Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Shared Source -- With a Twist
chill writes "Microsoft is now willing to share all the source code to WinCE that they don't license from others. This includes the rights to alter the code and sell the altered code! Of course, they want copies of the changes, but the program is FREE." There's another story at Windowsfordevices.com.
Perhaps you added a zero to the date.
I can't find anything on Microsoft's site about this. Is this change that new or are they planning on keeping it to a select few companies?
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
At all?
Oh God, oh God, please don't tell me I FAILED IT! Please?
Well I like the fact that microsoft is looking at adopting mozilla like (i think) licences. But "Of course, they want copies of the changes".
Do they inherit the copyright to the changes? Can they then release your code as their own? Can they use your code in other products?
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
As this cuts out the main revenue from WinCE, I can only see them doing this as a spoiling tactic. In other words, once WinCE has wiped out linux as a viable competitor in the embedded sphere, they'll release a new encumbered upgrade.
Of course this is unlikely to happen, as cost isn't what stops many companis using WinCE. The fact it's too big and bug ridden is.
Chris
Serioulsy, is this a good thing or is there some kind of trick behind the scenes?
This looks like an excellent opportunity for MS to make more money, and spend less on development costs. From the articles it appears that if I modify the code in a really good, general purpose way -- they get a copy of it back for free. They can then incorporate the changes and sell it royality free (to me). But if I sell my modified version, I have to pay royalities per copy.
Whole new twist on outsourcing your development activities to save money.
I'm a girl too! See naked chicks in my journal!
"But Microsoft has no plans to make those products freely alterable, Mundie said." great, ive been looking for some new wallpaper for my outhouse...
I hate it when I preview carefully, and still screw up. I can't cut'n'paste worth a crap sometimes. Here's the "y" I left out in the previous post.....
Time for LinWinCE... Michael Robertson are you listening?
This is great! I have an old Casio E-10 that I would love to use with 802.11b compact flash cards.
Does anybody know if NetBSD has bee ported to this yet?
http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/30186.html
Pocket PC manufacturers will now be able to tailor their system software to better differentiate their products, after Microsoft today said it would allow Windows CE licensees access to the OS' source code.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
____
cheap web site hosting
Yeah, but it looks from the article as if you have to be a "real" company to get it, even if you don't get charged, so the chances of me getting hold of the source seem unlikely.
It could be "leaked" of course, but if the source to Windows itself is available in the same agreement then why haven't we seen the win2000 source leaked yet?
graspee
[Updated 10:10 pm PDT] -- Microsoft Corp. "dropped the other shoe" today, as it were, announcing the first source code sharing program for its Windows CE embedded operating system (OS) that allows developers and manufacturers to actually redistribute modified OS code in real products. Previously, the commercial use of Windows CE source code was essentially restricted to technical support purposes only, in that developers could use the code to solve problems and understand how to work within the capabilities of the OS, but were not permitted to employ modified Windows CE code to fix bugs, add functions, or tune the OS to tight resource constraints. Under the terms of a new "premium" shared source license, Microsoft will now allow silicon vendors and systems integrators "full access" to Windows CE source code, including rights to redistribute modified code within commercial products. This capability is generally considered critical among developers of embedded systems and devices, either to tune the systems to their unique requirements, or to differentiate their products. In Microsoft's own words: "Shared Source Premium code empowers licensees to optimize and differentiate software and hardware for Windows CE."
." Announcement
Additionally, "CEP also includes a customer feedback program, which enables customer collaboration and community contribution to ongoing improvements to Windows CE products," Microsoft said.
"This is the first time that Microsoft has allowed derivative works to be produced from one of our operating system platform products," noted Craig Mundie, Microsoft senior vice president and chief technical officer of Advanced Strategies and Policy, in a conference call tonight. Customers doing so will still able to take advantage of the "Windows CE" brand, he added.
Mundie also said there is no extra cost for the "Premium" shared source program. Currently, there is no decision to open up XP Embedded source code, Mundie added.
This is the first time that the "complete body of Windows CE source code" has been made available, Mundie added. In answer to WindowsForDevices.com's question, "What percentage of CE source code is available?", Mundie replied "as close to 100% as we can make it -- we can't release sources that belong to other companies." Most operating systems contain code licensed from other sources.
Mundie said customer modifications per the new license must be sublicensed back to Microsoft -- without royalty -- so that Microsoft has rights to incorporate the changes into its products if it so chooses. However, Mundie added, companies can request a 6-month delay before Microsoft can release a version of Windows CE that contains the customer-contributed code, allowing the customer to have a "leg up on the competition."
To provide added perspective on this extremely significant announcement from Microsoft, WindowsForDevices.com brings you this Special Report, which includes Microsoft's full announcement of the new CEP Shared Source program along with a roundup of some of the more interesting news items and articles from around the web that relate to this announcement. Additional links will be added as they come to our attention, so check back here for the latest.
Press release: Microsoft Announces First Windows CE Shared Source Program to Allow Commercial Distribution of Modified Source Code -- "Microsoft Corp. today announced the latest addition to its Shared Source Initiative, the Windows CE Shared Source Premium Licensing Program (CEP), . . . the first Windows CE program under the Shared Source Initiative to allow [manufacturers], silicon vendors, and systems integrators full access to Windows CE source code. All licensees will be able to modify the code, and OEMs now can commercially distribute those modifications in Windows CE-based devices . .
CNET: Windows CE plan draws criticism -- This article highlights reactions to Microsoft's an
Seems they didn't listen to themselves
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Given this comment
.... one has to wonder if it's just a smart method of getting work done for free? Every single copy sold (modified or not) still generates revenue for MS.
Yesterday, Microsoft chief technology officer Craig Mundie said the company won't charge companies to participate in the program, despite the word "Premium" in its name. Microsoft will receive a royalty for each copy of CE that is distributed, whether it is altered or not.
Thomas S. Iversen
It's April 10.
Microsoft, like usual, probably made a calculation error in their proprietary calculator software, shifted the digits and thought it was April 1.
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
Microsoft pledges it won't incorporate the changed portions into CE for six months after the modifier begins selling its product. It says it will pay no royalties to such alterers, because "it's of mutual benefit," Mundie said. .....
If it is altered in a generally useful way, such as to work optimally with a particular processor, Mundie said Microsoft expects the alterer to license the new version back to itself (Microsoft), for free, for incorporation into future versions.
So, if you write code to improve Win CE, not only does it become Microsoft's code, but you don't get paid for your work either! Let the Microsoft bashing begin!
Anyone been there that can tell me? It's getting scary here on planet earth.
actually ce white-screens
Okay, sure, it might be free to obtain a copy of the source or whatever, but Microsoft STILL makes a profit on it, since they receive a royalty on all copies of Windows CE that are distributed.
"Microsoft expects the alterer to license the new version back to itself, for free, for incorporation into future versions. But if it is altered to work particularly in one device, with "value-added engineering," the modifier retains ownership of the changed portions, although it must sublicense a copy to Microsoft."
Now that right there sounds like one fucking lazy way of getting people to code shit for you. Plus another way to use OTHER PEOPLE'S ideas.
Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
They're letting people write specific device support into low level wince code.
Plus there's still probably an NDA on giving the code to third parties ("no extra cost" doesn't mean no cost).
Also, will there be a testing program for altered copies of wince? Will they be marketable as Wince, or will they need to be labelled as different? Incompatibilities could arise, and Wince could theoretically become a diluted trademark.
This is a business admission that the market share for winCE is, in fact, dropping like a stone. The embedded market uses Linux, which allows the tailoring of capabilities, a general understanding and lots of third party documentation ( like o'Rielly). And, the development platform is congruent to the target platform - increasing productivity.
I would not use WinCE for a design, and I am a hardware engineer, with a real need to keep the costs way down. WinCE was 50 bucks, which is a lot of money in an embedded product.
And, dammit, even being fairly inarticulate in software, I have been able in the past to debug the hardware using linux - even if I had to learn the software tools to do it, on the run, as it were.
Others probably have similar experiences.
This is progress?
Maybe more people should actually have a look at it.. It's basically butchered original windows code which I assume was a poor foundation to build from in the first place.
Maybe I'm just trolling, but how much of Windows CE is non-Microsoft? 50%? 90%? Wouldn't it be nice if it pretty much boiled down to something like this in every file:
/* Copyright 1995-2003 by Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. */
#include "ms.h"
And ms.h was just:
Heck, we might find it that most of it came largely from FreeBSD, or something.
This is the time for all developers to join in laughter.
Look! They used goto 653 times!
Note to self: get smarter troll to guard door.
What M$ is doing here is just leeching; per usual off of other people's efforts. This time however it is made to look like they're actually sharing source, but altercations that is really your copyright have to be licenced royalty-free to M$ yet to sell those changes you have to pay M$ as well as your engineers!? That's not in the spirit of OSS.
Karma whorin' since 1999
As far as it goes. I don't see how anyone can deny that this is a step in the right direction. We couldn't expect MS to suddenly divulge all their secrets so we may as well settle for this... for now :)
Free iPods - now in the UK!
The while(1){screen(blue);} part?
They use C++. That would be
while(1){screen.blue();}
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
I think this could be the start of a new business model for Microsoft and others. They have seen the effect that open source has had in the marketplace and it both scares and excites them.
On one hand they see that high quality software can be produced by the open source method (apache, linux, java) due to the sheer volume of (admittedly less talented) programmers and beta testers involved. This takes money away from their products (especially in the server end where W2k advanced servehas been soundly thrashed by Linux despite being arguably the superior product) and costs them revenue.
What they really want to do is reap the benefits of open source while still being able to sell the program for prophit. As I understand it the process goes something like this:
1. Write the basic strucure of your program.
2. Release as open source.
3. See the variations that you like. Get your top programmers to incorporate the best ideas that open source has given you as well as improving your original program. Do not release the new program.
4. As this is Slashdot. Profit!.
Would this be considered a viral license, to be avoided by all responsible businesses?
People who disagree with you are not automatically evil, greedy, or stupid.
You mean that Windows_XP_Sourcecode_NotAJoke.EXE that I downloaded off kazaalite last night wasn't real?
Ruh Roh. </scooby>
Now that right there sounds like one fucking lazy way of getting people to code shit for you. Plus another way to use OTHER PEOPLE'S ideas.
Isn't that the entire basis for Open Source software?
Could this be the give-away that unlocks Windows, in general? Recall, Microsoft prospered because IBM allowed Bill Gates to sell DOS in their licensing agreement. An error I'm sure IBM will never forget. Microsoft is banking on many things, same as IBM was back then, and perhaps assuming WinCE isn't that important in their grand scheme. Maybe it isn't, maybe it will be. Once the horses have left the corral it takes some effort to bring them back. Of course, Microsoft's solution, lurking in the wings could be to change it radically, causing a fork. Timing could be everything.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Still, CE does allow us to make jokes about it in combination with ME and NT in a bucket with my feet in it. . .(rimshot) Thank you! I'll be here all week. . .
You are not the customer.
The article makes it sound like this is primarily aimed at countering the presence of Linux in the embedded/handheld market, but I wonder if this won't do more harm to PalmOS in the short term. Palm has allowed its licensees a pretty free hand in making alterations and requesting features and changes to the OS, at a pretty low level. This is part of what has made it possible for licensees like Sony to run with the platform, and do a lot more with it than Palm's own handhelds do.
If MS extends this kind of freedom to their licensees,
then new clients (which Palm is going to try and acquire more aggressively once the device/platform split in the company is complete) will have one less reason to work with Palm rather than MS. So this is pretty win/win for MS; they get some extra edge on Palm during a vulnerable time for the company, when the pending division could cause things to go either way, they get some enhancements and/or fixes to their code from their lincensees, and they get to collect their royalties no matter what. I doubt that there are any real principles relating to support of Free Software involved; it's just a smart business move.
Remember, there's a reason they got to be the Evil Empire, and it doesn't necisarily involve the quality of their products. . .
What they meant to say is: Free (as in beer)
Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...
... is that MS has realised that, without opening up in this way, WinCE doesn't have a hope in hell of making it onto phones.
Case in point: Sendo, who were the main UK manufacturer of WinCE-based phones, eventually gave up and switched to Symbian. One of the reasons behind the move was the release version of Stinger (WinCE for phones) getting later and later and playing havoc with their schedules.
It's worth noting, though, that there's still a lot of ugliness left over with the Sendo case, with suits and counter-suits going back and forth. Andrew Orlowski's piece in The Register contains many fascinating bits, but most interesting (and most applicable here) is that the main thing Sendo couldn't handle was their own code going back to MS to be incorporated into the OS, thus losing any competitive edge.
The new WinCE license demands such code returns. It shows they've learned their lessons about lawsuits, but maybe not about what their OEM customers actually want.
-- Yozthat the only way to gain marketshare in the handheld arena is to go open source. There are many well entrenched companies in this area and they are making it difficult for MS to gain marketshare. Windows in desktops is different because they have a monopoly and there is no viable competition(excluding Llinux). MS is relatively a newcomer in the mobile market and one has to keep in mind that WinCE is reduced bloatware unlike Palm or Symbian which are built for mobility from ground up. Samsung was supposed to release a WinCE mobile device but it switched to Symbian. Same case with Sendo which is right now in a legal battle with MS. The tactics of MS is similar to its media player initiative for Linux. It does not hurt MS because it does not get any significant money from media player anyways. Many people have commented on the Dell Axim which is pretty much the cheapest WinCE device you can get and they are not much impressed with it other than the screen. The software is buggy and it just does'nt work as nicely as the Palm's. My .02 $
..in the embedded world. My company is wrapping up a project to move from a NT/IE embedded system running a web application to a Linux/Konq one. There's no contest which is better. It's not even close. This is too little, too late.
We're also migrating from MSQL server because of the insane licensing fees. There's been some movement here from Microsoft too, but once bitten..
..don't panic
If every Open Source developer submitted substantial useless changes, M$ would never be able to find any useful contributions. A sort of denial of service attack.
The story seems to be a little inaccurate - MS don't appear to be allowing you to sell on modified versions at all. The details from the license are:
- The right to use the Windows CE source code for any noncommercial (educational, research-related, or developmental) purpose, including distribution of derivatives of the software. Running your business operations would be considered commercial.
- The right to use the Windows CE source code for commercial purposes solely to assist in developing and testing the licensee's own software and hardware for the Windows CE platform. The user may not distribute the software in source or object form for commercial purposes under any circumstances.
You can read this for yourself here.
Doesn't seem such a dramatic shift to the existing SSI to me - or am I missing something?
"What percentage of CE source code is available?"..."as close to 100% as we can make it -- we can't release sources that belong to other companies."
As it's not 100% anyone who wants to re-distribute CE is going to have to fill in the gaps left by the code MS can't pass on.
As soon as they fill those holes, they will have to pass the new code back to MS.
MS can then ditch the pesky dependance on other companies code, which is probably making a dint in each sale.
Question is, are MS obliged to make the code they get back from this program freely available, if so great, if not then they probaly only have to do this for a year or so, wait till all the holes get filled and release a new version of CE where they have 100% of the code royalty free.
Spell checker (c) creative spelling inc. (aka my dyslexic brain)
O.k. Where's the "gotcha" clause? I have a hard time believing that MS is actually going open-source on ANY of their IP. After all it's their "Intellectual Property," right? And if it's "property," sharing it or giving it away would reduce share value, right?
... by the Dew of Mountains the thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning
So lets get this straight.
Blue badges for fulltime employees. Good pay, benefits, and you go to their parties.
Orange badges for interns/contract employees. Decent pay, you dont go to their parties.
A large "L" on the foreheads and kick to the nuts to those of whom improve their code.
Why do they bother hiring anyone!
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
microsoft just went open source?
and with their perceieved flagship product (soon to be since it is predicted hand-held devices and dedicated hardware that use CE will begin outselling traditional boxes by 2005)
ive got a lot of bridges back-ordered, ill be seeing you guys soon.
--Enter The Sig--
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
This isnt necessarily wrong. Say I'm Wesayso, Inc. and my new KickassIII processor is the next big thing for CE machines. Everyone is going to be using them, Dell in the cheapos, Compaq in the iPaqs, etc. etc. It certainly makes sense for me to take the source, optimize CE for it, and make sure that my product is stable, as opposed to letting MS do it themselves and screwing up like they usually do.
Granted, it seems wrong on its face, but MS is right for a change. Wesayso gets as much benefit (an optimized CE version that they make sure is correctly coded) as Microsoft does (free labor).
It this holds true, how the hell do you guys intend to build any code if parts of it aren't free???
Haven't we been encouraging companies to release source code their obsolete and failed software products instead of taking them to the grave with them? Why should we complain when M$ follows our advice?
(Yes, this is humor...)
If you enforce that the code changes have to be released to a 3rd party and that any changes in the code can be resold, then yep.
Sounds like you'd have to patent whatever you did, to keep MS or someone else from using your code to make money. But then again isn't this already part of the GPL, you can sell your code, but the changes can't be proprietary.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
What the hell do you think they think they're interacting with? Magic little people that do what you say at the tap of a stylus?
Trying is the first step towards failure.
Although I welcome the (partial) opening of the source code; the open source community needs to take care that it isn't bitten. Think what could happen: The samba team makes a new advance in unpicking a part of the SMB protocol; M$ says ``they only did it because they had access to our source code from WinCE''. There then rages a huge debate that Samba is tainted by proprietary code ...
Making their code more readily available could be a double edged sword.
They first ignored Free Software, later on they attacked it with arrogance, now they are switching from FUD (mainly misleading arguments against free software) to mimicking (we share our source too, you see ? We are open too, really).
I guess from my view the bottomline here is:
If nothing else, Free Software is playing a role on balancing the arrogant power of MS. And I personally think it is doing much more than that ;-)
The general overview of their 'open-source' licensing of CE clearly keeps the flow of revenue moving towards Microsoft (through the reverse licensing and royalty payments) and control of ownership as Microsofts (as you really only have 6 months before MS can appropriate your changes and rework them into CE). Essentially, MS co-opts your company's development team towards the benefit of their product, makes additional revenue... also, if you make proprietary changes to the CE code, your company is now responsible for supporting & managing customer support on those changes, alleviating some of the support headaches that MS faces supporting their own products. Seems like an all around great deal for MS!
1. Get Windows CE source from Microsoft -- FREE :-)
2. Write new code, contribute it back to Microsoft (containing many, many destructive bugs)
3. Microsoft distribute code, many WIndows CE machines crash
4. We offer to fix bugs, for a fee
5. PROFIT!
Please, Please, Please use our stuff in embedded devices. I wouldn't be suprized if the EULA gives them full rights to any changes to the code either...
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Slashdot really doesn't know when to stop the April fools jokes. Next we'll be hearing about Sun ditching Java for .NET in August!
A big mistake in the interpretation of many of the posters here is the fact that they are assuming that this code release is Open Source.
It is not.
It is Shared Source, which means that all of the licensing loopholes, etc that Microsoft used before still exist. They are just willing to give you the code as well as the binaries for the software that you sell.
They haven't gone anywhere near as far as GPLing their License. They just reduced the shared source cost from more than 0 to 0. Which allows companies to change their software and pay MS for the fact that they start with their software.
~ kjrose
I want to download the source from microsoft.com! I want to be able to figure out what the **** all those undocumented registry settings are for. Working with CE is like wandering through a swamp at night. Bad documentation, weird registry settings, crappy APIs. Don't get me started on the steamy pile of llama dung that is Connection Manager.
So where is the source?
Life is so much easier with the source code.
I'm working for a Fortune 500 client as an independent contractor. The group that I'm working with runs a massive Internet application that is multi-tiered. The front end of this application runs on Microsoft platforms (currently NT), but the application software we run could be deployed on *NIX. There is tremedous pressure on my team to upgrade to something because NT is being "End-Of-Lifed". So, while we debated whether to switch to *NIX or upgrade to Windows 2000, MS rides in like a white knight trying to explain how Windows 2000 is just as automated and scriptable as *NIX. They convinced management to upgrade to Windows 2000 because MS claimed that they could automate the entire upgrade process.
Guess how they choose to automate it... using WinCE. They basically did a WinCE instance running off a CD to suck all the config off the NT machines and install Win2000 from an image and reconfigure it based on the NT config.
Needless to say, we ran into many problems and it wasn't as nearly as seamless as MS advertised. Based on the bugs in WinCE that I've seen, they need many eyes -- both development and user -- on this product as quickly as possible to get any market traction. Anyway, be warned, I don't think this software is as "free - as in beer" as your labor will be if you choose to use this product, IMHO.
"Ahhhh, best laid plans of mice and men... and Cookie Monster." -- Cookie Monster, Sesame Street
Pardon my attitude, but I'll wait until the other shoe drops... then use Linux anyway .
Visualize Whirled Peas
Could this be compiled for x86 so I could run windows apps without having to buy a F(*&^#$ expensive copy of it?
Well... they're MS, so odds are it would be more like:
while(1) {
blue.screen();
}
How about some with regard to this? I am in Europe, so software patents don't apply as such, but I still wouldn't want to look at this code and then be threatened with legal sanction if I wrote a device driver that hacked a device previously only supported under Win CE. So anybody care to advise?
Lets make a pretty similar analogy here.
You are a car manufacturer, and make a new kickass car. Now OPEC gas is not elite enough for this new car of yours, so you make this additive which adds octane to the OPEC gas.
The kiddies that buy your car go to the gas station, and they buy gas which has the additive in it, which they pay more for (or the same considering microsoft isnt going to make it cost MORE for the improved CE), and the money from the gas all goes to the OPEC gas company.
You developed the additive, but do not benefit by the sale of it.
This would not happen outside the monopolistic software industry
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
Ok, I understand that Wince (Not a typo :), makes sense to open up as wince is the MS answer to real time systems which typically need to have a lot of the kernal source open in order to win customers. The one thing that I think would be a great idea is to open the source to recently made "end-of-life" MS products like Win98/95/NT(?). Small businesses could still get support for them and we get to find out the mess that MS developers code in everyday! Poor MS employees :)
MSFT definitely sees that linux is a major competitor. But since it can't buy it out or, so far, take it to court (win or dry out the assets during court proceedings), it has to see how linux thrives.
One way linux does so well is it's open source. Everyone takes a gander and likes to know what's going under the hood. Some people take the initiative and makes tweaks or enhance the code and submit them to the CVS tree (kind of like a thousand unpaid monkeys).
Microsoft knows this and are willing to open the source to areas that can benefit from an open source project. Of course this only includes portions of the code that won't show any trade secrets or anything promised to be secluded (either by legal law bindings or illegal means... who knows).
This can benefit MSFT, b/c there's always companies out there that see winCE as the only viable option for development. This gives them a bit more control over the product they're developing, a better chance to customize.
That's upsetting. The biggest problem with handheld devices is that whenever a new product line comes along, the manufacturer starts almost from square one again to write the operating system. (Fortunately this is less-so the case with PDAs).
Lots of wasted effort goes into rewriting the same functionality over and over again, and ISVs have to deal with hell to write portable applications. What's that? Java? BREW? Please, that garbage isn't going to encourage innovation on handhelds.
You'll only start seeing real innovation when developers have raw unfettered access to the entire phone, and that's just not feasible until 90% of the phones are running the same platform. Right now all of the manufacturers and providers are getting hardons for how much proprietary pay-by-use junk they can cram into their phones, and in the meanwhile the people with ideas can't see them realized.
These suckers are starting to come with internet access and GPS, coupled with a portable device which can retain state you have bundled some amazing potential, but it's all being retarded by the entire industry's inability to cooperate.
It troubles me that Microsoft of all people is the one that sees this and is trying its damndest to make Windows CE the unified handheld platform, so much so that they're even opening the code to some degree.
I suppose if Windows CE becomes the ubiquitous standard, it paves the way for Linux (or whatever) to be an easy drop in replacement, but it's easier to capture unclaimed marketshare than to fight Microsoft for it...
Advice to vendors: Adopt a standard now -- Linux may be a good one. Don't wait for Microsoft to get its act together, because by the time they come onto your radar it'll be too late.
Two things, Microsoft will have the right to use your code; so a commercial advantage is time limited. When an organisation finds a security issue in Windows CE, Microsoft will NOT have the right to include the patch as there is this period of a few months that a company has as a competitive edge.
Consider what it means for a company coding in Windows/CE; your additions are NOT guaranteed to provide a commercial advantage; Microsoft allows itself to your code. So the advantage of coding in Windows/CE has to ofset coding in Linux. With the GPL you do not NEED to contribute back to the community; you only have to provide the source and objects to customers! When you contribute to the community, there is no grace period for nobody.
I wonder when somebody writes a Windows/CE security patch and insists on the grace period would Microsoft be liable under the existing laws?
Thanks, Gerard
Laugh at the dummies that fall for this.
Quick! Quick! Somebody compile an XScale optimized version of CE! It's about god damn time one was available. Even just an XScale optimized GAPI library would probably result in a 2x frame rate improvement in PocketMVP. Somebody get on this, stat! I can't wait for/don't want to use CE .NET.
.NET. Right.
Hooray for misuse of punctuation.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
I tried to get some Delphi development tools for a CE project, and the Borland rep said they didn't have any.
Why? Because Borland had heard from Microsoft that WindowsCE was on the way out. They had other things they were going to use to take its place.
This must be some sort of *what do we have to lose?* trial balloon on Microsoft's part.
So what did we do instead? We figured out that the device we were going to use had a web browser. Now, how many free languages exist to drive one of those puppies?
If you got a $100 bill, put your hands up...
MS releases their entire source to an OS - and you whine about it even more?
As did my girlfriend's. Everyone knows this - it is a horrible unstable and bloated system.
True, it's not the way that most open source licenses work, but much of the value of open source (small o and small s) is that you can see the source. You can see how it works, you can learn how it works, and maybe you can write software to work with it. There's additional value in modifying it and even more value in distributing it, but the value doesn't begin there. While MS's program requirement doesn't meet the strict definition of open source, I would say that it meets the definition in a more loose way. The only requirement is that you email it back to MS and they get to use it, too. That doesn't sound like too strict a requirement, since the only difference is that instead of MS coming to you and downloading your source, you're sending it to them. Call them lazy. In addition, they're allowing you to profit from selling the software commercially, which is also not in the strict open source definition.
Yesterday, Microsoft chief technology officer Craig Mundie said the company won't charge companies to participate in the program, despite the word "Premium" in its name. Microsoft will receive a royalty for each copy of CE that is distributed, whether it is altered or not.
If it is altered in a generally useful way, such as to work optimally with a particular processor, Mundie said Microsoft expects the alterer to license the new version back to itself, for free, for incorporation into future versions.
But if it is altered to work particularly in one device, with "value-added engineering," the modifier retains ownership of the changed portions, although it must sublicense a copy to Microsoft.
Microsoft pledges it won't incorporate the changed portions into CE for six months after the modifier begins selling its product. It says it will pay no royalties to such alterers, because "it's of mutual benefit," Mundie said.
So...if I modify WinCE code and redistribute it, I pay a royalty to Microsoft, who gets a royalty-free copy of my work. They turn around and incorporate it into their WinCE code after six months (hmmm...) and redistribute MY code, but royalty-free. How is MS using my code royalty-free "of mutual benefit" again?
Still a one-way royalty stream (towards MS as expected). Why is their code subject to royalty payments but mine isn't?
It's a step in the right direction, but something seems fishy here.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
You lost the answer to your own question within your post.
You, the car company, DO BENEFIT from the additive. Without the additive nobody would buy your car because the POS wouldn't run. The oil comapny takes on the work of including your additive into its manufacturing process. (someone has to maintain source code too!)
Also its a SUBLICENSE, which means you can resell your additive to other oil companies, as long as you let the first oil company use the stuff royalty-free. (Plus you can request up to 6 months of delay... that's not too bad.)
The gas and car analogy breaks down because fuel is a consumable, and IP is CAPITAL. The system works like this:
You're a car company, you develop a new kickass body but need an engine. Rolls Royce has a great engine design for you, but it doesn't quite fit the needs of your system - you need to make a few performance improvements on certain parts such as the timing valves, but otherwise the engine schematic they gave you is perfect. They'll GIVE you a SCHEMATIC instead of an ENGINE (compiling costs almost nothing, so pretend engines cost 0 to manufacture) and let you modify the schematic so it suits your needs. Within 6 months of shipping you then must LICENSE them back the changes, and they'll maintain the changes for you in future versions of the engine if they like the changes.
YOU STILL OWN the IP to your changes, which you can patent out to other engine manufactuerers, like GM or BMW. Just like your software changes to WinCE can also be licensed out, FOR PROFIT, to other Embedded companies such as Wind River or QNX.
Not a bad deal. MS wins, Customer Wins.
Why does it seem to me that they are simply trying to get some free development on a piece of software they aren't really focused on right now?
Who else sees them removing the "free" lisence after a few companies make some very usefull changes/enhancements to CE?
It's amazing how spiritual an elaborated beer commercial can be. -- Philip K. Dick
April the first?
ericsson,nokia,etc all uses their own ui's,etc with symbian to make the phones "work like another of our mobiles". by doing this people could continue "doing what they've always done". / Jonas
Time to spout off about things you don't want to understand. OSS BAD NO MATTAR WUT I KNOW OR DON'T KNOW
The real issue as many people have pointed out here before is the "poisoning" of developers. The companies who go with the shared source program are going to be signing up with a contract that will make it nearly impossible for those developers to work on GNU (and potentially other) OSS projects should they want to in the future. In the end, this may not matter since the developer who write for Windows don't typically work on OSS projects. (NOTE that I said 'typically', not 'never')
For all the caring about the "software ecosystem" that Microsoft proports to be doing, they are actually a lot more like the tobacco companies who knew that Nictotine was addictive but put it out there anyway. Microsoft is going to put this out there and wait for people to bite. Then when some of these places decide that they've had enough with the WinCE and want to try a Linux or BSD kernel for their devices, MS will come down hard on them. Worse still... MS might wait and then come down on the projects that the former Shared Source coders contributed to claiming IP infringement. The end restul being that the project is either shut down or set back really seriously.
Un-news
I would have to say that Linux and BSD among others have had a beneficial effect on the way Microsoft has been doing business. This is a step in the right direction and I hope that it encourages them to be more open in the future.
From reading the articles I'd have to say that developers of these devices are getting an excellent deal compared with the previous business model.
J.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
Well I like the fact that microsoft is looking at adopting mozilla like (i think) licences
Microsoft owns the copyright.
You are not allowed to distribute the source.
You must pay royalties to Microsoft for every device incorporating the binary (modified or not).
You can make changes and I think you don't have to give them back to Microsoft. If you want to avoid repatching everything on Microsoft's next release you can hand the changes back to Microsoft for inclusion.
AFAICT it's exactly like "Shared Source" except that you are allowed to compile it and distribute the binaries - but only as part of a hardware device.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
this whole PDA thing is still too lame and bulky for mass adoption beyond tech heads. until then let microsoft try to get into PDA's. it will simply be a waste of effort, especially when AMD and Intel start making super small and efficient CPU's that can run 3x longer on a small li-ion battery. who knows how long that will be, but when it happens, this whole PDA market will rapdily disappear. Of course not that all the work will be a waste, but the environment will require drastically different modes of computing. Concept like pi-calculus and mobile computing will become more dominant and the simple apps will have to be rebuilt to take advantage of dynamic tasks that are context sensative.
I thought this was available last year for download...maybe the only real change has been the license?
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
Perhaps it's just paranoia on my part, but if it hasn't been released under a Free license, I don't look at the source to it. The last thing I want is my employer to get sued because MS/whomever claims I used their code, rightfully or not.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
"So, if you write code to improve Win CE, not only does it become Microsoft's code, but you don't get paid for your work either! Let the Microsoft bashing begin!"
How much do the Linux distributors pay you for your contributions?
$0
I don't see the point of this complaint. This program seems to cover every positive aspect attributed to open source. i.e. you have the source, you can contribute changes back to insure they are in the next release, so on and so forth.
From a corporate perspective this all looks good.
Simple plan:
1) Get shared source license from Microsoft.
2) Add a whole bunch of GPL-ed Linux kernel code.
3) Wait six months until Microsoft incorporates the improvements back into the main Windows CE branch.
4) Sue.
5) Profit!
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Hence my use of the word'THEIR' when describing the source code being released. Pah.
Actually ... it'd be more like:
e DC(NULL);
// Undocumented Win32 GDI function // Undocumented Win32 GDI function // Used in core kernel RING0 code only
#include "stdafx.h"
CDC dc;
CBrush blueBrush(RGB(0,0,255));
CBrush whiteBrush(RGB(255,255,255));
dc.CreateCompatibl
CBrush *oldbrush = dc.SelectObject(&blueBrush);
while(TRUE)
{
dc.FillEntireGoddamnScreen(&blueBrush);
dc.MakeUpAndDrawScreenDump(&whiteBrush);
MakeHardDriveLightFlash();
}
DrPascal: Not the language, the mathematician.
Oops ... there should be new line markers just before my comment lines. :-/
DrPascal: Not the language, the mathematician.
"All your WinCE are belong to us."
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
I guess they finally figured out. "hey, if we can't code it right...why not let someone else do it for us".
Just them using Open Source to thier advantage.
-Rob
The only thing that is really bad about this project is that it is one sided, that is Microsoft gets the changes 'for free'.
But if I sell my modified version, I have to pay royalities per copy.
Actually, what they mean here is that, as an OEM reseller, you still have to pay a windows license whether or not you modify it. But you don't have to pay extra to modify it. That clause isn't very onerous. The "all your source are belong to us" clause is the kicker.
It would be nice and kludgey, but I think the best route around this would be to make the released changes to the binary instead of the source. Easiest way would probably be to coimpile the original source, make your changes to the source, compile again, run a glorified "diff" on the before/after binaries, and figure out what changed. That way, you could collect your changes to the binary into a patch. Then, you could redistribute your patch to people who HAVE windows, and you can NOT give them your source code.
Not the best solution, but it involves as little money hitting M$ as possible. Now I wonder if they already have a provision against this in the EULA of the Shared-Source dev kits?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
mod up parent
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Do you honestly believe that Microsoft is doing this to help developers from the goodness of their hearts, and not to gain competitive advantage? Please.
Embedded developers work close to hardware and aren't crazy for abstraction and black boxes. Microsoft is sharing this source because they're afraid of losing the market, and nothing more. Competition is forcing them to offer more value, and that's how it should be.
It would be nice if the same thing were to happen on the desktop.
The user may not distribute the software in source or object form for commercial purposes under any circumstances.
in the boolean sense "or" means that if either condition is satisfied, then what follows applies. so object code:
Object code is the result of a program taking source code and running it through a compiler or assembler. This creates the object code which can then be linked together in such a way that the computer can understand it. Executables are created in such a way. Both are platform/processor dependend. A Mac could not understand the object code created for Linux, just as DOS could not understand the object code created for an Amiga, unless an emulator was used.
would include executables and thus you would not be allowed to distribute object code under this license.
-- john
They use C++. That would be while(1){screen.blue();} How is that more C++? struct screen{ int blue = 3452; } ...
... that the only code they have not licenced from someone else is hellowor.asm so you?
You never know...
This is great from Microsoft's angle, for a few reasons:
A: MS gets goodwill from one of the new-growing areas of programming and computing.
B: MS gets, for free, all enhancements anyone makes to its CE OS.
C: Modified WinCE a go-go. This quite possibly will foster greater acceptance for the OS itself.
D: I'm not sure, but I believe that MS isn't going to have to provide any tech support for modified software.
E: MS gets to dip its toes in the water of shared-source. It's easy to see this as a tentative step in the right direction for better MS operating systems in the future.
Good idea, Microsoft...
*gives Bill Gates a cookie*
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
People do seem to realize that "shared source" isn't open source. In the embedded universe, even though you can read and modify the source code to Windows CE, you still have to pay a license fee to Microsoft for each device that you ship. Not so with Linux. That's why Linux is currently *beating* Microsoft in the embedded space. Microsoft recently contracted with a third party to make Windows Media available on embedded Linux. (Not on desktop Linux -- they'll make sure that doesn't happen.) This shows that they're admitting that they don't plan to have a monopoly in that space anytime soon, but that they're still working hard to try to achieve a monopoly on digital media. In reality -- no change. The number one rule of everyone, everywhere must continue to be: avoid ALL Microsoft products. Think of Microsoft products the same way you would think of cancer. You don't want even a little bit of it, because it *never* continues to be just a little bit.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
sheldon 2322:
Not in the slightest. You can't do squat with the code, except tweak it and give the changes back to MS. It's unfree -- and it's not very open either. You can't take the code and use it in your own project, you can't fork, you can't even distribute your work without giving MS royalties.
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
If you do accept the agreement, and get the tiny amount of code that thy have released, ( remember its NOT 100% ) do you now become 'tainted'?
From then on everything you write could also be considered tainted.. If you contribute to an OSS project, IT becomes tainted..
Perhaps this is their REAL long term goal.. sort of a viral infection of IP control.. ( in their favor )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This is unacceptable and useless because it doesn't match the strict ideals of the Open Source philosophy. Right?
Or become a pimp, and get hundreds of dollar every night / ho!
<sigh> Subject jokes.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
scripsit 324089:
I've been assuming this was parody... it is parody, right? Please?
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
Crashing isn't so bad. Fortunately, my iPAQ has a handy reset button hidden on the bottom. I use it regularly.
The pissy part is when I called a coworker. His phone didn't ring. In fact, he has to reset the device daily to ensure that it will ring. PocketPC just isn't ready for cell phone use.
Wow this must be the elusive hear that the Wizard of Oz gave the brave Gates when he demonstrated his hear towards the little developers out there.
Science will save us. The question is, will it destroy us first?
The download contains no window manager code, no GDI, no file system, no process management, no shell, nothing that actually would have made this an interesting release.
Ive got to remember to not fall for that '100%' trick again.
.. How long before someone comes up with a zaurus port?
How much do the Linux distributors charge you for every gizmo that you sell that uses Linux?
$0
How much does Microsoft charge you for every gizmo that you sell that uses Windows CE?
> $0
These people are trying to sell hardware not software.
I've got Windows CE on my resume and I'm getting 3-5 unsolicited calls/EMAILs weekly for headhunters looking for CE guys. We work with a CE house that is buried. I won't say CE's market share will overcome VxWorks anytime soon, but for anything with a GUI display or that's web enabled, it's a very valid choice.
WinCE was 50 bucks, which is a lot of money in an embedded product.
First, I'd need to verify with our contract guys to be sure, but I believe we're paying more on the order of $10/licence. $50 sounds a lot more like embedded XP to me (which we're using in other products). Also, we're running an x86 with no BIOS, so BIOS royalties go away. In anycase, while recurring cost is a big issue, for lower volume products (say under 100K) the savings in initial software development costs (our biggest item here) recoups.
Now, before you say "Low volume, what a cop out!" I need to point out that there's an enormous amount of embedded development out there that meet this critera. Go to a trade show and you'll find at least half of the atendees are not building VCRs or PDAs but niche products - medication inventory trackers embedded within pharmacy carts, portable diagnostic equipment for high voltage power lines, or (in my case) in flight entertainment systems. You won't find any of these things at your local Best Buy, but there's more than enough demand for them to support these lower volumes. I agree that this was not MS'es initial goal, and it makes me wonder if they'll ever turn their back on CE because of that, but for the moment CE looks quite healthy to me.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
Do you meant to tell me that Hell has finally frozen over? Now I don't feel so bad about going there when I die...
I still have reservations about this, even after reading this particular blurb. But it is a step in the right direction. Can't believe I'm saying this, but Kudos to Microsoft.
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Sorry...YOU FAIL IT!
In the words of the first-poster..
pwned
What happens if i get this WinCE code and add some new code to it that is based on GPL code?
Last.fm - join the social music revolution
How much does Linux cost? $0. So developers are paid nothing for fixes to a product that costs nothing. OTOH WinCE developers are paid nothing for fixes to a product that costs real money.
M$ is probably correct in assuming that developers will be motivated to produce fixes/additions to enhance the functionality of their own products. And if Microsoft continues to exploit their leverage like this they will alienate their developer base. If I were a device manufacturer I certainly wouldn't develop any new features for WinCE; I would be working for M$ for free.
I can conceive of circumstances where this would seem like a good deal. But I haven't been that hungry in a long time.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Thats OK though, since most opensource contributors dont actually get paid for any of their work. I mean, even at that price (free), I dont know many real companies that would take the code that some of you throw together.
/., but hey, its free isnt it?)
But just keep on hacking dewdz and one day gnome will allow you to pretend youre using Windows (of course theres the really crappy code underneath written by some schmuck who spends his day bitching on
Wow, what a great product! It has everything my current phone has (Nokia 3650), except it isn't available yet!
How could Symbian have a chance against CE now that they only have advantages in currently shipping a working product and having business relationships with manufacturers of 99% of the mobile phones currently on the market?
Microsoft is going to wait untill some pieces of the Linux kernel resembles WinCE just enough that they can scream 'Copyright Infringement!!' and ruin the party for everyone. Sure, Linux development will continue, but I can see them making it as painful and complicated as possible.
Never eat more than you can lift -- Miss Piggy
The Windows API is so messy that sharing the code is pretty pointless. (Nobody would be able to make sense of it)
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
"You can't do squat with the code, except tweak it and give the changes back to MS."
Huh? You can tweak it and use it as part of your product. What more do you want?
"You can't take the code and use it in your own project, you can't fork, you can't even distribute your work without giving MS royalties."
Do you just whine to hear yourself whine, or do you actually think your points are valid?
Right now - all I know is that you need a smart card to log into Microsoft to see the code - they intend on maintaining the code and keeping it at Microsoft.
;)
Here's a video by microsoft describing it.
I could be wrong - all I'm asking is for more info
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
& you don't have to worry about their
convoluted deceptions.
"How much does Linux cost?"
Somewhere between $39.95 and $149.95.
"OTOH WinCE developers are paid nothing for fixes to a product that costs real money."
As opposed to the fake money Redhat charges.
"M$ is probably correct in assuming that developers will be motivated to produce fixes/additions to enhance the functionality of their own products."
Who is M$? I thought we were talking about Microsoft here.
"And if Microsoft continues to exploit their leverage like this they will alienate their developer base."
Alienate? You mean like how all the open source zealots are alienating developers by demanding they give away their work for free? At least Microsoft doesn't do that.
"If I were a device manufacturer I certainly wouldn't develop any new features for WinCE; I would be working for M$ for free."
Again, just like you work for Redhat for free, just like you work for other companies that take free software projects and resell them, just like you work for other companies that provide support for free software projects for a fee.
This isn't a valid complaint... you've been doing this for years, and you have been perfectly content to let people take advantage of you.
Now you want to come here and claim Microsoft is going to take advantage of you?
And you wonder why the development world considers open source people a bunch of whiners? Sheesh, look in the mirror.
From the article: ...the company is allowing the blueprints to its software...
We don't want the design notes - we want the source code!!!
Follow me
I have no way of knowing if you really know what you are talking about, but the process that you are describing sounds an awful lot like the MSA EDC Automated Purposing Framework, found here.
This process uses WinPE (Windows Preinstallation Environment). A bootable 32-bit subset of Windows XP to aid in enterprise deployments. WinCE is not the same as WinPE.
scripsit sheldon:
*plonk*
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
The basic idea:
WinCE is getting its butt kicked in the embedded marketplace. It's doing so-so in the PDA market, but PDAs are only a tiny fraction of the embedded market.
Simply put, WinCE is too huge and bloated for many embedded apps. (Someone said the kernel is 1 MB - That's a monstrosity in this particular market, where every kilobyte counts.)
Linux is a bit too big for some applications, but for the mid-sized embedded systems, it blows away CE. The embedded market is a place where Linux has been making HUGE inroads and MS has been going nowhere.
In addition, it sounds like some parts of CE are licensed from other developers. i.e. what MS is releasing is crippleware. MS wants to pull a BSD (i.e. remove all of the code they don't control and rewrite it), but they're too lazy. So they want other people to do the work for them.
Other people fix their code, MS retains all control. Those other people will have to be extremely careful about ever working on another OS in the future.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Hit too close to home I guess.
scripsit a troll:
Got better things to do than feed trolls. Good day.
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
The problemet with Pocket PC isn't so much that it crashes from time time, but rather that it brings the whole system down with it. I mostly use my PDA for retreiving information, so I haven't really got anything to loose when it freezes. But I think that once they develop some better input devices for these little things, I'll need a more stable OS than Windows CE to support it.
And yeah, my Nokia 3210 has crashed a couple of times. I even made my old HP 32S calculater lock up once, wich required me to remove the batteries for several hours before I could boot it and get it up and running again. At least Pocket PC boots very fast, as you metion.
"Do you honestly believe that Microsoft is doing this to help developers from the goodness of their hearts, and not to gain competitive advantage? Please"
Of course not, nor did he say so. Helping developers gains you competitive advantage. Microsoft has always understood this. If you're writing software for their OS, you're helping to maintain their market position, and you'll find they're really quite nice to you.
Beyond all that has been mentioned already, you have to have a passport account to download the source. Gimme a break!
Lucifer buys ice skates!
...
Farmers report their pigs are sprouting wings!
...that the GPL (and related thieves) will die soon.
Quote from the first article:
But if it is altered to work particularly in one device, with "value-added engineering," the modifier retains ownership of the changed portions, although it must sublicense a copy to Microsoft.
Hey, that's as viral as the GPL! We're almost winning!
> Somewhere between $39.95 and $149.95.
So you think Nokia is going to buy a copy of Red Hat to ship with every cell phone?
The per-unit royalties for Linux are $0.
The facts beg to differ. Microsoft may release a new numbered version of the code, and charge people for it again, just like they did every time they fixed bugs in office or windows or other ms products and called it a new version. (or like when they added bugs and called it WindowsME.) Or they may even call it a new product like XP and claim that it is much more stable (which says a lot about the crap they took money for before) and because of this they are justified in actually rasing the price.
When they do the programmers who make it better get squat.
Not that I'm against them opening the source, but It's lame to demand that fixes be submitted to them rather than a more reasonable request that people do so.
But isn't this the same Microsoft that swore in court how important it was that they do not release source code? Isn't this the same company that bashes the O.S. community and tells governments and major industries how many things are wrong with softeware like Linux because it makes it's code openly available for inspection?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
It's not reasonable if you're interested in software freedom, or building and maintaining a software commons. I know I would much rather work as equals in a project no matter how much code I've contributed, so I'm not going to get involved with software licensed under Microsoft's new license. I concur with oddjob, the GNU GPL lets me participate as equals with all the other GPL licensees for as long as the covered program is licensed under the GPL.
This is not the first time we've seen this kind of inequity among participants--there is a similar imbalance of power in the APSL (Apple Public Source License). The FSF commented on this in their essay describing why the APSL is not a Free Software license.
Digital Citizen
redjack...redjack....kill...ha.ha.ha....
>How much does linux cost?
You can buy bottles of air too, but air is still free!
Google is said to have well over 4000 machines running it's service, do you think they paid for 4000 copies of redhat? More likely they paid for one, configured it into their own package, burned it and used that. I don't know, pure speculation.
But I know they can do that. And they can just download the ISO and not even pay RedHat! Hello!
Redhat is charging for a users manual, a CD, and a nice box for your shelf.
You seem like today you are the whiner, nothing personal--- well, I guess that is a bit personal. Still, your whole argument is based on the idea that GPL stuff isn't really available for free... it is, you can't deny that with credibility. Therefore, you get the changes other people have made, for free. You get the changes RedHat has made, for free. You are guarenteed access. If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, you pay for some packaging and maybe save yourself some time from a long download... but if you don't have, you still have access.
The WinCE situation is simply not the same.
Other than that, I tend to agree with you... MS is entitled to do whatever they want with WinCE, including making a trap by painting it OSS colors.
-pyrrho
So THAT's why it's so cold today!
It's a step in the right direction for MS.
I suppose they're starting to feel the pressure from Free Software (or at least the more open proprietary vendors) in the embedded space. Of course, the world of embedded software and devices has always demanded more openness from vendore (hard and software) than the consumer market.
Of course, they'll still have a hard time fighting against Free Software and it's much larger pool of experianced programmers.
Microsoft is just starting to learn about open source, and they are getting closer and closer to the GPL. The more they open up their code, the more benefits they are getting. Faster developent is what it looks like they're aiming for. I would say that in the future, Microsoft itself might write code under the GPL/other OS licence, as they learn the benifits most of us know already.
At the risk of trolling, how does this new methodology adversely impact the consumer or the third party vendor. The consumer gets a better, more customized, _possibly_ more stable product. Additionally, the consumer has a wider choice in products. No one is forcing developers to customize CE. In fact, third party vendors are given a new opportunity to produce a better product. Finally, developers will invariably find bugs deep inside the 500,000 lines of code. If developers write patches for these bugs, CE could become the next BSD.
$0
How much do you pay the Linux distributors for your copy of Linux?
$0.
This is the key difference. I don't know what OEMs (and therefore you) pay for a copy of Windows CE, but it sure as hell isn't $0. Thus, Microsoft profits from your unpaid work.
Chris
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
A sidebar about the code that goes back to Microsoft...
It seems to me that I would prefer that *all* code be returned and integrated by Microsoft, not just the code they choose to integrate, excepting platform specific changes.
What this basically means to you and me is that, even if we get a hold of the WinCE source code, and compile it up for our WinCE-based device, we aren't going to be able to run it, because it will be missing some non-abstracted vendor pieces specific to the device.
This seriously resticts the utility of having the source code to device vendors *only*; third parties, including software developers, need not apply.
This is similar to what you would have if PalmOS was licensed under the same terms: sure, you can compile and modify it all you want, but it would never run on your Handspring Visor (or whatever).
In other words, this is actually not a license beneficial to developers in general, it's only beneficial to vendors.
Better if Microsoft forced abstraction of vendor components, in such a way that the existing binary vendor components could be recombined with a modified WinCE to allow people other than the vendor to use the vendor's platform for things the vendor thinks are only marginal profitability (e.g. I modify the code for a small WinCE device to add support for a bar code scanner, and resell the devices with my code to inventory control services).
As it is, there's only a device vendor benefit.
So quit complaining about the per-unit royalty: it doesn't matter. And quit complaining about the license-back: it also doesn't matter.
-- Terry
Windows CE source code is useless.
Wake me up when M$ releases the code to something usefull like XP or IE or OE or IIS...
Unfortunately, it's not :-(. I actually heard this myself (while SWITCHING CHANNELS - I was NOT watching it :-))
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
FYI RedHat is a distro of Linux, and you can download it for free. There are other free distros of Linux as well. You should read up on Linux before capping on it; I did and I don't even use it.
If M$ (or anyone else) wants to pay programmers to develop closed source software then more power to them. In that case developers get paid for producing something that is sold for cash.
If the Mozilla (or any other Open Source product) development team produces software that someone turns around and resells for cash then more power to them as well. Anyone can go download the source or even a precompiled binary without paying a cent. Anyone can choose to buy the commercial product or download the free version.
The WinCE licensing model sucks because free work does not lead to free results. M$ gets to take your work, which they have not paid for, and incorporate it into a commercial product that cannot be downloaded for free elsewhere. If you can't understand the difference between that and the Open Source model then you are impossibly thick. But I suspect you are actually just an M$ apologist grasping at straws.
I thought Bill Gates was a prophet of God. In doing this, he sold his soul to the devil and GNU/FreeBSD open-source communism.
Any software not made by a major company for the purpose of profit is a false idol and worship of false idols is against the Christian faith.
At the Second Coming, Jesus Christ will damn you commie reds to eternal hell!
All Hail John Ashcroft! You NEED a Big Brother Government to PROTECT you. Any disagreeing with the Republican Party will have you damned to hell for all eternity.
Repent now and be born-again in Christ before it's too late!
Billgatus of Borg Ministries
"You seem like today you are the whiner, nothing personal--- well, I guess that is a bit personal."
Moi? Naw...
"Still, your whole argument is based on the idea that GPL stuff isn't really available for free... "
No, actually that's not my argument. If you took the time to read and understand you would see that.
Let me summarize.
Linux Whiner: Whaaaa!!!!! Microsoft is going to make money off of us.
Myself: So? People do it all the time from Linux, but you don't complain about that.
Linux Whiner: But... whaaa!!! I can't get it for free! I like free stuff! That's why I miss Napster!
Myself: Is that the only reason you prefer Open Source? If so I feel sorry for you.
"Therefore, you get the changes other people have made, for free. You get the changes RedHat has made, for free. You are guarenteed access. If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, you pay for some packaging and maybe save yourself some time from a long download... but if you don't have, you still have access."
Well at least you've admitted Open Source isn't a sustainable business model.
Maybe the Zaurus is looking like too much of a threat, because of the fact that the Zaurus is the only REAL handheld PC. WinCE is stupid.
>If you took the time to read and understand you would see that.
are you saying it's impossible to disagree with you, once you are understood? I think I'm understanding you well enough.
> Well at least you've admitted Open Source isn't a sustainable business model.
I don't think it's a business model at all. It's a distribution model (you get the source).
I think Google has a good chance of making money from it's use of Linux, for example.
I think RedHat has a good chance to survive because while I have only slight reason to pay for redhat, I have a lot of reason to pay for up2date, and other forms of support. I can get [OSS example of preference] anywhere, but I trust RedHat not to feed me a trojaned version.
And I also think that OSS serves one common business model rather well... and that is the consultant.
Standard tools, and all the money for installing, configuring, and maintaining them goes to the IT professional.
-pyrrho
You gotta be nuts... what are you running CE on your wrist watch, or do you just work for dollar dollar Bill? Hopefully not, because I'd hate to ask someone the time and have to see them reboot their watch. Either you're outright lying, or you're up to win the lottery.
I think a lot of people are barking up the wrong tree on this one. Here is a brief summary from the developer's perspective (as opposed to the marketer's or the lawyer's perspective):
1. If you are developing for Windows CE and you need source code to figure out what the OS is doing (for debugging, or to make up for anything left out of the documentation), you now have almost ALL of the source code, instead of SOME or NONE (like it was before).
2. If you need to add your own features by writing your own code (new DLLs, new programs, etc.) you do so. Microsoft doesn't care.
3. If you want to change any of Microsoft's source code that came with the Windows CE Platform Builder kit, you can change it, recompile it, and sell it, but you need to send your changes to Microsoft.
4. You still pay the same for copies of Windows CE that you distribute, whether or not you made any changes in the code.
#4 has been a fact of life for a long time -- you want to sell our OS, you pay us a royalty so that the nice guys who stayed up late at night writing our OS can feed their families.
#3 seems remarkably similar to the GPL -- if you make a change and sell it, you make your change available for everybody else. Of course, the code is now licensed to Microsoft. But if your code is generally applicable, you have 6 months to profit from it before anyone else steals your ideas (and they would have stolen them anyway, just now they get source). If your code is specific to your hardware (a very common situation), your code is now in the core OS distribution, so optimizations that make Windows CE work better with your hardware are now everywhere, making your hardware more attractive to potential customers.
The embedded world is a lot different from the software-only world. It is often much more like the hardware world. If you sell network cards, you WANT Microsoft to include support for your card in the OS. You WANT Microsoft to have the code for getting the best performance from your card. You would LOVE for Microsoft to let you suggest architectural changes to the OS that would make your product better.
Remember, this is all about give and take. Microsoft is now giving customers the ability to change the OS as needed. It is taking the changes and incorporating them into future editions of the product to make a better product. It basically picks up some of the benefits of open source, while still allowing all involved to pay the bills.
I think it is pretty cool. Everybody wins. And if a company decides that it isn't in their best interest to participate, they don't have to.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
you: Fair enough... considering that they've almost certainly contributed several orders of magnitude more to the project than you have
You really mean it?
I'm not denying MS put together (for now) all of the Windows CE. Now you implement some new feature into it (under this new Shared Source program). It costs you say $100'000. Now you have 6 months to sell as much copies of altered Windows CE as you can so you make those money back (from the margin you have on those modified Windows CE). After those 6 month MS will sell your work to others and you wont see any money from those sales.
It realy sounds to me as "you implement new interesting features, we will not pay you anything and the only think you get for your work is that you can try to sell it for 6 months ahead of us". That's not very interesting scenario even if we assume MS will play fair with this rules.
If MS won play fair ... Say you make feature "Super Kerberos For Handhels(TM)". You are selling it but in the mean time they are implementing their ussual "embrace and extend" on your idea and work and after 6 month you come to compete with MS and others, who by that time will be "armed" with "MS Enhanced UltraSuper Kerberos For Handhelds(TM)" which may or may not be interoperable with your implementation.
IMO, at best, you may make enough money from enthusiasts and early adopters to pay your development bills, but majority of (your potential) users/customers will learn that buying features from you is not worth it because it is better to wait 6 months when "those pretty new features you produced(TM)" come out directly from MS and ussualy for lower price.
hany