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

They're being demolished by linux

[xtal]

I've done a few embedded linux projects over the years - we would have loved to run QNX, as I was exposed to it in university and enjoyed it, very robust, supported etc - but the licensing fees are killer. The offered advantages, at least in the applications we've worked in make it a no brainer to go embedded linux.


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.

Looks like I'll be keeping my investment in embedded linux environments. Royalty vs. no royalty with same functionality, I'll tell you who wins every time. Linux keeps getting better, too.

Re:That's cool

[Hal_Porter]

And it's not possible that people disagree with your definition and use "open source" to mean "the source code is open"?

Re:That's cool

[dougmc]

"Open source" is a term of art with a very specific meaning That's one definition. Here is another. `Of or relating to source code that is available to the public'.

People redefining words to fit their agenda (for good or bad) is nothing new. And like it or not, the English language is ambiguous, and one word or phrase may mean different things to different people. And just because they use a definition that doesn't jive with the one you prefer, that doesn't mean they're `wrong'.

Anyone in the software field, or any related field, who thinks that "open source simply means the source is available" is dangerously ignorant. Anyone who speaks English but honestly thinks that words or phrases can only have one meaning is either 1) in denial or 2) doesn't really speak English.

Re:That's cool

[porkThreeWays]

Insightful? I was trying to be funny... =( I guess I'm gonna have to go back to prop comedy.

Re:That's cool

[Mr. Slippery]

That's one definition. Here is another. `Of or relating to source code that is available to the public'.

And the American Heritage dictionary is supposed to be authoritative about software development and licensing?

Look up "trusted" in a dictionary and you won't find mention of the Orange Book or Common Criteria, but you'd better understand their definitions if you're going to talk about "trust" in a computer system.

Yes, natural language is ambiguous; one of the ways ambiguity is resolved is via context. "Work" means one thing when I'm talking about my paycheck, another if I'm talking about physics. If I said I get paid for my work on such-and-such-project and you asked how much force I exerted over what distance, you'd either be joking or you'd be dangerously confused.

"Open source", in the context of software development and licensing, is ambiguous only as a convenience for those who wish to create confusion and either sabotage, or ride the coat-tails of, the Open Source movement.