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

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.