On 18 Oct 2002 at 8:54, John Burke wrote:

> > * No plans to release an "Open Source" version of MPE
>
> OK, by now we've all heard the stories. MPE contains third-party code
> which creates license issues and the build process is a mess with
> multiple languages, special compilers etc.  However, it seems to me
> that HP is concentrating their energies on telling us all the reasons
> why it can not be done instead of focusing their energies on how it
> could be done. Personally, I think this is because they do not want to
> do it - HP wants to maintain tight and exclusive control over MPE,
> IMAGE, etc.

While your last statement may be partly the case, let me add my
observation:

Open Source takes a critical mass of developers that just doesn't
exist in this community. Linux has thousands of developers between
all the flavors. Heck, even GCC has hundreds.

Realistically, there is only a handful of people with the knowledge
outside of HP that could modify the source, build something and
expect it to run with some semblance of reliability. If you don't get
the critical mass of developers, the source may be available, but
nothing will happen with it. Who does that benefit? It would be far
better to be able to license one or two development groups that have
the skills and could "twiddle the bits" than to go through the effort
to make the source available under an Open Source license.


IMHO.

--
Mark Klein
http://www.dis.com
PGP Key Available