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.
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?
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)
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!
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
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.