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.
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.
[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
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.
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.
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?
... 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.
-- YozThe 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?
CE 3.0 source code
"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)
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.
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?
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
Forking is not allowed. Read carefully.
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
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!
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
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
MS releases their entire source to an OS - and you whine about it even more?
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.
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.
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.
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
(oh well.. a man can dream, can't he?)
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!