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.
... 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.
-- YozPersonally, I don't care if they use any code of mine, even if they profit from it. At least this follows the spirit of Open Source, if not the letter of it. Face it, developers are just going to do tweaks and fixes, not rewrite the entire thing or add stellar new features that will revolutionize pocket computing.
The only thing that I'm worried about is if the code taints OS compatibility projects like Samba or Evolution. If developers use MS code, does the entire project become MSFT's, or does it provide a powerful tool for MS to stomp out these projects?
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
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
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
The embedded market uses Linux
Linux is a great alternative for embedded. But SymbianOS is what
Microsoft is really going after here. Symbian is being adopted by most big cell phone manufacturers, and
the source comes with the license.
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.