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.

Comments

How owns the copyright?

[brejc8]

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?

Re:How owns the copyright?

[Angry White Guy]

Personally, 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?

Re:How owns the copyright?

[Surak]

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?

From the article:

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.
(emphasis mine)

Although there is no charge to particpate in the program, and you *can* alter the program and distribute it, but you can't redistribute the source -- altered or not-- like the rest of the shared source program. Also, as noted, Microsoft receives a royalty for each copy of CE, so no, they don't inherit the copyright, nor can they release the code as their own.

In other words, you have a license that's almost exactly -- but not quite -- entirely unlike the MPL. (With apologies to the late Douglas Adams. :)

Re:How owns the copyright?

[sfe_software]

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?

It's all in the article. I quote:

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.

(italics mine)

In all I see this as a good thing. They can't beat open source, and are testing the waters with their embeded product. This is a good choice, since embeded development would probably benefit most from having the source available.

Good thing?

[freedom_leffo]

Serioulsy, is this a good thing or is there some kind of trick behind the scenes?

Re:Good thing?

[teambpsi]

they're hoping to use 'free labor' to submit bug fixes :)

and seriously, what the world fixes for free in CE, is probably indicative of a root error in the original code base

Re:Good thing?

[CoolVibe]

No, it's just Microsoft reinventing open source all over again. Maybe in the distant future you'll see MS twisting itself in so much turns, it'll eventally settle at some BSD-like license.

(oh well.. a man can dream, can't he?)

Re:Good thing?

[Thing 1]

they're hoping to use 'free labor' to submit bug fixes :)

And combine that with their stated "We won't use your code for 6 months" and ... If you find an exploit, and submit a bug fix for it, you can cheerfully go on abusing the exploit for another half a year!

Another Money Making Opportunit

[abcxyz]

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.

Re:Another Money Making Opportunit

[tsetem]

Wait a minute. Isn't that one of the big things about Open source development? A huge swath of developers looking over your code, making improvements, and submitting them back to the maintainer for inclusion?

I mean granted, the MS license isn't GPL or anything. About the only superficial difference I see is that MS requires a royalty for every copy of your modified source code, and there is no provision to ensure the end-user gets a copy of the source as well.

On the surface, it doesn't look like that bad of a plan. But it also depends on who is qualified to get access to the WinCE source.

On a side note, is there any reference about being sued to death for using part of the MS Windows source? (ie: could the Wine & Samba developers get access to the source to look at it?)

Re:Another Money Making Opportunit

[Anonymous Coward]

A license that makes submission of changes back to the licensor a requirement is, by definition, not an open source license - thus, he can bash this as much as he likes, and it says nothing about his attitude toward open source.

Re:Another Money Making Opportunit

[oddjob]

The difference between this program and the GPL is more than just superficial. Under the GPL, all parties are on equal footing, and have equal insentive to share their work. Under microsoft's new plan, they reserve the right to sell your work for a profit without paying for it, but they don't give the same right to you.

Re:Another Money Making Opportunit

[Trilaka]

Now granted, open source and free software have different conotations, but free software is not meant to benefit the developer. It is meant to benefit the end user.

This program is obviously meant to benefit the developer, and only the developer. From the article (which is, admittedly, very low-tech), it seems end-users aren't going to have access to the source code. Only device manufacturers and those licensed to sell copies of WinCE. Now, they can alter the code before they sell it, but those alterations must be given back to Microsoft for free.

In fact it was this same clause, that all modifications must be submitted back to the main developer, that were sticklers for free software, and possibly open source software, advocates in the APSL, MPL and other corporate tries at open source licenses.

The real stickler though, is that the one who modifies the code, does not have unrestricted license to distribute their version of WinCE. They must pay Microsoft the same royalty for each copy sold. So, Microsoft makes WinCE look a little more enticing to developers who may want to make changes, gets any modifications for free, and doesn't lose anything on licenses of WinCE...seems like a pretty sweet deal--for Microsoft.

No freedom here folks. Move along. There's nothing left to see.

Re:Another Money Making Opportunit

[ThaReetLad]

Except that the whole point of OSS anywhere is to outsource your development cost. Seriously. If you wanted to get some software written, and you knew there was someone else who wanted it too, then you just start up a OSS project to do it and you get all the other developers time free, AND you get all their work back in your software. OK the license for resale might be different, but the tactic is virtually identical to MS. What MS are saying with this deal is "we are the only ones allowed to licence WinCE. You can add to it, change it, remove stuff, so long as you tell us. BUT a copy of WinCE is still ours to licence. Sounds fair to me.

Re:Another Money Making Opportunit

[rjstanford]

Fair enough... considering that they've almost certainly contributed several orders of magnitude more to the project than you have, I think that not being on an equal footing is entirely reasonable.

It's not Free Software, it's Open Source.

[$$$exy Gwen Araujo]

Microsoft will receive a royalty for each copy of CE that is distributed, whether it is altered or not.

So, you can look at the source all you want. But if you want to do anything with it, you still pay Microsoft. No change there!

It's Licencees only not FREE for all

[DrSkwid]

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.

Re:It's Licencees only not FREE for all

[Anonymous Coward]

CE 3.0 source code

Could help :)

[Mattygfunk1]

I know a few open source office suites that wouldn't complain about being shown how to correctly interpret .doc formats.

____
cheap web site hosting

Re:Could help :)

[wcbarksdale]

You think they'd let someone look at it without an NDA? A person who's looked at that code could contaminate anything related they work on -- which is why groups like the XBox on Linux project specifically asked that you not help them if you are a professional XBox developer.

In case the second link is /.ed

[Anonymous Coward]

[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."

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 . . ." Announcement

CNET: Windows CE plan draws criticism -- This article highlights reactions to Microsoft's an

Re:Not on Microsoft's Site

[SynKKnyS]

This piece of news is very old and they released Windows CE under Shared Source last year (maybe even the year before that?). Take a look for yourself. You obviously didn't look hard enough or are just trolling.

fork?

[pe1rxq]

Wasn't "There are 1001 different and incompatable linux versions/distributions" part of their FUD?
Seems they didn't listen to themselves :)

Jeroen

Re:fork?

[SynKKnyS]

Forking is not allowed. Read carefully.

FP?

[HoneyBunchesOfGoats]

"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." Most operating systems contain code licensed from other sources.

This seems like a good idea, as 'embedded' applications have a much different set of operability requrements to fulfill, and an all-encompassing OS just isn't right for that. I wonder what might happen though, after time, if the majority of the code gets rewritten by third parties? Will MS just be plain unable to share anything useful anymore?

You know

[fizban]

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.

Re:Not on Microsoft's Site

[YrWrstNtmr]

WinCe Shared Source Licensing Program

Become a Microsoft employee and earn $0.00 / hour!

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Just how "free"?

[Alcohol Fueled]

"Of course, they want copies of the changes, but the program is FREE."

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.

Splat!

[JumpingBull]

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.

Re:Splat!

[Bethor]

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.

Notice: it's just the non-Microsoft parts

[YetAnotherName]

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:

#include "ms.h"

And ms.h was just:

/* Copyright 1995-2003 by Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. */

Heck, we might find it that most of it came largely from FreeBSD, or something.

Leeching vs sharing

[gatesh8r]

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.

The shape of things to come

[Anonymous Coward]

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!.

Who's the target?

[Spasemunki]

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. . .

Re:Who's the target?

[jasno]

No, the reason companies like Sony use PalmOS is because its more appropriate for a handheld device. Non-technical users, in my experience, get confused by the PocketPC user interface. It also, contrary to a previous poster, is much less stable than an equivalent Palm device.

I have a friend who owns a Sony NX-70v(along with a NR-70v and N710C), while his dad owns a IPaq with the latest PocketPC OS. The Sony('s) is solid as a rock. The PocketPC needs a hard reset almost daily. I've had similar experience with my lowly clie 320. Also, the PocketPC is confusing, and you tend to lose apps in the background, while Palm's 'single task' paradigm works well on a handheld.

The real reason for this

[yoz]

... 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.

-- Yoz

MS knows

[abhisarda]

that 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 $

License Details

[geldart]

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?

Re:License Details

[kgp]

A little clarification:

The previous Shared Source license was for debugging purposes (so you could figure out why some of your code wasn't working by stepping through OS code). If you changes to the source you could only do it for debugging purposes and you could not make a device (your product) that used the changed code.

This license allows you to make changes to the MSFT source code and ship a device containing those changes (subject to other conditions).

The info you point to is not the Premium program for commercial use but a Shared Source program for non-commercial use. This program (and I suspect the Premium program) don't allow redistribution of source code.

NOTE: not all Shared Source licenses are the same. The license for Rotor (the SSCLI) is much more liberal.

I don't not speak for MSFT though I used to work for them in Win CE.

Cheap way to fill in the holes...

[jmacgill]

"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.

Re:Hmmm...

[200_success]

Once WinCE has wiped out linux as a viable competitor in the embedded sphere, they'll release a new encumbered upgrade.

That is exactly why the right to redistribute derived versions of code is so important.

What happens if you fix a bug or security hole? It seems like you'll have to hand over your fix to Microsoft, which promises not to incorporate it in the next six months. Hee hee.

Re:Become a Microsoft employee and earn $0.00 / ho

[japhar81]

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).

Re:Hmmm...

[SynKKnyS]

Windows CE is not big nor bug ridden. Windows CE 3.0 is about 1 MB for the kernel and support DLLs (that include memory routines and GUI routines). Maybe you are talking about the Pocket PC platform, but the largest component there is Pocket Excel coming in at 672 kb. But, Pocket PC is just a platform that runs on top of Windows CE. Windows CE is just a kernel and some support DLLs.

As this cuts out the main revenue from WinCE, I can only see them doing this as a spoiling tactic.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about and seem to be trying to disseminate FUD. You cannot redistribute the source code and all changes have to be reported to Microsoft. Also, Microsoft makes money off of licensing Pocket PC and SmartPhone, and doesn't make as much off of Windows CE itself.

Windows CE was released under Shared Source to aid developers and nothing more. It already comes with the Platform Developer kit that Microsoft has been using since Windows CE 1.0. However the kit requires licensing and is geared for OEMs producing new devices.

I use multiple Pocket PC and Windows CE devices and have never had a crash on any of them yet. They don't blue screen either for your information.

We need to be careful

[Alain Williams]

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.

Profit

[psyconaut]

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! :-)

Re:Profit

[Lxy]

Write new code, contribute it back to Microsoft (containing many, many destructive bugs)

Now that's a feat to behold.. sending code back to Microsoft in worse condition than when you recieved it!

One Possible Reason...

[tspauld98]

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.

Re:Become a Microsoft employee and earn $0.00 / ho

[mrtroy]

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

Fuck

[defile]

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.

When are you sharing your source..

[GerardM]

One of the interesting things about this is that Microsoft will allow itself to use the source that it is given AFTER a grace period.

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

Now things are making sense

[GeorgeTheNorge]

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?

Is anybody actually happy?

[goldcd]

MS releases their entire source to an OS - and you whine about it even more?

open source or Open Source?

[marauder404]

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.

I still don't trust them

[Fluid Donkey]

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?

OK MS Apologist Troll

[Trolling4Dollars]

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.

Nothing like the Mozilla license

[XNormal]

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.

Re:Where's the source?

[SynKKnyS]

A lot of those undocumented registry settings belong to Pocket Internet Explorer, Office, and DLLs related to various useful portions of the operating system. Oh, thats right! Those are part of Pocket PC 2002 and not Windows CE. Well, I guess we are screwed. :(

In all serious though, the Connection manager isn't part of Windows CE itself and you won't find it in the source code. If you can score the free (after rape-rated shipping and handling) Platform Kit preview, then you get the extra documentation to Pocket PC 2002 as well. Still, no source code there.

Re:Hmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of the release of Windows 95. Microsoft proudly proclaimed that this release eliminated the dreaded Unrecoverable Application Error. Sure they did. They renamed it General Protection Fault (or maybe it was the other way around).

I use multiple Pocket PC and Windows CE devices and have never had a crash on any of them yet. They don't blue screen either for your information.

Yeah, its now the "mauve screen of death".

Re:Become a Microsoft employee and earn $0.00 / ho

[sheldon]

"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.

Re:Hmmm...

[twaltari]

I use multiple Pocket PC and Windows CE devices and have never had a crash on any of them yet.

While this is mostly true, and WinCE really is quite a different OS from full-blown NT, I've had PocketPC 3.0 crash every now and then. However, this isnt much of an annoyance, since it boots up real fast and thus far my crashes havent caused significant data losses. But having never experienced a crash -- I just find that hard to believe. Besides, all the cell phones I've owned have also crashed occasionally.

Re:...from others....

[DrPascal]

Actually ... it'd be more like:

#include "stdafx.h"

CDC dc;
CBrush blueBrush(RGB(0,0,255));
CBrush whiteBrush(RGB(255,255,255));
dc.CreateCompatible DC(NULL);
CBrush *oldbrush = dc.SelectObject(&blueBrush);

while(TRUE)
{ // Undocumented Win32 GDI function
dc.FillEntireGoddamnScreen(&blueBrush); // Undocumented Win32 GDI function
dc.MakeUpAndDrawScreenDump(&whiteBrush); // Used in core kernel RING0 code only
MakeHardDriveLightFlash();
}

Write a binary patch instead?

[siskbc]

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?

put the crack pipe down...

[gimpboy]

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.

Marketing genius

[l33t-gu3lph1t3]

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*

Having trouble establishing a monopoly?

[IGnatius T Foobar]

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.

I disagree...

[Embedded Geek]

the market share for winCE is, in fact, dropping like a stone

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.

Holy Temperature Change, Batman!

[E-Rock-23]

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.

freely available source? Not that I can find

[the_Bionic_lemming]

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 ;)

Blueprints?

[jaavaaguru]

From the article: ...the company is allowing the blueprints to its software...

We don't want the design notes - we want the source code!!!

Re:Sounds like it

[MCZapf]

Wow, that sounds exactly like how patents are supposed to work. Except Microsoft is acting as the patent office, and Microsoft benefits from improvements instead of the general public.

Hmmm, maybe we should be patenting software instead of copyrighting it.

Re:Security Risk?

[2short]

"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.

Ahh but...

[zurab]

Beyond all that has been mentioned already, you have to have a passport account to download the source. Gimme a break!

Re:Not on Microsoft's Site

[Uber Banker]

No it's not as good as the GPL [for us].

This is a lot better for M$ though (both than GPL and fully closed source) - WinCE is used a lot in embedded systems - what do they need? STABILITY - what's the best way to get this? OPEN SOURCE to allow full transparent interaction with the OS and underlying system.

So, like everything M$, its good for M$, it is not a move towards an open source strategy, it is not a sudden moral rash, it is a move to improve the stability of WinCE systems which will benefit M$. ... If WinCE systems benefit form this transparency of design - what is the incentive to go to linux (a transparent OS designed for stability) ...(provocative?)

Viral

[Florian Weimer]

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!

Too bad it takes threats...

[LamerX]

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.