. Prolly should just move on.
- rdslw 9y agoNope. His letter point is clearly about widely(1) known debate(2) between him and Linus Torvalds, and ego massage. (1) widely, if you arent 25 years old proverbial "javascript developer" ;-) - as the debate took place in 1992. (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanenbaum%E2%80%93Torvalds_deb...
- muninn_ 9y agoSpeaking of ego: "if you arent 25 years old proverbial "javascript developer" ;-)" Why is this necessary?
- shawnee_ 9y ago[save]
- simon_o 9y agoWrong thread? Nothing you wrote has any relationship with what GP commented on.
- shawnee_ 9y agoI deleted my OP; here is the relevant piece for people whose reading comprehension skills are as poor as yours: > That being said: I do agree with Tanenbaum that he deserves more acknowledgement for parts of his system inspiring security design around it. There's lot of hype on this subject; I encourage anybody read more than one perspective about the kinds of trade-offs manufacturers have to make: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/is-the-intel-management-engine-a-backdoor/ https://www.techrepublic.com/article/is-the-intel-management... People like you, simon_o, are ruining HN. Thanks for reminding me why I don't really hang out here much any more.
- sctb 9y agoCould you please not be rude to other users here? We're trying to have a civil conversation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- PedroBatista 9y agoPeople inside these big corps tend to have these exploitative mind, even more than in SMBs, because they have a big name to throw around and that opens almost every door.
- lisper 9y agoSo a large corporation does something non-classy. What else is new?
- ryandrake 9y agoThe licensee we're talking about here is a corporation, not a human who feels emotions like gratitude and respect. If he wanted them to be "classy" or "nice," he should have included that as a clause in the software licenses.