More often than not, the question arises on OSNews why certain projects or pieces of abandonware aren't released as open source software. Supposedly, this would speed up development, facilitate the growth of a community, all that jazz associated with open source development. Here are four projects I'd like to see released under a MIT license.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-13
QNX is making strides to be really open source, and i gets a little more released every month or so, i think most recently was their network stack (which is just great). But yes. i have a QNX box that i use as a desktop os when i dont want anyone else i know to be able to use my computer (due to fear of a new environment). 6.4 is shaping up nicely btw.
Member since:2007-03-14
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
I'd toss in a vote for OS/2. It's one of those Operating Systems that "holds a special place in my heart" due to the superiority of the technology under OS/2 compared to MS-DOS and MS Windows 3.x/9x.
If you don't happen to know much about OS/2, you should read a bit of history about the Operating System. It's quite interesting. http://pages.prodigy.net/michaln/history
Member since:2006-02-11
Member since:2005-07-06
You're right and I was aware of that. There is also the issue of OS/2 having been taken over by Serenity Systems International (eComStation) which further reduces the possibility of it being open sourced.
EDIT: Fixed minor typographical error.
Edited 2008-05-23 00:36 UTC
Member since:2007-03-29
Member since:2006-01-01
Member since:2005-07-12
According to postings from Mensys folks on the eCS technical mailing lists, work is still continuing on the pending eCS 2.0 release.
I don't think Serenity or Mensys has that much (if any) source from IBM, anyway -- eCS has historically been a repackaging of IBM's original OS/2 client/server binaries with some subsystems being replaced, not directly modified. Kernel patches and such were still being done by IBM folks like S.G. AFAIK...
Member since:2006-10-10
Member since:
2008-04-10
Member since:2005-07-06
Meh, the only really good thing about IRIX is actually the GUI; the rest of it is pretty so-so when compared to other UNIX's. As for OpenStep, its too long in the tooth to be useful, but then again, given webkit is out there, it would be great. As for VMS, as much as I would love to see it, the problem is that most of (infact all of) its reputation came from the hardware it ran on. If you moved it to something else (because that is what open sourcing would allow), alot of the benefits would evapourate.
Member since:2006-08-26
Actually VMS has been ported to Alpha and is now running on Itanium. (It's called OpenVMS). The hardware is a non-issue, especially after the Alpha port around 6.1/6.2. There is very little about the Alpha hardware of 15 years ago that isn't as good or better in todays x86 hardware. It could easily be ported to x86-64 (as it has now been already ported to 2 64 bit architectures).
Currently, the last VAX version of OpenVMS is 7.2 and the current Alpha/Itanium version is 8.3
Member since:2007-10-11
I agree. Most of all I would like open-source VMS and I would place OS/2 to the second place. Why? Because I am already fed up with UNIX variants. What special differences between BSD, Solaris, Linux? You'll need a microscope to find them. And also a do not like UNIX at all (don't know, why).
Member since:2006-09-27
Member since:2006-01-01
Member since:2005-07-22
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-01
Openstep is pretty much what MacOS X evolved from. So I think you're right about non opensorcedness!
IRIX and AIX would be interesting, I guess.
VMS was a peculiar little folley I had at University. The file system versioning rocked.
Member since:2007-04-13
For VMS you can see:
http://www.freevms.org/
Member since:2005-08-29
True, very true.
They won't do it because there's no money to be made from it; only money to lose by devoting resources with no potential profit gain.
This is the way business works: by the profit to be gained.
Member since:
2007-12-02
Member since:
2005-07-06
the latter might prove to be rather problematic since only three were built
I believe you mean three different models which incidently doesn't fit much better because it tells you nothing about the volume of sales of the units, which appears to be the point you are trying to get across.
I don't have any hard figures but I'll stick my neck out and say I'm pretty sure they sold more than three units of the A1 
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Tom Said :
I was being sarcastic.
Dictionary Says :
1. mocking: characterized by words that mean the opposite of what they seem to say and are intended to mock or deride
So they actually sold -3 units?
I know this is getting silly I never did figure how to admit defeat gracefully.
Member since:2006-09-27
Actually I think Thom was being "hyperbolic" rather than sarcastic:
Member since:2006-01-01
No sarcasm, possibly leaning towards Micky taking/teasing. As in, "I think you know exactly what you are talking about, wannabe geek".
The easiest way to explain sarcasm.. imangine Bill and Ted speak... anywhere where you would mentally add "not" to a sentence is probably sarcasm.
Member since:2005-11-11
If you take Thom's statement to mean "they made so few units they could be counted on one hand" and propose as the opposite of that statement "they made more units than one could count on one hand" then Thom's use of sarcasm fits even with your cherry picked definition.
Here's another:
1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual
- Merriam-Webster
Member since:
2005-07-29
Member since:2006-01-27
Member since:
2005-11-14
RISC OS would benefit from being released under a proper open source licence - the whole "RISC OS Open" thing is more shared source than open source, meaning that a lot of people won't touch it even with a very long stick, and rightfully so.
Meanwhile, the "big" players in that small scene fight to hold onto their share of the diminishing value that the software has, with the day fast approaching when the only way you'll be able to run it will be under emulation on a platform that the most ardent defenders of RISC OS despise without question or further consideration. In other words, a diminishing group of people doing themselves no favours and complaining that there are fewer in their ranks every year.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-01
Member since:
2006-05-26
There would be a certain amount of value of releasing the BeOS source code under the MIT license, but at this point, it'd be worth far more as a form of documentation of what BeOS 5.03's behavior is expected to be, as opposed to likely being able to be reused. There are a number of undocumented API's in BeOS 5.03 that'd be nice for getting old applications that no longer have source available to run, but other than that, there'd be little practical use for the code. Haiku at this point is different enough under the hood that it'd be far more effort than it's worth to attempt to reuse any non-preference code. For example, Haiku has mmap and an integrated VM/filesystem cache, something BeOS never had, and there's a lot of hardware Haiku supports that BeOS never did, partially because it didn't exist when BeOS was still sold legally. The Haiku USB stack appears to be more complete at this point than BeOS 5.03. Yes, the VM subsystem is still missing some key functionality (hence it is still definitely fair to call it "pre-alpha" which is also why there's not an officially-supported LiveCD available yet) but it'll get there, and unlike BeOS, it won't puke with > 1 GM physical RAM (sometimes less, depending on the machine).
There's one thing that'd be greatly appreciated by at least a few people, though: it'd be great if the hardware-accelerated OpenGL stack that was being worked on before the "focus-shift" was available to reuse.
Member since:
2005-07-06
The only two I think that matter, from the perspective of the desktop, is QNX and AmigaOS. Why? because it is already 99% of the way 'there' to being an ideal desktop operating system. *NIX world, there is still wrangling with standards over how the different desktops interoperate, HIG's and so forth.
QNX and AmigaOS already have those laid - thats not to say they're perfect, its just that what needs to happen is very small compared to the challenges infront of *NIX right now. QNX's main problem, I've found is hardware support and a lack of a community port and maintain applications from the opensource world (Firefox, Thunderbird, etc.).
Amiga is the restriction to a certain piece of hardware; don't get my wrong, I understand the business model they're trying to achieve, but the fact is, Mac OS X never really loss critical mass. Amiga OS has loss critical mass, and the only real way to make it a vibrant and attractive platform for third party developers and hardware companies, is to rapidly expand it via making it accessible for all.
How should that work? opensource it firstly, then secondly, find a hardware company and work with them; personally, I"d go Lenovo, work with them, find out what their next product range will include, work through lenovo with third parties to get specications, and basically turn lenovo's PC's into the 'defacto Amiga' - thus, Lenovo absorbs the risk associated with the hardware business thus leaving Amiga Inc safe.
Member since:
2006-05-09
Member since:2005-08-12
Member since:2006-01-03
Member since:
2007-09-28
despite it being very old, i'd love to see A/UX being open source ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A/UX )
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-08-07
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-06-30
Windows 2000 deserves mentioning, because it was Microsoft's magnum opus; it included all of the stability of what would later become XP without sacrificing logical UI design. Opening Win2k would allow support for modern hardware (Wifi, x64 optimization, and usb drives specifically) to be backported, while on the UNIX front it could prove beneficial for some OSS projects (Wine specifically). Maybe a few security holes could be fixed as well.
Member since:
2005-11-17
Hello,
The issue with OS4 is that there's been other companies who make hardware which can run the OS (Genesi and the EFIKA), and even an unreleased port to the PPC Mac Mini, but Amiga Inc. seems to always find a way to guard this product like the crown jewels. They would rather cut off their own nose to spite their own face than give the few customers they have left what they want.
Sadly, the work the Frieden brothers did for AmigaOS will probably never be truly acknowledged, and will sit in some file cabinet somewhere. If it was released under the MIT license, there would be a significant amount of development as the OS was and is so friendly to development.
SkyOS is just an amazing piece of work. I personally haven't run it, but it's got a strong following and an incredibly large amount of apps for one primary developer .
BeOS, I believe, would also benefit highly from being open sourced. Unfortunately, as we learned from Zeta, and the comments that the representative from ACCESS left here, it's not going to happen unless someone pays a lot of money. Bernd Korz, had he gone through with his promise to release the source he had, would have almost single-handedly destroyed Haiku by "tainting" developers. Haiku is an incredible project, and I think it will succeed without the BeOS source code, and because the developers are motivated to do things the right way, and in the spirit of the original OS.
Windows 2000, which did have at least two 64-bit ports for the Alpha and Itanium (I saw the Alpha port at PC Expo at the Javits Center in 1999 running SQL Server 2000 64-bit), would also be incredible to open source. However, people would find out how to run newer Windows apps on top of it like Office 2007, IE7, and DirectX 10, and this would kill Microsoft's upgrade cycle business model 
. I think that the ReactOS/Wine combination will eventually provide a great alternative that's better than the original by design.
There are other OSes which would also benefit from Open Sourcing, namely RiscOS (since ARM chips are incredibly common), MorphOS (see AmigaOS), and Tru64 UNIX/Digital UNIX (there's some decent clustering technology in there, and HP has essentially abandoned the OS).
I liked the AmigaOS point most of all. It's probably the one OS which can be open sourced with the least cost, and probably will never happen due to current management at Amiga, Inc..
Member since:
2005-11-10
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-07
There are a few older operating systems that have fallen off which could be opened source. I know it's a bit corny but Apple should release the old ProDOS operating system to the open sourced market.
I would also recommend Tandy to release TRSDOS. That would be pretty good if it could be retooled and modernized.
Member since:2006-03-13
Member since:2005-07-12
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-08-12
Member since:2006-08-09
3...2...1...
0..
Okay, I'll bite. Why not, it's a nice day outside.
There are no restrictions to the GPL.
That's right, you can do for yourself with GPL software anything you like. Only when you publish (modified) versions, there are certain restrictions. See it as the "cost" of the software to acquire it.
But if there was no license at all, you'd have same thing: copyright, something that exists *by law*, that protects any "intellectual property" regardless license, unless it is explicitly specified. So the GPL already grants freedoms beyond copyright law.
(I know, it seems most people are unaware that even if you don't give your work any copyright notice or license whatsoever, it is still protected by copyright laws in most countries.)
In the mean time you can use GPL software for any purpose freely, from compiling your own clone of The Sims, to controlling computers that can fire nuclear warheads, to downloading adult content off the innerwebs.
BSD has restrictions too, when you publish modified works. Don't pretend it does not.
The only software license that seems to have no restrictions at all seems to be "Public Domain", which is sort of the "denial of any license". Now how many software projects use that license?
I apologise in case I have destroyed anybody's illusions.
Member since:2006-01-03
Member since:2008-04-01
Sure, MIT/BSD and GPL both have restrictions only when you publish modifications. (I think most people posting here know that already.)
His point, I assume, is that the GPL is *more* restrictive because it restricts which sub-license you may use. At least that's why I never did care for it either.
MIT/BSD still says you gotta include the disclaimer and copyright notice, etc. Fine. But you can sub-license the software using other licenses, whereas with GPL it *has* to be sub-licensed under GPL. No exceptions.
Member since:2006-08-09
Although many people pretend not to.
Sure, but that's the deal. People work on GPL'ed software in the hope of being able to use derivative works. If you use those people's work, you have to play by the same rules. If that's "more restrictive".., well I guess it won't kill anybody. It's still lightyears ahead in giving freedoms to users and redistributors than any proprietary license.
There's no technical difference. Both licenses require the use of compatible licenses. A "sub-license" doesn't exist.
There's a freedom that GPL gives you and BSD does not (or rather, cannot): the guaranteed freedom to use improved, derivative versions of the software you're now using, in the future.
Edited 2008-05-23 18:54 UTC
Member since:2007-02-05
"BSD has restrictions too, when you publish modified works. Don't pretend it does not."
The only restriction I see in most BSD-licences these days are that you have to include the copyright notice(with source and/or binaries), and that you can't use the author or organization for promotion.
Now, let's be honest. That's a lot less restrictive than GPL.
Not that I'm bashing GPL! It is a licence that garantees that software based on GPLed stuff *stays* open source. (That's a wonderfull thing.) So... you do not have the freedom to make non-free software from it. No matter how inmoral you may consider it to produce non-free software it is still a restriction to not be able to use GPL as base for non-free software.
BSD and GPL have different strengths and weaknesses.
BSD is definetely the most free, but only GPL attempts to garantees freedom regarding software based on that software.
For the record I'm getting real tired for the "GPL versus BSD" thing. They are both great licences for different use and they both definetely have a place in this world!
Member since:2006-08-09
True.
There's nothing wrong with a nice debate or flamewar now and then. But it's simply inaccurate for anyone to state that BSDL is more free than GPL.
GPL is simply free in a different way than BSDL.
GPL guarantees future freedom and unconditional availability of source code for published works, BSDL gives more freedom of choice with regards to binary or source redistribution - including the freedom to not give others the freedom of using your source code. That's not measurable in the sense of "what's more free?"
You can't let one person swim a hundred meters and let another run a hundred meters and then decide who's the fastest.
Member since:
2005-08-10
QNX for sure. I'd love a stable and mature microkernel based system that is open to exploration. Minix3 is a step in the right direction, but it's neither stable nor mature, and hasn't made a release in a while.
OpenVMS. It's time for it to live up to it's name ;^)
I already got my wish for a free and open source Solaris, and my only real issue with it is a maddening lack of man pages. I don't want to have to be online to find out something about a system I'm unfamiliar with.
Member since:2007-02-05
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-12
Loads of potential held back by pissing contests over licensing and the socialist agenda of throwing the word freedom around while loading down with pages of legal mumbo jumbo and the rampant fanboyism of naive idealists.
I'd love to see linux released under the MIT license. It's free in the first place, why the devil does it need more than that? Even better, just public domain the damned thing... Like sqLite.
As I keep saying, if you are going to give something away - FOR **** sake JUST GIVE IT AWAY.
Edited 2008-05-23 04:36 UTC
Member since:2007-01-22
there is nothing 'socialist' about the gpl as it is a voluntary arrangement that free people choose. Many companies are making a lot of money with linux and other gpl apps and will continue to do so as long as they are useful. It is restrictive but closed source is even more restrictive and nobody says it is 'socialist' even though you can't do whatever you want with the software that you bought.
What would be socialist is if a government forced people to use GPL software whether or not the software is useful to the free market.
Member since:2007-05-12
Well said, deathshadow! Great to see that there is another fan of public-domain out there.
( and to those who say "there is no such thing as
public-domain", I'd reply - "Please explain the existence of SQLite and a number of P.D. Forth implementations..." )
One OS that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread yet is Plan 9. I'd like to see a public-domain clone of that. It's incredibly elegant (at least "under the hood" - I'm not a big fan of its GUI).
The *really good* thing about public-domain is that if you're writing code to be released as PD, that code/algorithm *only needs to be written once*, and
*anyone* can then use it.
I have a great deal of respect for the Forth community (although I haven't used Forth much myself). As I mentioned, there are a number of PD Forth implementations, which is great! Good to see a particular group like that creating and promoting PD code.
Edited 2008-05-23 07:44 UTC
Member since:2006-01-03
Member since:2006-08-09
I'd love to see linux released under the MIT license.
(...)
As I keep saying, if you are going to give something away - FOR **** sake JUST GIVE IT AWAY.
Your "logic" is flawed. What's your definition of "giving away"? You can't "give away" software. You can't "give away" ideas. You can't "give away" code. You just make sure it's "out there", and the GPL is one way of doing that.
"Giving away" in the sense you seem to understand it is like "giving away" a material object, like a cookie, that only one person can eat and then it's gone. If you give away a cookie, it's rather silly to want to decide how the receiving party is going to eat that cookie. Maybe the receiver wants to destroy the cookie, look at the cookie, poison the cookie, or give it to yet another person. Maybe a person you hate.
You have to take these sad potential uses into account before you give someone a cookie. You can't attach a license to the cookie. Obviously, it doesn't work that way with software. You don't build a working software development model on giving away cookies.
For your information, the MIT license does not "give away" anything either. It still demands the user to respect the license.
Member since:2005-11-10
A licence is a patch to try fix human flaw.
Here's some software I'm giving away in the true sense.
http://camendesign.co.uk/?200805241404
Member since:
2008-03-16
I have used 3 of the 4 OSes that you suggested, and i do agree.
I once found a not-so-legal torrent of SkyOS, and i had followed it's development for several years now, and i was tempted to get it... and i did.
this was pre beta 5 i think, imagine about 3 years ago, and i was VERY impressed.
If Robert DID make it MIT, i can see so much extra development going in to it, well, i can imagine Linux get shoved to the side, on my desktop at least, and possibly for a few more users.
QNX i tried back when it was on a singly bootable floppy demo, and i liked it! a year ago i tried to find the demo again... but all i got was massive amounts of Fail.
BeOS.... Ah, How i relied on you when i had a sub-par PC that not even Linux could save, and you did.
BeOS MAX that was, a hacked version of the "demo" version that eventually become it's own free-standing liveCD with HDD installer. (Hint: Go to BeBits.com and find it)
All three of them Great OSes, all in all, and i agree. MIT it, and watch the development fly!