4 ms·

> Now, if QNX is serious about this, the way to go is to use the licensing model Epic uses for Unreal Engine. Unreal Engine is behind most AAA game titles. The

> Now, if QNX is serious about this, the way to go is to use the licensing model Epic uses for Unreal Engine. Unreal Engine is behind most AAA game titles. The basic terms are that you can download the source and use it for anything you want, and there's no charge until you get the first $1 million in revenue from your product. Then Epic takes a 5% royalty.[2] This has been extremely successful for Epic. There's not much of a piracy problem, because if your game gets enough revenue to matter, it has enough visibility that their licensing people will notice. Meanwhile, there's a large pool of people using Unreal Engine. One option: Dual-license as GPLv3 (the 3 is important!) or commercial license. Hobbyists and FOSS projects will be quite happy to use a GPLv3 OS. The big commercial users - traditionally cars and other embedded uses - will not want to be legally obligated to give users the ability to install custom firmware (which GPLv3 basically requires), so they'll still pay for it. Everyone wins. (IANAL, this is not legal advice, interpret licenses yourself.)

dystnitem4r3 2y ago
Even more critically, dual-license commercial and AGPLv3 to avoid the AWS loophole (hosted services or source modifications without licensing it commercial.) AGPLv3 is perfect for kernel and userspace tools because, while it doesn't guarantee licensing revenues, as soon as they do anything to modify it they have to release those changes to ANY users of the system, whether downstream distributors or simply users of the network services they provide. Since they have to provide any IP/patents they used to do it under copyleft terms, QNX would get publicly visible benefits, albeit with changes that might not be useful under the commercial license without negotiating a CLA with the modifying party, but under the commercial license you could negotiate terms/a discount to trade their new code for a reduction in their cost of licensing. It's a win/win from either an open source PR or a behind the scenes commercial negotiation point. Obviously your lawyers, bean counters, and C-suite have to get onboard, but if you are serious about growing QNX's marketshare now that Linux is gaining real-time kernel support in mainline, you had better point out to your bosses they need to make the decision quick and stick to it, or there won't be a next time. Edit: Adjustments made to clarify my position and suggestion.
- winocm 2y ago
  My honest opinion is that the prevalence of licenses like GPLv3 and AGPLv3 end up indirectly leading to people recreating the wheel, rather than using the wheel that exists already.
  - talldayo 2y ago
    I think wheel-reinvention is the perfect punishment for people that want to be stingy with their wheel development. Copyleft infringement deserves no more empathy than copyright infringement.
  - karmakaze 2y ago
    Working as intended. If they don't want to share, then they can't benefit.
    - winocm 2y ago
      It's not so much that as there is the net-negative side effect of having people redo the same work over and over again at their day job or whatever. It horrifies me when I think about the number of hours of people's lives wasted on things like that. It applies to both sides of the argument, with organizations keeping things to themselves or others avoiding codebases for the inverse reason.
      - fjkdlsjflkds 2y ago
        > It's not so much that as there is the net-negative side effect of having people redo the same work over and over again at their day job or whatever. It horrifies me when I think about the number of hours of people's lives wasted on things like that. Given that this issue applies to all proprietary/non-opensource software, which is the overwhelming majority of software out there, you can hardly blame GPL3 for this fact of life.
      - Brian_K_White 2y ago
        But who cares if someone chooses to redo work they didn't have to? I don't care about that at all. Self inflicted wound. They presumably can salve that horrible wound with all the money they get (not make or earn, just get) from their chosen modus operundi.
adev_ 2y ago
> The big commercial users - traditionally cars and other embedded uses - will not want to be legally obligated to give users the ability to install custom firmware (which GPLv3 basically requires), so they'll still pay for it. Everyone wins. Yes. And it is even more than that. Blackberry could have a general QNX verison under AGPLv3 and keep the "safety certified" version proprietary and they would not loose a single customer. What the automotive world, robotic world and others are paying for is not standalone QNX... it is the safety-critical certified version of QNX. It is easy to understand: Making an RTOS is easy. Making an RTOS (and a compiler) ASIL-D ISO-26262 certified is a freaking nightmare. And this is why companies are paying for QNX. Opening the QNX source code under GPL would increase significantly the number of software ported on QNX and consequently the adoption of QNX. Unfortunately, Blackberry is way too stupid to do it: It is not in their culture. That is very unlikely to happen.
tzs 2y ago
> One option: Dual-license as GPLv3 (the 3 is important!) or commercial license. Hobbyists and FOSS projects will be quite happy to use a GPLv3 OS. The big commercial users - traditionally cars and other embedded uses - will not want to be legally obligated to give users the ability to install custom firmware (which GPLv3 basically requires), so they'll still pay for it. Everyone wins. GPLv3's protection against locked systems isn't as strong as people often think it is. In the case of cars at some point the makers are going to realize that instead of including firmware with all the features the car can support they can switch to shipping the car with a more basic firmware that just has built in support for basic car features and has an app store. They can then put all the other features in apps that you have to buy (or subscribe to). If that basic firmware is locked down so it can't be replaced by the user then they do indeed after avoid using GPLv3 for any code in that firmware. The GPLv3 provisions about locking thing down do not apply to apps downloaded from an app store. They designed those previsions to stop what Tivo was doing, which was ship with a locked down operating system, and they wrote fairly narrow terms that don't cover much outside that case. In particular, they apply when you convey object code of a GPLv3 work in, with, or specifically for use in a "User Product" and that conveyance is part of a transaction "in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term". I.e., sell (or rent or lease etc) hardware that includes GPLv3 code and you have to provide a way to replace that code with modified versions. Sell (or rent etc) GPLv3 programs separately from hardware and then GPLv3 is neutral on locking it down.
anticensor 2y ago
Even better, GPLv1+TiVO clause AND commercial (i.e. you don't choose, but both terms simultaneously apply).

dystnitem4r3 2y ago

Even more critically, dual-license commercial and AGPLv3 to avoid the AWS loophole (hosted services or source modifications without licensing it commercial.) AGPLv3 is perfect for kernel and userspace tools because, while it doesn't guarantee licensing revenues, as soon as they do anything to modify it they have to release those changes to ANY users of the system, whether downstream distributors or simply users of the network services they provide. Since they have to provide any IP/patents they used to do it under copyleft terms, QNX would get publicly visible benefits, albeit with changes that might not be useful under the commercial license without negotiating a CLA with the modifying party, but under the commercial license you could negotiate terms/a discount to trade their new code for a reduction in their cost of licensing. It's a win/win from either an open source PR or a behind the scenes commercial negotiation point. Obviously your lawyers, bean counters, and C-suite have to get onboard, but if you are serious about growing QNX's marketshare now that Linux is gaining real-time kernel support in mainline, you had better point out to your bosses they need to make the decision quick and stick to it, or there won't be a next time. Edit: Adjustments made to clarify my position and suggestion.

winocm 2y ago
My honest opinion is that the prevalence of licenses like GPLv3 and AGPLv3 end up indirectly leading to people recreating the wheel, rather than using the wheel that exists already.
- talldayo 2y ago
  I think wheel-reinvention is the perfect punishment for people that want to be stingy with their wheel development. Copyleft infringement deserves no more empathy than copyright infringement.
- karmakaze 2y ago
  Working as intended. If they don't want to share, then they can't benefit.
  - winocm 2y ago
    It's not so much that as there is the net-negative side effect of having people redo the same work over and over again at their day job or whatever. It horrifies me when I think about the number of hours of people's lives wasted on things like that. It applies to both sides of the argument, with organizations keeping things to themselves or others avoiding codebases for the inverse reason.
    - fjkdlsjflkds 2y ago
      > It's not so much that as there is the net-negative side effect of having people redo the same work over and over again at their day job or whatever. It horrifies me when I think about the number of hours of people's lives wasted on things like that. Given that this issue applies to all proprietary/non-opensource software, which is the overwhelming majority of software out there, you can hardly blame GPL3 for this fact of life.
    - Brian_K_White 2y ago
      But who cares if someone chooses to redo work they didn't have to? I don't care about that at all. Self inflicted wound. They presumably can salve that horrible wound with all the money they get (not make or earn, just get) from their chosen modus operundi.

adev_ 2y ago

> The big commercial users - traditionally cars and other embedded uses - will not want to be legally obligated to give users the ability to install custom firmware (which GPLv3 basically requires), so they'll still pay for it. Everyone wins. Yes. And it is even more than that. Blackberry could have a general QNX verison under AGPLv3 and keep the "safety certified" version proprietary and they would not loose a single customer. What the automotive world, robotic world and others are paying for is not standalone QNX... it is the safety-critical certified version of QNX. It is easy to understand: Making an RTOS is easy. Making an RTOS (and a compiler) ASIL-D ISO-26262 certified is a freaking nightmare. And this is why companies are paying for QNX. Opening the QNX source code under GPL would increase significantly the number of software ported on QNX and consequently the adoption of QNX. Unfortunately, Blackberry is way too stupid to do it: It is not in their culture. That is very unlikely to happen.

tzs 2y ago

> One option: Dual-license as GPLv3 (the 3 is important!) or commercial license. Hobbyists and FOSS projects will be quite happy to use a GPLv3 OS. The big commercial users - traditionally cars and other embedded uses - will not want to be legally obligated to give users the ability to install custom firmware (which GPLv3 basically requires), so they'll still pay for it. Everyone wins. GPLv3's protection against locked systems isn't as strong as people often think it is. In the case of cars at some point the makers are going to realize that instead of including firmware with all the features the car can support they can switch to shipping the car with a more basic firmware that just has built in support for basic car features and has an app store. They can then put all the other features in apps that you have to buy (or subscribe to). If that basic firmware is locked down so it can't be replaced by the user then they do indeed after avoid using GPLv3 for any code in that firmware. The GPLv3 provisions about locking thing down do not apply to apps downloaded from an app store. They designed those previsions to stop what Tivo was doing, which was ship with a locked down operating system, and they wrote fairly narrow terms that don't cover much outside that case. In particular, they apply when you convey object code of a GPLv3 work in, with, or specifically for use in a "User Product" and that conveyance is part of a transaction "in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term". I.e., sell (or rent or lease etc) hardware that includes GPLv3 code and you have to provide a way to replace that code with modified versions. Sell (or rent etc) GPLv3 programs separately from hardware and then GPLv3 is neutral on locking it down.

anticensor 2y ago

Even better, GPLv1+TiVO clause AND commercial (i.e. you don't choose, but both terms simultaneously apply).