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? 1 comments on Hacker News.
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?
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? 1 comments on Hacker News.
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?
Hacker News story: Does it make sense to ask Blackberry to re-license ancient QNX sources?
Reviewed by Tha Kur
on
March 24, 2026
Rating:
No comments: