Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Releases Windows CE 3.0 Source
If you haven't yet taken a look at Microsoft's "Shared Source License," this is a good time: contrast the restrictions on use and redistribution to the clauses on those things in the GPL.
Interesting that Microsoft should denigrate Free Software licenses as pathogenic but require that anyone who redistributes the software as source under their new "broader" license "include a complete copy of this License with your distribution." That license includes a provision that "if you sue anyone over patents that you think may apply to the Software for a person's use of the Software, your license to the Software ends automatically."
But since you may not distribute the licensed Microsoft code "in source or object form for commercial purposes under any circumstances," nor use it to run a business, it may be unlikely that such a suit would arise. All in all, I'm not sure who besides companies selling Win CE hardware or software will benefit from this "sharing."
However, if you ever intend to work on any Open Source programming project which might involve similar code, you might want to think twice about downloading any code under the provisions Microsoft lists here: a simple database query can establish whether "Yourname Lastname" had access to the Microsoft-owned code, which could result in legal problems down the road. Even if you never look at the downloaded code, the electronic trail will look like you did -- which is perhaps the most insidious aspect of this version of sharing.
I'd look, but it may make me wince
Moderator gave this a funny? What is funny about it? I'll tell you what's funny, getting moderators to waste their points on bad posts.
Well what if you don't reveal your real name? I have never given my real name to Microsoft before, big deal if they query a different name.
Because the coders suck.
Once upon a time, in a galaxy not entirely different from our own, there was a popular (amongst geeks) web-forum. Certain posters to said forum discovered that posting long, unbroken, strings could fuck up the page formatting - the whole page is in one table, so making one cell very wide makes all cells wide, adding nasty horizontal scroll bars and pissing everyone off.
The correct solution would have been to place each comment inside its own table. Instead, the Slashcode morons decided to enforce spaces - thereby preventing trolling idiots from fucking up the page and also preventing genuine posters from posting genuine links that genuine readers could find genuinely useful.
Nothing like a half-assed 'solution', eh?
But hey, it's Open Source, fix it yourself.
yup! :-)
Bypass Passport: http://download.microsoft.com/download/WinCEPlatfo rmBuilder/Update/3.0/NT5/EN-US/setup.exe
I work for MontaVista Software. I won't describe what we do, you go look it up. We make good money (and lots of it) off GPLed software, and are continuing to do so even in this whole economic downturn thing.
We couldn't do this if the software we work with were under a shared source license. The GPL is, thus, much more business-friendly than shared source (at least for those other than the copyright holder -- and an argument can be made wrt. the benefits that the copyright holder recieves).
Yeah, yeah, I know, they can do whatever they want with their software, imposing whatever liscence restrictions on it they want......
:)
But I'm resisting the urge to download every bit of MS souce I can find and upload it to FreeNet anyway
Think about it. You are a small start up or pre-start up with an idea for an embedded application. You need to build a prototype of your hardware and software. It needs an O/S. What are you going to do. Call up the devil, sign contracts, fork over a shit load of money. Or are you going to download Linux and get to work.
Wince is doomed in the embeded market simply because Linux is a better choice, it's free, you get the source. Sure you might have to publish your changes, but that really can't hurt you as long as no one is selling the same hardware set. M$'s only choice is to get wince into the hands of inventors up front for free. If poeple are stupid enough to not realize that you will have to ultimately pay Billie, i guess they will get what's coming to them. Let's hope that most people aren't that stupid.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
Can I use GPLd code in a commercial product?
"Definitely, if you make the your source available also."
Can I use Microsoft Shared source in a commercial product?
"No way, how do you dare asking?"
Hmm.. It's funny to see the FSF as business friendlier than Microsoft, even if everyone will say that "free software is no good for business". Well, it is not made to be good for business, but good for the community. That doesn't mean it can be good for business (as the "opensource"guys like to say).
As for me, I'm a Super-Duper-anarchist!
I guess I just I come across more persistant people than you- and I think the day I started this I was solicted 5 or 6 times with various leaflets while waking from my apartment to the lab I work in across campus- this day was particularly bad because voting for student government elections was going on so all the candidates had their people out handing out leaflets, various other campus orgazations were out distributing stuff, there were a few religious groups, people handing out ads for clubs, etc. Some people are nice about it and will simply move on to the next person if you say you're not interested, but many will try to jam a flyer in my hands any way even after I say I'm not interested. I'm already over run with pieces of paper so I try not to accumulate any more. Religious groups are particularly bad about this- they'll step in front of me and jam a card in my hands, ask if I would like to learn about the Bible, and continue talking to me even after I've declined both of these, I've had creepy people try to follow me along, trying to get me to stop and listen to them. I've had people ask me why I won't stop a minute and listen about Jesus. If I say that I'm an agnostic atheist whose has already thought long and hard about this, this only makes them more determined.
I understand that many people handing out flyers and trying to get people to talk to them are very passionate about whatever they're out and about about, and I might even be one of them on Monday, protesting the DMCA, and I hate to not give them a minute, but I've found that a minute ends up turning into 5 minutes and so on (I'm not good at extricating myself from conversation), so I've found that its easier to just give the impression that I'm a bit insane.
"However, if you ever intend to work on any Open Source programming project which might involve similar code, you might want to think twice about downloading any code under the provisions Microsoft lists here"
This statement strikes me as FUD. The only purpose it serves is to try to scare people into not downloading the source and looking at it.
If this were true then the same would apply to GPL software.
Of course not, it's not like the XP kernel was origionally developed on a MIPS based machine, now is it.
The NT kernel was designed to be portable from the outset, and has run on x86, MIPS, Alpha and PPC. Nothing ties the kernel to x86 other than market forces.
There are caveats, of course. The licensing restrictions that apply to shared source are wrong in most cases. As long as I don't turn around and redistribute the software, why should they care if I modify the source and use it in my business or personal use? As long as sufficient licenses are purchased (another controversial issue that I have some thoughts about), they shouldn't care.
The second big caveat is that there needs to be a proper and well known legislative infrastructure in place to support the readers of the source code. Possibly, the same standards that apply to books should apply to source code. In other words, a few sentences that are entirely the same might be ok, but taking entire thoughts (subroutines or algorithsm in source code?) is wrong. Right now, the ambiguity of when Microsoft can sue is a bit chilling. It would be beneficial, IMHO, to have some legislation to make fair use type protections explicit.
Sujal
politics, food, music, life: FatMixx
In all honesty did you expect Microsoft to ever do anyone favours? :-)
Favours do not a big profit make!
Ah, here we hit upon the crux of the matter. Of course Microsoft will be nice to developers. Developers help Microsoft maintain a monopoly on the desktop and to attain a large section of the server market. :-)
This is not doing them a favour, this is simply supplying the people that form an industry around your product with the information that they require to continue to make that industry productive.
A favour in the sense I meant it (sorry I was half-serious) would be where they do something for someone else with no obvious gain. Goodwill is always a potential gain but we can't quantify that and neither can a company.
I hasten to add I don't expect ANY large corporation to do these things. It's far too easy to single out Microsoft though.
So just carry around a "oR.
Just who is stealing what from who (or maybe it's whom)?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Funny, the Palm OS is being run on what, 70% of the market? Because it just flat out works for what a palmtop is supposed to do, and it has decent battery life.
I'd like to have MP3 playback on my Palm, but it's not quite there yet. But I'm not going to go to the IPAQ to get it. Once you put the expansion sled on it, that thing goes from an admittedly pretty silver lightweight to an ugly black plastic BRICK.
My prediction: wait a month and see which handheld the kids going back to school start buying. My money is on the under-$200 Palms. That's the next big growth area, and Palm once again owns it.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
That lasted all of a month, and was measured in dollars, not units sold (iPAQs are more expensive than Palms). Palm is back on top now, having gotten over a bad quarter in which they had to cut prices to move surplus back stock.
As for the pundits, they have been predicting that WINCE will take over ever since it was introduced. If it wasn't for the Microsoft-only companies, CE sales would wbe even worse than they are. And as far as price goes, Palm is the company putting out low-price units, and they can probably drop the price even farther.
The big problem is, most people who buy a CE machine stop using it and never buy another one. Most Palm users keep using them and eventually upgrade.
Lastly, the real reason the consumer microcomputers in the 80's died is that once their parents started buying PCs, the kids started inheriting their old PCs as hand-me-downs, and they didn't need to buy a C64 or an Apple II for them anymore. The whole market disappeared.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
M$ is not losing any sleep over releasing the source code. Go forbid that somebody look at it and tell them where the security divots are.
And its WinCE. Their answer to the Palm OS (ROTFL). Its not exactly the crown fuckin' jewels.
But it is indicative of their ability to talk out of both sides of their mouths at once while lying out of either about what the other side is saying: Source code is Talibanese, uh, anti-American. Here want our WinCE source code?
Lets hope they never get off the x86.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Does this mark code which is a direct copy of something in the Linux scheduler? Thus indicatiing that the M$ author does not care about violating the GPL. Or on the other hand is this an indication that the author has had to do something which is less than desirable technically in order to avoid violating the GPL. Or perhaps is it just a humourous /. "story/joke/lie"? Anybody know definitively?
Looked at the source with intentions to perfect the
CyaCE Linux boot program?
If you dont use their code but study it for how it acts... you should be safe right?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I think looking at the source would be a great way to deep-six any open source projects you're working on at the time. Heck, even if you're a commercial developer, you should really have your legal team consider your position before looking at this code
Yes. Just as Microsoft employees are admonished not to look at GPL'ed code, open source coders now must be made aware that they should not look at "shared" code.
I think MS is going for a "GPL" licence that gives more rights to MS as opposed to the community. But this is to be expected.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
Looks like Microsoft is up and fighting - and fighting hard.
From the licence it looks like this code is free (as in beer, not speech).
The Licence:
This License governs use of the accompanying Software.
You can use this Software for any non-commercial purpose, including distributing derivatives. Running your business operations would not be considered non-commercial.
For commercial purposes, you can reference this software solely to assist in developing and testing your own software and hardware for the Windows CE platform. You may not distribute this software in source or object form for commercial purposes under any circumstances.
In return, we simply require that you agree:
1) Not to remove any copyright notices from the Software.
* Ok, thats fair.
2) That if you distribute the Software in source code form you do so only under this License (i.e. you must include a complete copy of this License with your distribution), and if you distribute the Software solely in object form you only do so under any license that complies with this License.
* This is fair too.
3)That the Software comes "as is", with no warranties. None whatsoever. This means no implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or any warranty of non-infringement. Also, you must pass this disclaimer on whenever you distribute the Software.
* Standard Leaglease. This is in the GPL too.
4) That Microsoft will not be liable for any of those types of damages known as indirect, special, consequential, or incidental related to the Software or this License, to the maximum extent the law permits. Also, you must pass this limitation of liability on whenever you distribute the Software.
* Same as above.
5) That if you sue anyone over patents that you think may apply to the Software for a person's use of the Software, your license to the Software ends automatically.
* Hmmm, this is different.
6) That the patent rights Microsoft is licensing only apply to the Software, not to any derivatives you make.
* I don't understand this one, someone care to explain? (I think that they mean that if I make a derivitave, it is not owned by Microsoft? Or, does it mean not protected by Microsoft?)
7) That your rights under the License end automatically if you breach it in any way.
* Very different from the GPL! That your rights "Suddenly end" if you breach it in any way. GPL is designed to maintain rights, this one is designed to take them away.
Granted, you can't blame Microsoft for using this kind of licence. Their whole business model is based on this kind of thing. I still bet that there are people at MS that are having fits over the release of code. But, I guess the battle for free software must be ganing ground - because Microsoft is fighting back... On our turf.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
I'm just pointing out the possibilities here. Just like Microsoft doesn't really go after software piracy unless it would significantly improve their public image or bottom line, they're probably even OK with small-scale copyright infringement since it still ties you to a Microsoft OS. But if you're working on a project or a technology that is a legitimate competitor to Microsoft, even if you're not really infringining on their IP, you have to expect a variety of dirty tricks from the 800-pound gorilla of the industry. Potential tainting from this source code is just one of the possibilities.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I think looking at the source would be a great way to deep-six any open source projects you're working on at the time. Heck, even if you're a commercial developer, you should really have your legal team consider your position before looking at this code - the last thing you want to have to do is prove that you didn't use any of Microsoft's code in your commercial product. Remember, you don't have to be in the wrong to be dragged through a lengthy court battle and/or an expensive settlement.
I can see the WinCE source code being very useful for developers that work on that platform and already have a close working relationship with Microsoft, but it seems to provide more risk than benefit to everyone else.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Fortunately for you, you don't have nearly a devious-enough mind to work for Microsoft (not that I do either). You see, it's not so much the license as it is the code itself, copyright law, and the existing legal system. Let's take this one concept at a time:
Thus, it's not unacceptable FUD if you've actually taken the time to think through the potential consequences of your actions. There are legitimate concerns about looking at Microsoft's source code, and those concerns should cause a reasonable person (meaning "person without a lot of lawyers on hand") to experience fear, uncertainty, and doubt about this license. FUD has a bad name, because it's been slung around without reason. Where there's reason to be cautious, though, only a fool doesn't experience FUD.
You may say that this is a particularly pessimistic view of Microsoft, and I agree that it is. But I would ask you to review the recent history of software law adjudicated between poor individual developers and giant software companies, and then also consider the past history between giant software companies and the behemoth Microsoft, and tell me that there's no way this could come to pass. I don't think you can.
So, Chester, don't accuse me of spouting FUD if you're willing to take Microsoft's words and actions at face value. They've spewed a lot more unjustified FUD in the last few years than I ever will in a lifetime, I promise you.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
And you guys call Windows/Mac users dumb? Priceless.
The fact that he actually considers that anybody would want Linux's scheduler code is a screamer, too. :)
Cheers,
Irony is a wonderful thing.
Well who else would a program like this be directed at? Who besides developers needs the source to WinCE? Duh?
______________________________
rooooar
Microsoft's compilers allow C++ style comments in C code. In fact, the C99 standard does too, so you can't really call them "C++ comments" any longer.
cpeterso
I briefly worked at a BSquare, a company that does LOTS of Windows CE contract work for Microsoft. Microsoft does not port CE to other processors; the hardware vendors PAY to license Microsoft's CE code and port it themselves. Microsoft does not even write their own CE compilers. BSquare and the hardware vendors do.
cpeterso
The actual path to schedule.c is \wince300\private\winceos\coreos\nk\kernel\schedul e.c. And it does not contain the work "fuck". Actually, none of the source files contain the word "fuck", "shit", or "Linus".
cpeterso
.. like the one with XP beta perhaps?
If Bill were my big brother, I'd have to beat his scrawny little ass.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
The standard reply is "security through obscurity doesn't work". And in many cases, that does apply. However, this won't happen in the M$ case. Sure, they are no longer hiding their source (as much) but they have totally screwed up the feedback cycle.
First, they would need someone to dl the code and look at it. Some will, but due to the licensing weirdness, it won't be many.
Second, patches would have to be submitted, integrated, and then disseminated. The first might happen. The second will happen if the patches are good. But since WinCE lies in ROM, it's going to be hard (impossible?) to get this onto devices.
This is likely a pointless act, and the poster who mentioned it was used to demonstrate to the Supremes (I believe M$ is beginning to get around to filing an appeal with them) that they have changed. But, for various reasons, it is all BS.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Okay, so using GPL code is cancerous and causes plagues, locusts, etc. But simply viewing M$ code is a danger.
Has that meeting with Mundie happened yet?
Is it possible to keep up with and inform the public of all of this BS that comes out of the M$ propaganda machine?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Using the same kernel everywhere is so much more fair, now you can crash on every platform equally!
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
My conpiracy theory: MS will keep changing this MS-Partioning every so often, thus forcing us (the linux community) to spend time/effort in black box re-engineering. At some point we will hit a DCMA wall with the 'encrypeted data' partiions/folders/files. I just took a class on W2K (not my choice) and this new MS-P has incentives to switch by making some new 'features' only valid with dynamic disks using NTFS (deliberatly disabled my MS?). AFAIK linux still only has read ability for NTFS. Other 'features' of MS-P are raid (0,1,5), plus spanning (take various chunks from same or different drive, and make a drive out of them) 'letterless (C:,D:)' partition mounting (like unix)
All of this added to the fact that you can encrypt and compress a individual drive/folder/file. The encryption would be a problem just for the fact that MS seems to be behind DCMA enforcement. The method involves public/private w/key retrival from 3rd party (aka back door) BTW: Anyone remember MS vs. Stacker?
BTW: partition type 42 was for linux swap/DR-DOS partitions (according to the link) coincidence huh? This smacks of WinBIOS type of attack
Sorry but was my time too rant and rave
make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
Sounds like they *KNOW* there are copyright violations. Then in court they could counter-sue any plaintiff (did you or did you not see the code?)
make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
"Where have all the good men gone..."
make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
And...MSDN costs HOW MUCH?! MSDN costs more per year than any of Microsoft's operating systems. So you've got the source, you aren't exactly free todo what you want with it, you can't legally modify it and give your friend a copy to try out.
If you didn't give away all your code for free, and were actually making money writing stuff, the cost of MSDN would actually be a DROP IN THE OCEAN to you.
MSDN doesn't cost much when you're raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Dude, you are not talking to a guy who earns his living writing software.
... I forgot... it's cheaper to get that than to get all the apps separately.
Then why would he want a Microsoft Developer Network subscription?
Oh
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
He did not want it.
;-)
He was outraged that one has to pay $1000 for it.
As you said it is nothing for someone who makes a living writing and supporting MS or Win32 products and consequently one can conclude this guy never had been involved in this kind of professional work.
Ahhhh... okay... I guess my misunderstanding came about from the fact that I can't work out why someone would complain about the price, but not actually have a need for that thing, or want to use it
Si
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Yes, and Java 2, standard edition SDK 1.4 is codenamed Merlin too..
:)
Not that Open Source is that great at innovating with names either; Killustrator comes to mind..
That's the silliest thing I've heard in a long time. Windows CE dead?!
Microsoft is working on Win CE 4.0 (Talisker) and Pocket PC 4.0 (Merlin), which is based on Win CE 4.0, and will most likely have those released and on new shipping devices by September. Just about every new handheld, and cellphone-PDA-combo device is based on Pocket PC and the trend is just more and more in Win CE's favor as we move forward. There's only ONE device released on EPOC 6.x so far - the Nokia 9210 - and it sucks compared to the Siemens GSM-phone & PDA combo device. And don't even mention Palm OS... Psion is out of the handheld market so if an OS is on its way out, it's EPOC.. and.. well.. Palm OS.
Windows CE is more alive than ever!
"Unless you outright duplicate the copyright-protected work, there is no infringement."
/Dread
Hmmm maybe, but I would advise the Wince and SAMBA programmers to stay out anyway.
Gr
Whatever happened to NT embedded?
War is necrophilia.
Passport is a suite of personal authentication services that makes it easier for you to use the Web.
Thank goodness! Having to make an account with MS definitely makes it easier for me to use the web. Having the source avaialable as a Win32 executable file sure does make iot easier for me to use the source to! They're really looking out for me, making things so 'easier'!!!
Juln
Remember the exact same problem exists for Microsoft. If any of their kernel programmers become "contaminated" by GPL code (ie Linux) then they have serious problems in the CE or NT code base. In fact, I'd say the danger to Microsoft is far greater than the danger to Linux from this sort of "contamination" issue.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
What, exactly, are they up to here?
Quick, someone download the source and grep it for the version numbers.. see if we can find out it's really derived from Windows/386.. ;)
My understanding was (I haven't heard about it in a while) that WinCE was going to continue to be targeted for palmtop systems with a windows-like interface, while NT Embedded (the kernel to be used by the X-box) would be targeted at more traditional embedded systems. But I haven't heard anything more about that in months.
No really. I'm not trying to troll or anything, but why would anyone want to look at Microsoft source code? You can't do much with it according to the license terms, and I suppose the API is already documented.
I know *I* wouldn't be caught dead looking at their source because I don't use anything Microsoft so it would be of no use to me, but I'd really like to hear from someone who looks forward to grabbing it and putting their name in the "sharers" database. What are your benefits from looking at Microsoft source code?
In all honesty did you expect Microsoft to ever do anyone favours? :-)
... and I'm not trying to say that MS is some kind of benevolent entity (or even that "MS" is a real entity at all.) They've done all sorts of awful things, but being deliberately obscure with developers hasn't been one of those things (though you could probably make a case for the OLE documentation -- but I've actually implemented OLE control containers, scriptable objects, controls, in-place document containers, ...)
They've released source code and documentation for almost every area of their (huge) Operating System. They've certainly got some of the best documentation I've ever seen. Really, if you're a developer, Microsoft not only does favors for you but they treat you like royalty.
I'm sure you're only kidding
Favors do make big profits.
____________________
___
The ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man's. -- Aldous Huxley
That should read, "...with developers who aren't developing products that compete with Microsoft's hasn't been one of those things."
No it shouldn't read that either. In fact, not only does MS continously add commonly-implemented features to their OS base code, they have gone out of their way to make sure that idiosyncratic programs used by the majority of the Windows userbase will work on the new iteration of Windows. You should read the book "Showstopper!" to get an idea for what's happened in there in the past.
What sort of software have you written for Windows?
____________________
___
The ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man's. -- Aldous Huxley
Hi, you're not actually addressing the points that I made ... so I'm not going to respond to everything in your post.
I do agree that parts of the MFC are very poorly designed though. However, if you've ever implemented an OLE control container at the base OLE/COM SDK level, you'll really enjoy the actual level of abstraction that you get out of something like the MFC.
... and you can compile the MFC if you want, or the CRT (you get that code too.)
Have you done much development under Windows?
____________________
___
The ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man's. -- Aldous Huxley
Woooh there, tone down the attitude a couple of notchs, I dont recall compiling MFC having much of anything to do with "developement under Windows", to constitute your question.
... so I picked something that I thought we'd both agree on. ;)
... unless you were programming Windows on an 8086, you were probably on a system that made use of the COM in some way.
... you ought to blame the guys who originally wrote it.
... what do you think of D3D as of DX8? Do you like the integration of D3DIM and DDraw? I don't think that anybody ever took Retained Mode seriously but the D3DIM driver interface "standard" has been steadily overtaking OpenGL. Do you prefer OpenGL as an immediate mode rasterizer/renderer?
... I haven't seen any compelling evidence that Microsoft is harmful to developers in general.
Well I couldn't find anything that was relevant to respond to
At the time I was exploring the possibilities of what I could do in windows programming with visulc++, COM was relatively scarce (I dont even recall its existence at the time)
The COM was originally kicked around in the early 80's and was used in the Win3.x (and NT) OS. So
the first time I came across it was in directx 3 programming (which direct3d was also horribly designed and documented)
MS bought DirectX
On a side issue
but the underlying matter is you cant change much in MFC as it is because of some afx libraries of which the source is not shared.
Which libraries are you referring to specifically?
"AFX" was going to be the original TLA for the MFC. It stood for something like "Abstract Foundation Classes" (I'm not really sure where "x" came in -- MS seems to be infatuated with that letter.) Most of the "Afx functions" are actually macro definitions (did you include the MFC browse info file when you were looking up definitions?)
You can change the way that the MFC works, but Microsoft went to significant lengths to allow you to extend it without needing to understand the way that the code works (this isn't devious -- it's saved a lot of people a lot of time.)
As I recall the lamest architecture in MFC was the document view architecture, there was quite a bit of things I wanted to change about it.
That's not an MS only thing either. Doc/view was heralded as a fundamental structure that could be integrated into all applications by a band of academic types. I don't know much about Microsoft deciding to go with Doc/view but it's not integral to the MFC (it's just the used if you use the "AppWizards" -- which are as bad as any other code generator.)
Originally I was thinking I could extend MFC, but I found MFC was not designed to be extended in such a way
You probably didn't spend enough time at it. There are even "project wizards" designed specifically to automate the process of creating a project that extends the MFC in some way (such projects are called "MFC Extension Libraries" I believe.)
When you read the abstract descriptions of the "MFC code philosophy," the actual code itself makes a lot more sense.
Anyway
____________________
___
The ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man's. -- Aldous Huxley
I have to admit that the components I used were well-documented (unlike most free software libraries that I've used).
... and it makes using the MSDN library very simple,) but the obsession with "HOWTO"'s needs to end. A "how to" is fine when you're talking about a few short processes. You can't document an entire OS (and integral kernel modules and user libraries) with a big collection of HOWTOs. They need to grasp for a higher level of abstraction.
... the developers of those subsystems wouldn't encourage anyone to write to the interface until it solidified.)
... I know of other cases where they weren't so nice to their "partners." There's the whole OS/2 fiasco with IBM (that's actually in "Showstopper!" -- the book that I suggested to you -- also.)
I think that part of that comes from inexperience. I have enjoyed watching "LinuxDoc" change over the years but it's still got quite a way to go before it "looks like" professional documentation. Part of that is its classification scheme. Granted, the MSDN classification scheme isn't perfect (though the HTML help reader is a huge improvement over the old help system
By the way, you wouldn't happen to have read the Findings of Fact in the U.S. vs. Microsoft case, would you? I recommend chapter V, section B, entitled, "Withholding Crucial Technical Information."
I read it when it originally was released. Since you brought it up, I went back and reread the section that you mentioned. Some things are a little confused to me.
Windows didn't have any subsystem called "RNA" at that time. I think that they mean "RAS" (Remote Access Services.) In cVsB they were talking about MS not giving NS details of their (unreleased at that time) remote network access interface.
While it's arguably illegal (no statement was made in this part of the FoF asserting that the actions described in cVsB were illegal,) it's certainly not a developer-friendliness issue. No company is under any requirements to give out details of their product to implementors before the product is released (you'll see experimental subsystems that are developed for Linux morphing over time also
In short, cVsB covers a political issue, not a documentation one. Their RAS documentation was great once it was released to everybody (I used it to implement a dial-up server and to write a dialer program for a local company.)
Anyway
____________________
___
The ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man's. -- Aldous Huxley
ok, I agree with you ... I'm sorry if I took your statement out of context (I really did think that you meant it in the way that I interpreted.)
____________________
___
The ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man's. -- Aldous Huxley
Quickly ...
... but you've been commenting on its effectiveness.)
... the whole idea is to use the MFC as a foundation, not to shift MFC components around (ala vbscript.) That's why the interface programmers extended MFC objects specifically for their purpose.
DirectX came from a Windows game programming library years ago. MS abandoned WinG when they took up DirectX. From what I know, there wasn't a code merge.
The question about the rasterizing/rendering library that you prefer assumed that you would be implementing your own scenegraph library.
How much time did you spend with the MFC? You didn't just have a "wizard" generate a project skeleton for you, did you? It doesn't sound like you spent much time figuring it out (not that you need to use the MFC
About the VC interface
____________________
___
The ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man's. -- Aldous Huxley
No, its very real.
In programming there is the principle of "avoided failure".
You implicitly learn (get) all of the research the previous programmer did to get to that point. All the different failures he went through you can avoid, because you know what he ended up using.
By doing so, you "take" all of his work as yours. All his testing, all his troubleshooting, JUST by lookign at the code and knowing what he used.
Makes a little sense.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Heheh, good point. But I still sometimes feel the need to prefix "ultra" so as to make clear the fact that I consider American capitalism as we know it today just another from of socialism. I don't support it, and I don't want anyone thinking I do.
For instance, if they know you have looked at their code and you are coding something that competes with their products, they might sue you for copyright infringement, breaking an EULA or something like that.
Actually, it seems to me they have much more to lose. The negative publicity, especially in these times when everyone sees Microsoft as "evil" would far outweigh the benefits of maybe eliminating some "competition".
Something is utterly wrong when computing is more about money, power and law, than it is about programming.
How typically hypocritical. You sound just like a communist: "Something is terribly wrong when industry is more about money, power, and law than it is about the toil of the laborers."
Nothing gives you the inherent right to anyone else's property! If Bill Gates wants to license software to you under terms that give him advantages in terms of money, power, and law, well, he paid money to get that software and he has the perfect right to license it how he wants. I see nothing "wrong" with that. By the same token, you have the right to choose not to do business with him, and write your own software and license it how you see fit. I see nothing "wrong" with that either. The computer industry requires capital to sustain, just like any other industry, and doing what you can to get that capital, within the bounds of the law, of course, should never get looked on as "wrong" or "evil", just because some person has had more success at it than you. Making arbitrary moral judgments about others' behavior only leads to imposing arbitrary moral standards on others, which, in the end, leads to a police state.
What should make any of that illegal? You have to take the bad with the good, just like anything... the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, etc. If you don't want to get subjected to their outrageous licensing terms, don't deal with them. You just can't get the benefits without the downsides. If you don't like it, deal with someone else. Why do socialists fail to see this? We can't have a utopian society based on your or my ideals, we have to deal with reality. And time and time again, the laissez-faire free market has proved itself the best way for everyone.
And anyway, I don't think I ever really said anything in defense of Microsoft per se. I do not like their products and I never have. However, I do support a free market economy, and so I oppose those, such as yourself, who want to whine to the government to fix problems instead of letting the market decide how to resolve them. Remember, only one monopoly in this country can enforce its power through the use of physical violence. Why do we want to give it even more power than the outrageous amount it already has?
Seriously though, where did you get all your arguments from? I never said those things.
I didn't exactly say you said them. I just noted that you expressed strong communist sentiments, whether you realized it or not, with your statement: Something is utterly wrong when computing is more about money, power and law, than it is about programming.
Even if you never look at the downloaded code, the electronic trail will look like you did -- which is perhaps the most insidious aspect of this version of sharing.
So everything Microsoft does gets demonized as evil, simply because you have to deal with "THE EVIL EMPIRE" to take advantage of it? Let's not forget that the GPL has more or less the same provisions. If you use GPL code in closed source, or certain open source projects, you can get sued. If you use MS code in closed or open source, you can get sued. In fact, GNU has proved quite litigious in the past. What makes them so much more righteous than MS? Simply because you don't like MS?
What does Microsoft stand to gain by suing anyone and everyone who it thinks may have violated its license? Not a whole lot. And don't whine about trying to eliminate competition... as an ultra-capitalist proponent of the free market I don't buy that argument for one second. But regardless of that, the bad publicity they would receive (since people already perceive them as evil and manipulative) would likely make such a lawsuit much more harmful than beneficial.
Why does everyone have this perception of everyone at Microsoft as a Snidely Whiplash type character, who sits around in boardrooms with other evil villains twirling his mustache and dreaming up ways to destroy everyone else and rule the world?
From a usability/GUI design perspective, many of the applications shipped with Agenda are a complete disaster. The hardware (that the user directly touches) does not appear to be designed by anyone who seriously considered the day to day usage of the PDA from the end user perspective. Buttons are put places for no logical reason, and places where there should be buttons lack them. The stylus that shipped with my Vr3d has a slippery metal shaft that makes it hard to write.
In terms of support, the agenda website has many outdated/non-existant areas. On top of this, the lead programmer/CEO/spokesperson for agenda, Brad LaRonde just got fired for no apparent reason.
You don't need to fight a war against an enemy that constantly falls on their own sword. This is all a damn shame, since the CPU and other features (like built-in audio and consumer IR) of the Agenda outclass the palm in many respects.
I've actually been thinking about this.
Is there a difference between copy-pasting GPL'ed code (which of couse requires you to release your modfied code under the GPL)
and simply viewing some GPL'ed code to get the general idea of how something is done and then writing you own stuff?
Yeah it sounds lame, but you're not technically using any of the GPL'ed code in your program are you?
My suggestion is that if you do any open source programming at all or work for any Linux companies, you stay the hell away from any of Microsoft's shared source.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
In the historical past, it's been a fairly common practise to have an isolated group study something and document how it works. Another group would come along and implement using only the produced documentation. The best known example of this is the PC BIOS. I wouldn't even consider that without talking to a lawyer (or three) first.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Could someone summerize the setup procedure (what happens when you run the 5MB setup.exe)?
You don't have to agree to licensing terms to get the setup file, so I guess that agreement comes while running the exe. Is that correct?
Is the WinCE source in the setup.exe, or does it get downloaded while running the setup?
If it's in the setup.exe file, does anybody have a routine to extract the code without having to run setup.exe?
Finally, does setup.exe run under Wine -- I don't know anybody still using Windows, and I haven't used Wine in a long time (the apps I need are not available in Windows). It won't run under my old version of Wine.
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
This is just manuevering for the anti-trust trial ... "Look judge we're being good!"
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
"...However, if you ever intend to work on any Open Source programming project which might involve similar code, you might want to think twice about downloading any code under the provisions Microsoft lists here..."
/open source code/ to disprove any MS "theft".
Whoa, and I was under the impression that people could audit your
Back when I was working in embedded systems I used to laugh at the whole concept of using Windows CE, due to the fact that it was slow, annoying to use, crashed a lot, was sluggish to control, and generally annoyed the hell out of us for an OS that only had to control a few pieces of known hardware and give about three functions (web [no java of course, no JavaScript beyond like 1.0 or something], addressbook, and something to do with the phone system).
I'd almost got them to go with the Linux solution when Microsoft went on marketing offensive and brought out their new and comparatively wonderful Windows CE version, and I had to admit it- it might have had flaws of its own but it was nothing like the last one.
The point being that Windows CE certainly is not dead overall, but reading the source code of last years' versions is like reading the source of Windows 3.11 to gain insight into the workings of '98. Not all that revealing...
That being said, maybe this is a war against Agenda.
... if we have to give WinCE away for $10.00/copy to the manufacturers, we need to be dominant in this market."
I bought a VR3 and it's really a neat geek toy. When we've finished optimizing the system and apps, it may well be a market-breaker. MS has to have that in mind.
Also, I forget where I saw it, but, with regard to WinCE, there is a quote from bgates@microsoft.com to the effect that "this is a space where we need to be
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins,
utter rubbish
Eh, it made me WinCE anyway....
EveryDNS. Use it. It works.
AC's need not reply
And...MSDN costs HOW MUCH?! MSDN costs more per year than any of Microsoft's operating systems. So you've got the source, you aren't exactly free todo what you want with it, you can't legally modify it and give your friend a copy to try out.
This isn't meant to be in defense of Palm or MS. Many people have pointed out that Microsoft has been giving out WinCE sources to MSDN subscribers (read: costs money). I just wanted to point out that Palm has given away the source for PalmOS for free for a very long time. All you had todo was register as a developer, plus, when you register as a developer, when Palm devices start to get out of date (Like the PalmVx...which I own) they start to sell them to developers for really low prices. This is really just to move over stocked warehouses, but still, its a discount.
Clean-rooming the BIOS has nothing to do with this mythological contamination. It's simply so that the judge will instantaneously see that there is no merit.
This is a completely erroneous misinterpretation of copyright law. If it were true, musicians would routinely go to prison for 'willfully and with malice aforethought' listening to the radio. Visiting artists would be deported for going to galleries. In other words, everbody is full of shit. I deeply resent this attack on my knowledge and character. I *am* full of shit, but I resent being told so.-- ;-)
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.
Like their current "Shared Source" idea is any more free? Point is they arent even doing anything special that they havent already been doing :)
Jeremy
The source has been available for quite some time.
Granted WinCE 3.0 under their "Shared Source" lic. The source has been available to enterprising individiauls who hav eaccess to MSDN for quite some time. Ive compiled WinCE myself.. They make the tools to develop with WinCE freely available. The whole idea was to kind of emulate Palm's success. They just threw it under MSDN... But dont believe for a moment they have done anything, not even honestly a token gesture. Those of us who wanted to see the source have already seen it.
Jeremy
ou have an excellent point. That is why they have been doing this for over TWO years. Its nothing special. They ARE capitalizing on palms success. Even the Visual Studio for WinCE is freely available. This isnt even a token gesture.
Anyhow.. this isnt anything special and its been going on for quite some time. So they said hey! Lets play marketing and make like this is a big deal, like they always do.
Jeremy
I try to install it and it has a hardcoded dependency on the target system having a C drive!
It wont even install...
Hint: I dont have a C drive.
LOL.. good thing the source has been available for over two years on MSDN.
Jeremy
I have had the source of WinCE for a LONG time.
.. They arent doing anyone any favors here...
If your on the MSDN network you can get the source from the CD's. Im sorry this is a bad example since the source has always been available.
Jeremy
"That if you sue anyone over patents that you think may apply to the Software for a person's use of the Software, your license to the Software ends automatically." Hmmm, this is different.
No it isn't. Section 7 of the GNU GPL provides that "For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
"That your rights under the License end automatically if you breach it in any way." Very different from the GPL!
Wrong again. GPL section 4: "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License."
The biggest differences I see are lack of copyleft and prohibition against use for commercial purposes. Would "downloading the source and compiling it so that you earn back the money that you would otherwise have spent on licensing Microsoft binaries (hereinafter 'Profit')" be considered a commercial purpose because Microsoft couldn't sell an academic license?
Will I retire or break 10K?
simply viewing some GPL'ed code to get the general idea of how something is done and then writing you own stuff?
The GNU General Public License's definition of "derivative work" is the same as that of United States copyright law, and that definition is not crystal clear. Read about how computer BIOS programs were reverse-engineered and cloned to see the lengths that companies such as Compaq have to go through to make sure that they don't "accidentally" create a derivative work. You're going to have to translate the source code into English and "summarize" it down to an API, and somebody with whom you have never met face-to-face (and thus has never had a chance to see the actual code) will have to actually implement the API. This works because United States copyright law recognizes the possibility of independently arriving at the same copyrighted work. Copyrights are not patents.
DISCLAIMER: Nothing you read on Slashdot is legal advice; only your attorney can provide that.Will I retire or break 10K?
The only safe way to view it is in an mirror:)
Wouldn't that be considered a copy protection circumvention device?
http://download.microsoft.com/download/WinCEPlatfo rmBuilder/Update/3.0/NT5/EN-US/setup.exe
its all a huge conspiracy. like they really care who looks at it and from what ip. they could just as easily get your ip and the exact date and call your isp and get the info. so whats the big deal?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Well, you're wrong
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
I haven't heard anything like that. Does the XP kernel run on MIPS, ARM, SH, and PowerPC? Is XP Embedded ROMable?
Let me guess. Wince3.0 is code named "Medusa".
I think looking at the source would be a great way to deep-six any open source projects you're working on at the time.
No, it's not.
Please read the Shared Source license (a link to it was generously provided in the article) before spouting off any FUD about it.
NO CARRIER
With M$'s focus on the 2k/XP kernel, is this just a red herring to attract good press?
Perhaps, but this is a big step for Microsoft, to release the source code to what at one time in the recent future was intended to be a flagship product of theirs, and is still in moderate to heavy use. You didn't seriously expect them to start out by opening the Windows XP codebase, did you? (And how come nobody has a similar accusation for id Software when they released the source to Wolf 3d or Quake?)
Armed with only my Hotmail login, I now have their source code on my hard drive. In other news, Hell has frozen over, pigs are flying, and the cows have come home. Film at 11.
NO CARRIER
[ck@server1 ck]$ cd wince300 // fuck Linus Torvalds!
[ck@server1 ck]$ grep -r fuck *
private/winceos/coreos/nk/schedule.c:
Those sneaky bastards!
NO CARRIER
What is the fallout of loooking at the source code for a product and then writing your own from scratch. First of all, what does it take to actually establish guilt if the company that allowed you to see the source thought you had done wrong with it?
/. paranoia? If this were true, whats to stop Linus from suing Microsoft when he sees microsoft.com in kernel.org's transfer logs?
Is the possibility of being sued after having looked at someone else's code real, or is this just
--
This is interesting news, indeed... has anyone looked at the source yet?
Isn't there only 1 AtheOS developer anyway?
Besides, the PR monkeys think that it's a good idea...
Karma whorin' since 1999
I think it's best to read the fine print on the license agreement before looking at the code. Who knows what you are signing off by getting the code. You may be giving up your "clean" programmer status. Who knows... if you lay your eyes on Windows code and then work on a Linux related code, Microsoft may come after you for your work. Personally I'm not going to go near that thing because of this reason.
I think Slashcode should have a rating:
-1 Not funny
Your post was not funny. You would have earned your -1.
Me too.
Exactly! They'd never release the source code for an OS which has 90% of its market, but an OS which is clearly non-dominant in its market, no problem. Perhaps they saw how so many companies were using starting to use Linux in embedded devices, exactly because they had access to the source and could customize the hell out of it, and decided to try something similar in a market where they had little to lose?
If they really want to they can use HTTP request logging to get a list of IPs that download the source, at what time, from what user agent etc.
It would be a big PITA to trace each IP. But they could have charts set up that would automatically determine what ISP each IP block belongs to and then filter out the average home users from universities and companies that most likely get hosting from places like verio and tellus.
That would be one hell of a start if they really want to know who is downloading the source. But that's still a quite enormous amount of information to go through if they want to keep a list of names.
--
Garett
With M$'s focus on the 2k/XP kernel, is this just a red herring to attract good press? Isn't CE going to be replaced by XP Embedded or whatever they decide to call it, so they have a common kernel across all their platforms?
What is the true meaning of this? Microsoft released some source code for its embedded OS under a broader license. Microsoft could have a number of different reasons for this.
Perhaps Microsoft is listening to the Open Source community. IMO, the Open Source community is full of bright individuals whose allegiance would be an asset to Microsoft. The purpose of releasing source code along with binaries (especially with regard to operating systems) is to help others produce better code for applications, and to help improve your code, with the help of source-level debugging.
But given Microsoft's somewhat notorious past, I don't believe that this is the case. This may be one of the beginning steps in a new "embrace and extend" strategem. I wouldn't be surprised if, in a few months, Microsoft starts outlining reasons why releasing WinCE code was a tremendous failure, and why Open/Shared Source is worthless... etc etc. Like it or not, this would be a major sign to a lot of businesses, and would taint their image of Open Source. Its acceptance into the major business world would be undermined.
But then again, Bill Gates isn't paying me to be a spin doctor, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.
Copyright and patent are altogether different things.
The whole point of patent law is to encourage people to bring their inventions to market without fear that they'll be ripped off. Thus, patent law allows people to patent their inventions, and once patented, no one else can use the idea behind the invention.
The whole point of copyright law is to protect people from having their actual work copied. There's no notion of "idea" in copyright law.
The only safe way to view it is in an mirror:)
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Note: Before downloading (5.03 MB executable file), you will need to register using your Microsoft Passport. Passport is a suite of personal authentication services that makes it easier for you to use the Web.
Sice when do "easier to use" and "a pain in the ass" have the same meaning??
Maybe Micro$oft had the CE source up it's sleeve for when something bad happened. Like the code red worm. Perhaps Micro$oft released the source to draw the attention away from the huuuuge problem that now faces them and give them some time to think.
BorrisYeltsin
Microsoft just wants the hardware builders to build hardware and diddle with the code as needed to make the devices work better. They need to get the market from Palm any way possible. That is why any modified software for commercial use will require paying a Microsoft tax even if you re-wrote most of it yourself. It's to show the hardware developers, this is a neat modifiable OS that we can use in our new killer PDA. It's Marketshare and nothing more.
The truth shall set you free!
Heh, we we'll finally get to CE the source?
#6 says
"That the patent rights Microsoft is licensing only apply to the Software, not to any derivatives you make. "
Isn't this sort of mutualy exclusive to:
"You can use this Software for any non-commercial purpose, including distributing derivatives. Running your business operations would not be considered non-commercial."
Which appears at the beginning of the license? Someone correct me if I'm wrong here please...
Well, this reminds me of Hitler's 1936 Olympics; put on a nice show for the public to hide the autrocities of Windows XP and .NET
I was camping in upstate New York and the Kingston area for 7 days...how much spam did I get in my Hotmail account? 158 pieces!
For those who care (and are still reading), I only use the account for shuttling pieces of info in case of emergency.
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
I'd love to see an image to go with that....Bill Gates meets the Borg meets Clash of the Titans era Medusa.
I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.
You get beat up a lot, don't you?
Have you flamed SpanishInquisition t
Someone had to link to this. I think the comparisons are obvious.
oops, I lost my sarcasm tags!
Is it the Open Source for DreamCast version?
Sure, it will make a huge impact. Windows CE is so widely used that the source would make a different.
You can come to church, but that doesn't mean that the blessing of the lord is with you, you know... just because they release the source code, it doesn't mean anything. It is just them trying to make it seem like they are dealing with competition (linux) so that the government doesn't get mad. Duh!
samrolken
I knew a nice Linux developer. Today he downloaded the Windows CE code to look at it. Between then and now he has been killed. He laughed himself to death. This is a BIG Microsoft conspiracy to kill and Macintosh and Linux developers. And what is left of the BeOS, OS/2, and Amiga developers. And finally all two of the AtheOS developers.
Once they all have downloaded the source and laughed themselves to death,the only ones able to survive will be the Windows developers, as they already have to use Microsoft's joke of an OS. If this isn't anti-competitive than what is...
--Volrath50
i don't know how much of a marketplace WinCE 3.0 has, but with Microsoft products having numerous exploits already I would think the release of source would just create a landslide of exploits...
And I mean the sources, not the stupid setup.exe.
I don't have Windows and I don't want Windows -- I just want to take a look at the source. And I can't do anything with a setup.exe.
We *know* that MSFT developers read/modified GPLed source code (their IPv6 & the GPL web server).
No, that line of reasoning is way of course.
As a matter of fact, *many* people copy UI from MS.
When you do that, according to the above poster reasoning, you *steal* from MS.
MS makes extensive usability studies, so it's pretty much certain that copying the interface will gives you at least some of the advantages that they got from their usability studies.
MS never did anything about it. Now, they probably might be able to do something if it's a balatant rip off (Apple does it for much less, frex).
But for code you wrote on your own? I seriously doubt it.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Yes, contamination clauses are real. They are usually based on licensing agreements. They are sometimes enforceable, but when they are, they stand in contradiction to everything intellectual property law was meant to achieve.
There are no explicit contamination clauses in the license. I think it is wrong to assume automatically that published, copyrighted source code contaminates you. It would be best to check with a lawyer and settle this once and for all. If contamination exists from looking at WinCE3 sources, more people than Linux kernel hackers need to know about it, and it could be a PR problem for MS. If no contamination exists, then people should feel free to look at the code.
> Even if you never look at the downloaded code, ...
> the electronic trail will look like you did --
> which is perhaps the most insidious aspect of
> this version of sharing.
It also goes the other way.
If you write closed source code and you download GPLed source code, PACMAN and his viral friends are going to come and get you.
Do I plan to think more about the more creative code and use highly-changed variations myself? Absolutely.
Well, then you have your work cut out for you for the next couple of months. There are no device specific files in the distribution so you can't just go and build it for whatever PDA you happen to use. I doubt that anybody who ever put out a WinCE PDA is going to give you the sources to their device adaptations.
>a simple database query can establish whether "Yourname Lastname" had access to the Microsoft-owned code, which could result in legal problems down the road. Even if you never look at the downloaded code, the electronic trail will look like you did -- which is perhaps the most insidious aspect of this version of sharing.
So maybe they plan to look through open souce apps, find code similar to what they release, claim it was stolen, and litigate? I think I'll not download this, but thanks anyway.
My IP is 192.168.1.100 Hack it if you want.
MS has been bitched at for years by exploiting the fact that they make software for their own OS. Which means they can optimize their software for their own OS. Which is what, in part, gets them into hot water, because no one else can. So now they have shared CE and some sort of NT source if I recall correctly. Which means you can now optimize your software to run on their OS. This has nothing to do with having different flavors of Windows running around, but everything to do with having all software on equal footing, if the developer is so inclined.
-
sean
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
You implicitly learn (get) all of the research the previous programmer did to get to that point. All the different failures he went through you can avoid, because you know what he ended up using.
By doing so, you "take" all of his work as yours. All his testing, all his troubleshooting, JUST by lookign at the code and knowing what he used
How do we know that each and every MSFT developer has never looked at Open Source code.
If it could be proven that a MSFT development team "avoided failure" becuase they had seen Open Source code, would that make the MSFT project in question Open Source?
pressure/grep
--------------------------------
Microsoft Fucking Sucks!! Up The Penguins!!
There are TONS of good code!
No reason to look at the devils code if I have to give my soul for it.
This action by MS is very akin to FOIA requirements for the U.S. Department of Defense. A visit to a government depository (usually a public library) can be interesting: diagrams of aircraft, weapons, military vehicles and other assorted 'violent toys.'
However, like the MS agreement, there are many laws restricting/prohibiting the use of such plans to build any such items.
Whoopie. Back to watching X File reruns...
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Microsoft requiring a passport login may further demonstrate the need to stay away from MS's share source. In this forum, I doubt I need to explain the ease in tracing a person's identity with a mere email address (esp. hotmail).
Would MS go to the trouble? Well, let's think about that for a moment --- If MS believes a portion of a kernel was borrowed or suggested by viewing MS's shared source, I think the answer is: Yes.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
So how in the hell are they going to look up your name and trace your footprints regarding who downloads what, when all they really have (using reasonable security with cookies turned off) is your IP address? Sounds like a false alarm on the legal front to me.
Do I intend to download the source? Absolutely. I'd love to see how they code embedded devices (which essentially have to be as tight code as you can get). Do I plan to use the source and redistribute it? No. Do I plan to think more about the more creative code and use highly-changed variations myself? Absolutely. There's only so many ways you can write cout I think I'm going to make it a habit to shoot down alarmists on Slashdot, because there seem to be a great number of them (including the editors).
Actually, this is very interesting news. For a project in film school, I wrote a script entitled The Incredibly Stupid Toaster Aliens. The Toaster Aliens were originally those wacky Japanese toasters that actually ran on WinCE, but were all infected by an alien computer system (which was spread via virii) and was eventually defeated by two quick-witted Linux programmers (4k4 l337 d3wdz). It was purty damned hilariante, but I never got around to shooting it. Oh well, maybe when some fundage comes along, I'll get around to putting it on tape. sigh, Damned poverty! Damn yoooooou!!!
Why is it when I hit ^R that ZSH calls me a cocksucker?
Isn't that pretty much the same reason why many companies completely outlaw GPL software. If this licensing scheme is insidous, so is GPL.
I also checked references for "Sun" , "Linux", "BSD", "AOL", "suck" with no commented results.
It does makes sense that MS went through it with a fine-tooth comb first, plus I betcha there was a lot of internal pressure after the "Netscape Engineers suck" comment a while back.
501 Not Implemented
I'll disagree with you in the same capacity in which you have disagreed with the previous poster:
Yes, that is the point of copyright law.