3 ms·

This is just like tannenbaum getting mad nobody credited him for the intel management engine (which he feels makes him the posthumous victor in the Linux/minix

by paulmd 3y ago

This is just like tannenbaum getting mad nobody credited him for the intel management engine (which he feels makes him the posthumous victor in the Linux/minix debates). Bro, you shouldn’t have chosen a non-attribution license, if you wanted to be attributed. Just like Tannenbaum, if you wanted your ego stroked, that’s attribution in this context.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
Er. Minix is under a BSD license, which does require attribution. Also my distant memory is that Tannenbaum wasn't even mad about Intel not actually fulfilling the terms of the license, but I may be misremembering.
- paulmd 3y ago
  Can you demonstrate that there is not an attribution in the Intel Management Engine documentation? ;) Sneaky or not, that's the license Tanenbaum chose, and he has to live with it. Same deal here. Anyway no, tanenbaum isn't mad, per-se, or at least not at intel. He's sniping back at Linus Kernel (remember the Torvalds-Tanenbaum debates? it was a thing) about how he was right after all about minix being the most-widely used OS in the world. It's not anger, it's gloating - it's not even really a letter that's meant for Intel at all. https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/ https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/ And again, that is the point of the entire BSD/MIT vs GPL debate - which went completely over Tanenbaum's head. BSD/MIT provides maximum freedom to the developer... sometimes including the freedom to deny freedoms to the user. He is critiquing Intel (obliquely) for doing the specific thing that makes this license desirable to these customers, and the specific thing Torvalds argued against. Like it's a gloat, but about how his OS is more popular, but it also backhandedly shows why Linus Kernel was right. And the same is true here. Want attribution? Choose a license that requires it.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    Yeah, I know they have attribution now, but I was fairly confident that they added that because someone called them out on shipping it without attribution before.

by paulmd 3y ago

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

Er. Minix is under a BSD license, which does require attribution. Also my distant memory is that Tannenbaum wasn't even mad about Intel not actually fulfilling the terms of the license, but I may be misremembering.

paulmd 3y ago
Can you demonstrate that there is not an attribution in the Intel Management Engine documentation? ;) Sneaky or not, that's the license Tanenbaum chose, and he has to live with it. Same deal here. Anyway no, tanenbaum isn't mad, per-se, or at least not at intel. He's sniping back at Linus Kernel (remember the Torvalds-Tanenbaum debates? it was a thing) about how he was right after all about minix being the most-widely used OS in the world. It's not anger, it's gloating - it's not even really a letter that's meant for Intel at all. https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/ https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/ And again, that is the point of the entire BSD/MIT vs GPL debate - which went completely over Tanenbaum's head. BSD/MIT provides maximum freedom to the developer... sometimes including the freedom to deny freedoms to the user. He is critiquing Intel (obliquely) for doing the specific thing that makes this license desirable to these customers, and the specific thing Torvalds argued against. Like it's a gloat, but about how his OS is more popular, but it also backhandedly shows why Linus Kernel was right. And the same is true here. Want attribution? Choose a license that requires it.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  Yeah, I know they have attribution now, but I was fairly confident that they added that because someone called them out on shipping it without attribution before.