QNX "Opens" Source Code

Arista writes "QNX has announced that effective immediately, the company will open the source code to its QNX embedded, RTOS, microkernel operating system. From the press release: "Effective immediately, QNX will make source code for its award-winning, microkernel-based OS available for free download. The first source release includes the code to the QNX Neutrino microkernel, the base C library, and a variety of board support packages for popular embedded and computing hardware." OSNews features an interview with the CEO of QNX, Dan Dodge, on this announcement."

Comments

That's cool

[suso]

These are the guys that released that really cool Desktop GUI + PPP stack + web browser and OS on a single floppy disk back in the 90s. I remember also reading that the Photon GUI would let you pass applications between computers through a dock on the side of the screen. Neat stuff.

Re:That's cool

[hubert.lepicki]

Yes, these guys. But if you read not only the note that showed up on both osnews and slashdot, but the actual interview and if you download the source code - steps that I did - you will get different view ont whole "open source qnix" thing. It's "open source" only for non commercial use - which is not "open source" at all.

Re:That's cool

[TheRaven64]

I've never heard of a successful open source project using dual licensing! From TFA:

We aren't releasing the OS code under an open source license. Dual licensing is fine, but none of them is open source. Also from TFA:

If fact, we're providing three licenses: one for commercial users, one for noncommercial users, and one for QNX technology partners. It's no different from Microsoft's Shared Source. None of the licenses counts as Free Software.

Re:That's cool

[Mr. Slippery]

To many, `open source' simply means the source is available.

"Open source" is a term of art with a very specific meaning.

Anyone in the software field, or any related field, who thinks that "open source simply means the source is available" is dangerously ignorant.

Re:That's cool

[harlows_monkeys]

It's no different from Microsoft's Shared Source. None of the licenses counts as Free Software.

Huh? One of Microsoft's Shared Source licenses (The Permissive License) satisfies every one of the conditions RMS gives for Free Software (and every condition given by OSI for Open Source).

Re:That's cool

[Hal_Porter]

It's not FUD. If they released QNX under the GPL3 they'd have allow people to pass on copies for free. So one person could buy a copy of QNX, set up a CVS server and then fork it as FreeQNX. So then potential users can then choose between paying QNX for software or downloading it for free from the FreeQNX server. What effect would that have on the price QNX can charge? Oh and they have to license their patents in a non discriminatory way too, so if they license the patents to the one person who pays, they need to license them to all the freeloaders too.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html

Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.

These two things together make the GPL3 suicide for them.

Actually his objections to the GPL in an embedded world are exactly what I've been saying for ages. Especially this one -

To enable these activities, QNX intends to publish all of its runtime component source code (some source code wont be published immediately because of third-party licensing or confiden-tiality restrictions)

They can't open the source code completely, because they don't own all the rights.

And this too actually -

Technology companies implement their fundamental business strategies through licensing their intellectual property. It is a subtle task. If a company gives too much away through overly generous grants of copyrights or patents, then its competitors and customers get a "free ride" on its products; the company loses its incentive to invest in research and development.

If they followed the GPL, they don't get that return - anyone can take the software QNX paid to develop and use it for free. This is the situation that IP laws like copyrights and patents were invented to prevent - the idea is that you can invest money creating software and then license it to people because you know the law stops people who haven't paid from using it. If the software was public domain or GPLd, you can't do that - once people have the software they don't need you anymore and can decide not to pay.

You can say IP is a bad concept all you like, but it exists for a reason. In fact it exists so companies like QNX can exist.

Re:Under what license

[betterunixthanunix]

TFA:

" under a new hybrid software licensing arrangement. "

And:

" Access to QNX source code is free, but commercial deployments of QNX Neutrino runtime components still require royalties, and commercial developers will continue to pay for QNX Momentics® development seats. "

(Hint: It's definitely not GPL)

Source Available, NOT Open Source

[Russ Nelson]

Sheesh, this is no better than Microsoft's "Shared Source"! They restrict commercial development, just like Microsoft.

This is Source Available software, NOT Open Source Software. You don't have all the freedoms available to you that are described by the Open Source Definition.

It's "shared", not "opened".

[darkonc]

Don't drink the PR Cool-Aid(tm) boys. Distinguish this PR hype from reality and call it what it really is -- "Shared Source". It's not Open Source(tm), and it's not "Free".

You need licenses to do things like release your own version, and that puts it in the same ballpark as Microsoft's shared source initiative.

Not a surprise

[gnalre]

This is not a surprise really. VxWorks the other big embedded OS opened it source a couple of years ago. This was not long after listening to the CEO of Vxworks telling us the vxworks source code was the crown jewels. Well some crown jewels that was.

The truth is all embedded OS have been forced to do this by the rise of linux in the embedded world. Also believe me the difference is huge when you have the source. Wierd behavior and unexplained bugs suddenly become transparent when you can dig into the source. In the end though it doesn't really hurt the vendor since you still pay them for support and development tools.

Re:Calling the kettle black?

[Curtman]

but that doesn't have quite the marketing value that "Free Software" does.

That would be a good thing. "Free Software" still has a stigma associated with "shareware" and other useless crap. Whenever you mention free software to people not familiar with it, it immediately puts you on the defensive about its quality. Most people seem to glaze over when having the free as in freedom discussion. Open source may mean a different thing, but people respond to it much better than free software.