The Neutrino 6.4 version, which was made accessible as "openQNX" to the public, can still be downloaded from e.g. https://github.com/vocho/openqnx.
Here is an AI generated documentation of the source: https://deepwiki.com/vocho/openqnx
From memory: the source was made freely available to anyone who wanted to download it, but not under an open source license, under an individual non-transferable proprietary license; so, legally speaking, anyone who downloaded the source back then (before this program was terminated) is allowed to keep it and use it forever (under some usage restrictions, I forget the details), but they aren't licensed to share it with anyone else.
So this is somewhat comparable to all those leaked Microsoft Windows source code repositories on GitHub – technically illegal, but the copyright holder obviously doesn't care to try to stop it (especially ironic for Microsoft, given that as GitHub's owners, they could put an end to it very easily, if they could be bothered)
"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(R) development seats. However, noncommercial developers, academic faculty members, and qualified partners will be given access to QNX development tools and runtime products at no charge."
Which is the whole point – legally speaking, press releases count for very little, the actual text of the license agreement is far more important.
"Promissory estoppel" doesn't work that way... it doesn't mean "I don't need to read the legal fine print, I can just go by my interpretation of the press release"
That's not what I said. Anyway, I don't know where you are located, but at least in my country it is no problem to download the code from github for non-commercial educational study, especially given the listed facts. I think we can leave it at that.
Still not what I said. Let me be more precise. QSS management has clearly stated its intentions in its press release and actions (or inactions). And obviously, neither QSS nor its legal successor saw any need to take action against the referenced repository or the approximately 200 forks. Such action would very likely conflict with the current legal situation. Owners and users of the repositories could defend themselves based on fair use (educational purposes and based on QSS's own statements), implied License (also based on QSS's original statements), equitable estoppel (because of 16 years of toleration, and because of QSS's own statements, possibly a servitude created by estoppel), and even acquiescence (due to deliberate inaction). This has nothing to do with "the right to produce and distribute unlimited copies".
17 U.S.C. § 512(f) makes rights holders liable for knowingly false takedown notices. In the case of Online Policy Group v. Diebold, a court ruled that no reasonable copyright holder could believe the content constituted an "unlawful infringement" due to fair use. Diebold had to pay 125'000 USD in damages. In the case of QSS, a DMCA takedown after 16 years of tolerance with documented knowledge would be actionable as misrepresentation under § 512(f). A reasonable rights holder cannot claim that there has been an infringement if they have knowingly stood by and watched for 16 years.
None of the defenses you're citing here would hold water in court.
(We're not in court here, and there's nothing more to say, so this will be my last response about this.)
EDIT: oh I see, thats what deepwiki itself is