Slashdot Mirror
Minix Now Under BSD License
Minix is now Free Software! Andrew Tanenbaum posted to the comp.os.minix newsgroup yesterday announcing: "Better late than never. I finally got permission from Prentice Hall to change the MINIX license to the BSD license. The lawyers sort of sat on this for two years." You can read the full posting on deja, as well.
I really enjoyed reading the Tanenbaum vs. Torvalds debate in the back of Open Sources. As much as many of A.T.'s arguments seem short-sighted in retrospect, he had several very good points about Linux (e.g. it was not portable, it could not deal with externally maintained extensions, and other things that had to be fixed in the 2.0 and later series). I think it will be well worth the community's time to re-read the Minix source and figure out if there's any more lessons to be learned, and/or incorporate the features that make sense.
Question, though: does Minix still have a future as a teaching tool, or do OSes like Linux and *BSD make it obsolete? I would certianly like to see a good textbook that teaches OS design, using the source to a modern OS as examples....
Minix is Linux's daddy, and is is finally available under a Good license. I haven't seen any "too little too late!" comments, which is good, because it's not too little too late. Minix runs on the 80[2]86 whereas Linux still doesn't AFAIK (ELKS doesn't seem too far along as of yet). Perhaps we will see an increase in Minix activity now that it's BSD licensed.
Although I do think this whole thing is funny, perhaps Linus will post a "MINIX is obsolete!" comment on the comp.os.minix newsgroup, that would be priceless! =)
v2sw7CUPhw5ln6pr5Pck4ma7u7LFw0m6g/l7Di5e6t5Ab6TH.
Did you even read the post? It answers all of your questions:
MINIX is much smaller than Linux and might well be suitable as the operating system for a watch, camera, or transistor radio. The manufacturer of, say, a watch might really not want to provide a CD-ROM with the source code with each watch or even a web site with the source code, as being too much trouble. The new MINIX license says you can distribute source if you want to, but you don't have to.
So, that's what it's good for, and that's why he didn't pick the GPL. 'Nuff said.
Who would have though it would end like this :)
I'll respect this guy's choice of a BSD-like license over the GPL. But the reason he chose it shows an obvious lack of understanding of the GPL.
For those who haven't read the post, he believes that a person releasing something under the GPL must include the source code with every copy. Since Minix is intended for embedded purposes, he figures companies would have to include the source with the device (rather impractical for a wristwatch).
What he doesn't get is that you do not have to include the source code with the binaries. All the GPL says is that if anyone wants the source, you have to make it available for no more than the cost of actually getting the source to them. Since distributing the source over the Net is basically free, authors have almost always distributed the source with the app, but that's not the only way to do it. An embedded device maker could, for example, include a mail-in card for a source CD with the device, for the cost of shipping and handling. A neat, tidy way for people who want the source to get it, without having to include the source with every single device. This is not unlike the way it was done before the Net took off.
This guy's the author of Minix, and he can put it under any license he wants, I suppose. But he could at least have based his choice off of informed reasoning. If the trouble of including a CD-ROM with a wristwatch was the only concern, then there was no reason at all to choose BSD over GPL (or vice-versa).
right here
when Push Comes to Shove
OK. To all the complainers that it isn't GPL'ed: Anything that is (non advertising) BSD can be incorporated into GPL. In other words, GPL provides a subset of the freedoms provided by BSD.
Now, follow my directions. 1. Draw a big circle. 2. Label it "BSD". 3. Draw a little circle inside the big circle. 4. Label it GPL. 5. Draw another little circle inside the big circle, but be very careful to make sure that it doesn't touch the other little circle. 6. Label the second little circle "closed source".
Now, what have we learned from this little exercise? We learned that BSD is a big circle that encompasses both free and proprietary software. It's a rising tide that lifts all boats, not a whirlpool that sucks them down.
Let's sing a little song: "Now I know my BSD's, won't you come and play with me..."
Got it kiddies? Good. Now it's nap time.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
A device made out of individual transistors and capable of running MINIX would be... interesting, to say the least.
Actually, you cannot release BSD code under the GPL. The GPL specifically prohibits this.
Actually I did read the article... and he says it might be suitable for small devices. Allow me to quote the Andrew Tanenbaum, "It is simply focused on the target area it was always focused on: education." http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/ast_home_page/faq.htm. Linux and the BSDs have never really been in competition with Minix because of the goal to keep it simple.
Normally I hate feeding trolls, but this guy could have fooled someone who new nothing about Minix
treke
Why is this flame bait at +4?
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
It is really wonderful to see a major project released under the BSD license instead of the GPL or a home-rolled license. Publicitly like that will only help the BSD crowd and having more code under the BSD license is just grand. And of course, it is nice to see someone realizing that the BSD license is absolutely perfect for the majority of projects. The GPL only causes problems with minor projects.
Also, I think a reason (though I didn't see it listed) to use a BSD license is the fact a lot of the utilities in Minix have really old BSD copyrights in them. They probably were derived from some ancient BSD tapes and cannot be put under the GPL. (Yes, I am aware of UCB's pulling of the advertising clause but you would have to get every person who contributed to that code in Minix to agree to pulling the advertising clause from the forked Minix version. Even if one person said no, it can never be GPL'd.)
I found the following in a reply of Linus in the AT-LT discussion:
:-)
If you write programs for linux today, you shouldn't have too many surprises when you just recompile them for Hurd in the 21st century.
So, where is the HURD??
FreeBSD really rocks,
But only Intel / Alpha box.
The 'Net' one runs on so much more.
The 'Open' one is more secure.
Now I know my BSD's. Won't you come and play with me?
__________
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
You know what?! Someone should take the Minix code and add a bunch of stuff to it, like virtual memory and increased driver support. In a few years, you might even have a new operating system that would take the world by storm.
------------
a funny comment: 1 karma
an insightful comment: 1 karma
a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
--
The original BSD license with it's, as the FSF puts it, "obnoxious BSD advertising clause" is incompatible with GPL. The modified BSD license, which is almost certainly the license being here, is fully compatible with GPL. The FSF states this specifically.
--
This space unintentionally left unblank.
"Be thankful you are not my student. You would not get a high grade for such a design :-)"
8-]
<http://www.deja.com/[S T_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=607967341&fmt=text>.
--
Man, it's so much trouble to put your patches on a website nowadays ... I mean, it's not like my 10 year old cousin could make her own webpage on Geocitites ... oh wait a minute, she has ... nevermind.
Just a quick note before I start, it's interesting how only one person who is accusing me of trolling isn't an AC. Makes me wonder who should be accusing whom.
No, that post isn't a troll. Or at least, it wasn't intended as such. And I stick by my claims. The author does state that maintaining a Website with the source would be "too much trouble." Right. Consider: embedded devices tend to be static in nature. There isn't much in the way of upgradability, particularly not in terms of the operating system. This means that things like CVS aren't that necessary; the OS as used by the company isn't going to change much if at all.
Oh, and then there's CD-ROM distribution. How difficult is it to burn a CD with source on it? Not very hard at all, actually, seeing as you're only including the source for one thing (when you're including the source to many things, as is done with a Linux distro, that's another subject). Plus, there's this little thing called volume. This is not Linux we're talking about. Who's going to want the source for the OS on a wristwatch? Some will, certainly, but I'd be shocked if any company taking this route got more than five orders a month for source CD's, if that many. Is five CD's a month any kind of a burden? The costs alone are lower than the margin of error in the account books of many corporations. I'll grant that distributing a CD with every device would be troublesome indeed. But that's not what we're talking about anyway.
I didn't intend to troll (sorry to disappoint the trolls out there; I have no intention of joining your ranks), and if anyone was offended by this post then I'm sorry you feel that way. I had no intention of offending anyone. But I do stick by my claims.
There is a very interesting FAQ written by Andrew Tanenbaum on Tanenbaum's site. Amongst other answers and questions, I found this ones:
What do you think of Linux?
I have never used it. People tell me that if you like lots of bells and whistles, it is a nice system. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Linus for producing it. Before there was Linux there was MINIX, which had a 40,000-person newsgroup, most of whom were sending me email every day. I was going crazy with the endless stream of new features people were sending me. I kept refusing them all because I wanted to keep MINIX small enough for my students to understand in one semester. My consistent refusal to add all these new features is what inspired Linus to write Linux. Both of us are now happy with the results. The only person who is perhaps not so happy is Bill Gates.
What's wrong with LaTeX?
Nothing, but real authors use troff.
What do you think of MS-DOS?
It is better than Windows. At least it has a command line interface, albeit a pretty feeble one.
Ehm... I guess Tanenbaum likes simplicity a bit too much. I mean, he is convinced that a GUI can not make any improvement at all. For example, I use Lyx for making my thesis and I am convinced it is able to produce real quality material. Yes, it's a graphical WYSIWYM frontend to LaTeX. How can anyone be convinced Lyx isn't good because of that?
I would certianly like to see a good textbook that teaches OS design, using the source to a modern OS as examples.
... but it is very implementation oriented. It also compares the implementations of modern Unixes like Solaris and BSD. A great read!
Check out "Unix Internals: The New Frontiers". It covers all the typical OS textbook topics: VM, filesystems, IPC,
cpeterso
WE DO NOT WANT YOUR COMMERCIAL SHIT. And yes we include BSD in this because it can be used in commercial software.
You say non-copyleft licenses suck. You're reading this on a text browser, right? Mac OS is proprietary buyware. Windows 9x is proprietary buyware. BeOS Personal is freebeerware but still proprietary. X Window System is X11-style free software, and so is BSD. So you're reading Slashdot on GNU/Linux with the Lynx or w3m browser, right?
If you want it to be GNU GPL, then just make a couple changes and fork off your own distro. That has been OK since June 1999, when Berkeley finally removed the advertising clause from the BSD license.
And there is commercial free software: just look at boxed distributions (e.g. Red Hat Linux) of primarily GNU GPL software.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The license is quoted in full at the Deja archive. The advertising clause afflicted only the "old" BSD license, the language is included in the notice which rescinded this clause.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Scope out Kuro5hin
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
http://charged.net/tim/venn-bsd2.gif
While having a useful teaching tool is a laudable goal, there's no reason why the project couldn't fork, with one version of the kernel being a simple, understandable kernel, and the other serving as the basis for more complex (and presumably useful) designs.
Both the BSD and GPL licenses make forking possible. What the GPL does is ensure that, to the extent anyone wishes to do so, there are no legal embarrments to merging forks down the road. If a full-featured Minix (Maxix?) were to implement some trick-cool concept, that feature and it alone, could be merged back into Minix.
While fork/remerge is possible with BSD code which remains BSD licensed, proprietized development based on BSD code cannot be remerged back to the original core without explicit permission of the new copyright holder.
IMO Tanenbaum's probably too little, too late, though it would be interesting to see what shows up under system software at SourceForge over the next few months....
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Scope out Kuro5hin
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
I noted that the Minix license, as quoted, does not include the advertising clause. What part of this do you not understand?
I referred to the change notice posted by UC Berkeley because I couldn't find a copy of the full text of the earlier version of the BSD license. However, it is the same clause 3 which effects the advertising clause. You'll note (if you bother to follow the two thoughtfully provided links) that this clause three isn't present in the Minix license.
Minix was never issued under the prior version of the BSD license, so no, the change notice doesn't affect Minix. You appear to be confused on this point.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Scope out Kuro5hin
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
Yea, but then you miss a lot of the good posts from ACs who have a good point. A lot of the pro MS stuff gets posted by ACs and /. moderators rarely bother to mark them up. Thats why I keep saying that slashdot needs to retool its moderation system a bit.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Does anybody bother to read the entire post anymore? I had a few questions. That might deserve an offtopic (fine if you don't want to answer my question) but I doubt it deserves a flamebait. Or were you just reading the first two lines?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Does it really matter anymore if newer Linux distros no longer run well on old 386's? Maybe for what most of the 386's and low end 486's are being used for these days the single floppy sort of distros are more suitable?
As cheap as hardware is today, if you were designing say, an embeded device or handheld, would you start with anything less than a 486 core? I don't think there is much of any technical or financial reason to do so anymore. If you are designing something from scratch and don't need x86 compatibility, there are other processors that probably make more sense from the standpoints of cost, power consumption and heat generation anyway.
For home experimentation and dedicated purpose uses these days when you can get about as many 486's as you can haul away for FREE (as in beer) these days, why would anyone care about 386's, let alone 286's? A Turbo XT is more suitable as a museum piece than anything that anyone would want to use.
I know from experience because I've got stacks of 486's in my basement that people were happy to have me haul away for them.
Minix may have been interesting back when hardware was expensive, but it just doesn't seem that relevant anymore. The question is basically whether the low end you are talking about even exists anymore. Even in 1998, I just don't see how Minix would have been that much of a breakthrough. I think its day was more towards the early 90's, and for anything other than a tool for OS kernel design it looks to me like its day has been past for a long time.
Why don't you pour a bowl of hot minix down your I/O channels instead? :-)
Maybe things are different in Germany, but over here in the US, you can get as many 486's as you want for free. They typically have from 8 to 32M of RAM and have hard drives from 120-540M. Sometimes you even do a little better than that. I got a Pentium 60 for free not that long ago.
The point being, that if hardware good enough to run Linux is available for free or nearly so, why run Minix instead of Linux? If a 386SX with 2M of RAM and a 40M hard drive makes your day, wouldn't a 486DX2-66 with 24M, a 540M HD, a 3x SCSI CD-ROM drive and a 14" SVGA monitor (an example of an actual machine I got for free the other day -- all I had to do was add a keyboard and mouse) make it a lot better?
You've still missed the point. Minix isn't released with the advertising clause. That, my dear sir, is the point.
Feh!
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Scope out Kuro5hin
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?