Does it make sense to ask Blackberry to re-license ancient QNX sources?

The 17-year-old sources of QNX (to be found at github.com/vocho/openqnx) don't have a clearly-defined license file/status. In theory, one can use them, experiment with them, but they're neither free-, nor completely open-source.

Does it make sense to ask QSS/Blackberry to re-license them under e.g. Apache 2.0 license -- the same license they use for their startup code sources?

If yes, does it make sense to write/publish an open petition?

4 points | by ymz5 1 day ago

2 comments

  • ksherlock 1 day ago
    Once upon a time (2007!), QNX made their source code available under a read-only type license. When Blackberry bought them (2010), source code access was shut off.

    That was 16 years ago so maybe their opinion on the matter has changed. But they make money (or at least try to) selling a commercial license for QNX so an unrestricted free/open license seems unlikely.

    [-]
    • ymz5 1 day ago
      "read-only type license" -- that's a bit too strong wording.

      OTTAWA, September 12, 2007 — [...] QNX Software Systems today announced that it is opening access to the source code of its QNX® Neutrino® realtime operating system (RTOS) under a new hybrid software licensing arrangement.

      Effective immediately, QNX will make source code for its [...] microkernel-based OS available for download. The first source release includes the code to the QNX Neutrino microkernel, the base C library, and a variety of board support packages (BSPs) for popular embedded and computing hardware.

      Not only can developers view the QNX Neutrino source code, but they can improve, modify, or extend that code for their own purposes or for the QNX community at large.

  • davydm 1 day ago
    if you're interested in extending, sure

    otoh, i'm not - everything has to die sometime

    that doesn't mean you have to feel the same - so go for it