4 ms·

Sounds like he's blaming Tanebaum for choosing a liberal licence. The same licence that allows millions to freely download and mess with Minix. He's criticisin

by s_dev 9y ago

Sounds like he's blaming Tanebaum for choosing a liberal licence. The same licence that allows millions to freely download and mess with Minix. He's criticising Minix for exactly the reason he cites Minix being great -- it's open and free. If someone wishes to use FOSS for negative purposes -- it certainly isn't within the FOSS community to stop them.

bachmeier 9y ago
"Sounds like he's blaming Tanebaum for choosing a liberal licence. The same licence that allows millions to freely download and mess with Minix." The first sentence doesn't have much to do with the second. You can use a free license that doesn't allow Intel to do what they have done. "If someone wishes to use FOSS for negative purposes -- it certainly isn't within the FOSS community to stop them." That's an odd statement. If I write software, I can do whatever I want with it. If I want to prevent something I view as evil or want to prevent corporate freeloading, that's not for the "FOSS community" to decide.
- AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
  Intel used gasoline to drive cars. Intel used Brother copy machines. Intel used Tyson chicken to feed their engineers. Go complain to Conoco or Brother or Tyson. Intel used sand that God created in their Silicone wafers. Blame it on God.
- votepaunchy 9y ago
  > You can use a free license that doesn't allow Intel to do what they have done. Would Linux's GPLv2 have prevented this circumstance? The kernel community has refused to adopt GPLv3 which would have prevented any "tivoization" [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Version_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Ver...
  - bachmeier 9y ago
    It wouldn't. But that's not the only alternative. I was responding to the claim that the ability of others "to freely download and mess with Minix" requires a license that lets Intel do what it did. That claim is incorrect.

by s_dev 9y ago

bachmeier 9y ago

"Sounds like he's blaming Tanebaum for choosing a liberal licence. The same licence that allows millions to freely download and mess with Minix." The first sentence doesn't have much to do with the second. You can use a free license that doesn't allow Intel to do what they have done. "If someone wishes to use FOSS for negative purposes -- it certainly isn't within the FOSS community to stop them." That's an odd statement. If I write software, I can do whatever I want with it. If I want to prevent something I view as evil or want to prevent corporate freeloading, that's not for the "FOSS community" to decide.

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
Intel used gasoline to drive cars. Intel used Brother copy machines. Intel used Tyson chicken to feed their engineers. Go complain to Conoco or Brother or Tyson. Intel used sand that God created in their Silicone wafers. Blame it on God.
votepaunchy 9y ago
> You can use a free license that doesn't allow Intel to do what they have done. Would Linux's GPLv2 have prevented this circumstance? The kernel community has refused to adopt GPLv3 which would have prevented any "tivoization" [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Version_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Ver...
- bachmeier 9y ago
  It wouldn't. But that's not the only alternative. I was responding to the claim that the ability of others "to freely download and mess with Minix" requires a license that lets Intel do what it did. That claim is incorrect.