Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Eases "Shared Source" Restrictions
An anonymous reader writes "In an effort to help device makers differentiate their products and compete more vigorously with Linux,
Microsoft is eliminating
major restrictions on the use of its "shared source" license for the
Windows CE operating system. The change, which accompanies the impending
full release of Windows CE 5.0, will counter competition from Linux
and is likely to expand Microsoft's slice of the roughly $1B embedded OS
market pie. Specifically, the new version of the Win CE Shared Source
license will, for the first time, enable developers anywhere in the
world to include modified Windows CE code within commercial products
without having to sublicense the modifications back to Microsoft.
Interestingly, the revised Shared Source terms are reminiscent of the BSD open source license, which permits the development of proprietary derivatives that need not be shared with the community, in contrast to the GPL, which obligates developers to make their modifications available to the public."
Furthermore, the software development process itself is accomplished with an inexpensive, $995 integrated toolkit which can even be downloaded on a 120-day free-trial basis as part of the Windows CE 5.0 "evaluation edition" before purchasing a license.
While I have never used Linux on a PDA (and probably won't) I can't imagine having the claim that $995 for development fees (after the trial period) is "inexpensive" especially when this is an obvious attempt to compete with Linux in the PDA market.
The slashbots were right all along. Sun was a very early proponent of BSD and now look what's happening: Microsoft (late to the party as usual) is "innovating" a new BSD-style license. I blame Sun. If they hadn't backed BSD in the first place, none of this sorry mess would have happened.
nothing says BSD is dying like MS moving in on your turf.
Doesn't mean anything. To get the benefits of "open source", you have to develop using the methodology, not just slap an "open source" license on it and expect it to magickly get better.
Disconnect and self-destruct, one bullet at a time.
Competition simply means Microsoft becomes more like the competition. ...more Unixey. ...more open source. ...etc.
However don't forget to read the fine print.
It's an irony. Microsoft counters the GPL with an even less restrictive license.
:)
Free Software will rule the world, and Microsoft will play multiple parts in making that happen.
If you look at Microsoft's Shared Source license page, there's a bunch of different programs for different pieces of shared source. link here. These shared sources don't seem to create an open community, because first it's not open, and it's not a community. Open implies free, and it's clear that these sources aren't complete. You're still stuck on Microsoft's teat for the remainder of the OS. And community implies a group of equal collaborative partners. As far as I can tell, the partners are not equal. Microsoft could decide to completely change the APIs one day and leave everybody in the dirt. By missing an open community, they miss the best feature of open source.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
How expensive is a commercial QTopia License ?
..which obligates developers to make their modifications available to the public." ..
Thats not a restriction -its a statutory obligation to remove restrictionns, ffs, sounds like MS mind control signals to me
Why don't we wait with discussing this until the actual license text is available, so that we can see what the article is talking about?
Maybe, as the "the revised Shared Source terms are reminiscent of the BSD open source license" remark in the article seems to indicate, this is actually a free software / open source license. Maybe there are still some unacceptable strings attached. How are we supposed to think something good or bad about the new license just based on this article which is obviously written by someone who is not very familar with software licenses. (The article says about the GPL that it "obligates developers to make their modifications available to the public." That is incorrect. If you distribute a GPL-licensed program to someone, you have to make sure that the recipient can get the source code. You are however not required to make modifications available to the public. In practice, modifications are very often made available to the public, but this is an important distinction to keep in mind, especially when thinking about privacy issues, and also when thinking about commercial GPL licensing of software packages for the expected number of customers is small).
Under construction: swpat politics overview article
- Create bloat in disk and RAM usage
- Access NULL pointers to decrease stability
- Program major security holes into common apps like xterm
Let's level the playing field!To an individual developer $995 might be a lot of money, but for a software company that's not really all that much.
PalmOS has been another stable hand-held system that amateurs can actually write software for as well.
Though, I must sheepishly admit I had problems with a free PalmOS compiler I downloaded a year or two ago.
The only thing more dangerous than a file named -rf is renaming it -rf\ /
Try "predictably", or "obviously". Of course MS is going to go with a more BSD-like license, as opposed to a more GPL-like license. MS has always made it quite clear (through actions as well as statements) that they like the BSD-type open-source licenses, as it allows them to embrace and extend without breaching the license. (Thus far, they haven't really "embraced and extended" BSD code-- but they do use BSD's command-line FTP client code, and I believe BSD's TCP/IP stack? Or was the latter only in the past?) Anyone who thought that they would go for a more GPL-like paradigm was only fooling themselves.
Frankly, I think it's surprising that Microsoft is releasing any source code at all. I actually think it's a bit premature for MS to be doing such things. Here in the "trenches", dealing with tons of end users, all I see is Windows users to the left of me, Windows users to the right of me. I don't see Linux encroaching on Windows turf on the desktop-- and, in fact, I see Windows encroaching on Linux/Unix turf on the server side of things. (This frightens me deeply.) It is surprising that MS is scared enough of Linux and the open-source/free software movement to be releasing some of their source code while their market share is still so ridiculously high.
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
I don't see your point. In order to develop for CE you have to use their development tools and libraries. When you develop for a Linux based PDA you aren't *TIED* to any specific toolkit.
Sure, you could use QT and pay if they charge (I don't know) but you could also roll your own and end up distributing it for free if you wished.
I can't tell if you are talking about Linux or WIndows CE, but the Windows CE Embedded Visual tools are free... both in obtaining and in licensing.a milyId=F663BF48-31EE-4CBE-AAC5-0AFFD5FB27DD&displa ylang=en
Check it out http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?F
Embedded Visual C++ and Embedded Visual Basic are included the last time I checked.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
OK so what do you use to develop for a Zaurus?
Yeah sure you can make an ncurses app, but what if you want it to integrate nicely?
So yeah you have some choice but for a commercial app I'd still go with commercial QTopia as would anyone with a bit of common sense..
I still can't use any of that windows CE code in my own program/xserver now can I? Whereas with the BSD licience I could borrow theor code as long as I kept the copyright notice.
It might be expensive if the end users were required to have it to install software. It is a one time fee for the developer. For most companies that can afford to design and ship a PDA this is a drop in the bucket.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Spread windows far and wide. Now when the next MSvirus hits it can take out all the other appliances too!
"ffs! How many time do we have to tell you, you need to run windows update on your microwave at least once a week"
Waking Up - There must be a better way to start the day.
The problem you and many others make is you look at these software prices through the eyes of an average programmer, coding stuff in his spare time. You have to realize that software like this is not targeted at such a person, but to companies that intend on developing products which are sold for profit. From that perspective, $995 is a drop in the bucket. It's less than the cost of paying a small group programmers for a day's worth of work.
Perhaps it's a childish pleasure, but pleasurable nonetheless: Watching MS squirm ever increasingly in response to the rise of open source. And with this latest ISS/IE debacle it seems to be rouding a wide (if somewhat slow) corner. I've had several people switch to Firefox (including a co-worker) based on that alone.
Watching MS progress along the classic path of "ignore OSS; laugh at OSS; fight OSS; lose uber-dominance" is a patient game, but well worth it.
Then again, this last gasp of uber-dominance of theirs is somewhat scary - when MS described OSS/GPL as "viral", I'm wondering if they were describing their own vision of an apportunity to virally insert themselves into other bodies of code....
"It's a trick, get an axe." - Army of Darkness
You can get a running start now before you hit the end.
MSFT believes in Free as in "no strings attached" and not Free as in "whatever RMS' philosophy is".
BURN THEM
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
more than 2.5 million lines of code...
Just what I always wanted in my embedded OS!
The source opens you!
"In an effort to help device makers differentiate their products and compete more vigorously with Linux"
Why do device makers need to compete with Linux? Device makers need to be able to develop software that works on both for the biggest market share.
This license also induces MASSIVE FORKING. You will have no way of knowing that the version of Windows you use will work the way you expect. Millions of version of Windows CE will be created, each slightly incompatible.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Just listen.
If Microsoft is willing to open up its technologies and allow others to use them, then I see no problem with that. It isn't automatically part of a massive War on Linux.
Avoid the knee-jerk reactions, this could be a very good thing.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
the biggest example of how MS's shared source license differs: no matter what, you can't ship your source code under any license.
MORTAR COMBAT!
It's an irony. Microsoft counters the GPL with an even less restrictive license.
Despite the /. summary, the new license isn't really BSD-like. It's certainly a lot more relaxed, but it doesn't let you take the original code and do whatever you want with it. This is all about letting companies ship modified *binary* versions -- there's no way, for example, to make a complete fork.
Were this truly a BSD-style license, it'd be possible to take the code base and dump it wholesale into Wine, or a Wine-CE -- enabling perfect WinCE compatibility on the Zaurus, or even on Linux desktop systems. How much you want to bet that's not possible?
Plus, aren't there still per-copy license fees? Or has Microsoft already done the IE thing and dropped that to compete?
A lot of people are making a stink about this not being GPL, and even poking fun at the fact that this style license is, in fact, less restrictive then the GPL... but make no mistake, MS knows what they are doing. If they were to make it GPL, then make changes... guess what... they have to release them. With this license, they release a code base, and everyone can pick at it as they want, even them... and they don't have to give the changes to anyone. So while everyone is making base systems with "Windows CE version X, with some tweaks", Microsoft can start adding whole chuncks of warm binary goodness and call it "Windows CE Super Platinum Edition", with "Super secure cryptography and cutting edge realtime multimedia support", while the base code under shared source has none of this.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Quote:
... in contrast to the GPL, which obligates developers to make their modifications available to the public.
Erm, no. This has been said a billion times, and I suppose it will be said again. The GPL does not require you to give back your changes to the public. It does, however, require you to give the source code to whoever you in turn gave the program too.
Example: If I sell a modified version of the kernel to the Pentagon, I must provide the source to the Pentagon, but no one else. Not even the NSA, or some state gov't, etc etc. It is a very simple concept. (Ingenious when you think about it.)
Sunny Dubey
Mmmmmmm.. embedded OS market pie...
I can't imagine having the claim that $995 for development fees
You don't think that fully supported development kit for 995$ is cheap? It cost less than red hat ES 3. Development tool kits target production environments and 995$ is not a lot of money when it comes down to it. Especially since Windows CE is the thing on PDAs (Linux support is growing but slowly).
Their shared source has two problems:
First, by making the source available to a limited audience for cost, dedicated crackers can get thier hands on it (illegally) but legitimate developers can't without paying big bucks. It's good to know only law-breaking coders will be looking for secrity vulnerabilities.
Second, by allowing third parties to modify the source without requiring peer review (either by MS or by the community), they are likely to introduce new bugs. At least with the Linux kernel, there's a hell of a lot of review before changes are integrated into the mainline. Forks also frequently get merged back into the mainline. Now there will be hundreds of modified WinCE varients, none of which getting peer reviewed or integrated into the trunk, and who knows how MS will handle distribution of security updastes to modified WinCE variants.
If you pay a developer $50,000 a year for a multimillion dollar software project, $995 is cheap. Cheap by commercial standards is a different beast than cheap by hobbist standards.
This is a very nice business move by msft and seems to make life for other much easier.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
Not 5.0, but 4.2, I can say that a lame kernel is still a lame kernel, source or no.
I've SEEN Microsoft's source code (not kernel code, but their "example" code) and it is hideous. The most well known (to CE developers) was the infamous "audio hang" where if you spec'ed in an audio driver and you DIDN'T have a Codec on the board, the entire system would hang. And it didn't get any better (even after pointing this out to MS).
People say the learning curve is steep. They are correct. But not for the reasons you might think. It is steep because MS uses the SAME text in multiple different passes to build the OS. When you chat with them about problems they tell you to use the console (I don't think they did the GUI but as an after-thought).
Worse, try to explain to your application developers that "yeah, it looks like Windows, smells like Windows, has an API, but it ain't Windows". Then they get frustrated when things don't work the same or they discover (surprise!) that the API is limited (hey, I only got 32 Megs of RAM here, dude!).
What a hunk of junk.
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
One of the reason for choosing GPL would be to control competition, as it eliminates the risk that some of your competitors adds new features that you have no access to.
I have always regarded BSD like licences suicidal if you issue and only beneficial to the licencee. While GPL gives more equal terms at least on paper. In reality the parti that have written the major part of the code will probably come out on top as he will have better understanding on how it works and will probably be able to provide better services.
So given Microsoft normally highly competitive behavior, one wonders if their hate towards GPL have clouded their minds.
God is REAL! Unless explicitly declared INTEGER
Most big software companies are very opposed to the "communist" nature of the GPL. Software companies want the freedom to innovate and profit from their innovation without giving away the "secret sauce".
Microsoft is definitely listening to their customers here. The customers want access to source so they can make modifications, but without being forced to release their improvements to others.
Now the interesting thing will be to watch Sun's response. If Microsoft yet again beats Sun, will it force Sun's hand to tip their cards more? Pass me the popcorn, this should be interesting.
Someone is WRONG on the Internet!
Ah, imagine the fun someone could have with a network-attached WinCE microwave: // virus.c
while(true) {
if(microwave.containsPet()) {
door.close();
microwave.start(Power::High, 30);
} else sleep(5);
}
I don't know about you but I haven't used too much WinCE software that was coded by software companies. Most of the stuff I used was coded by people doing so in their spare time.
Either you haven't used CE that much or we use different software.
So what's to say 3 years from now they don't just come out with a new "Windows Lite" which is completely incompatable with WinCE and start pressuring hardware manufacturers to switch over?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
...and allowing you to... embed it in things?
Okay, that makes a lot of sense from their perspective, but are we supposed to be impressed by this or something?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
In a M$ license every word adds cost to the lincesee.
M$ lawyers don't add words to a license for no reason. Every word of a M$ license has a reason and a cost.
It is significant that Microsoft seems to be losing the lead on where things are going now. They are recting to Linux rather than leading the IT market.
I know they are doing this to keep Linux out and to try and get people hooked on XP - but it does not work like that any more. I have just replaced a customer's Outlook Express with Mozilla's Thunderbird - the transission went smoothly - and although the (non technical) person has never used Thunderbird before the training took about two minutes!
I think these strategic decisions of Microsoft are a turning point. Microsoft cannot kill Linux. If they want to keep their current markets they are learning that they need to do it on Linux's terms - ie - give the customer reliable cheap working software that does not involve paying a big "Microsoft Tax".
I think we have seen the value of Microsoft's software, and it's revenue, take a downward turn. I am expecting the trend to continue.
Web Sig: Eddy Currents
You complain about the $995 fee and say, well, on Linux you could just roll your own toolkit?
It would take monts or years and a "mobhord" of developers to correctly do that, but at least you save the $995 fee for the kit.
Call it a hunch, but I am willing to wager that you don't design and build PDA's for a living?
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
eMbedded Visual Tools 3.0 - 2002 Edition ...and now includes the Software Development Kits (SDKs) for Pocket PC 2002 and Smartphone 2002.
PocketPC 2002 is outdated. They are giving away free development kits for an OS that was released in 2001.
Software written on this platform doesn't always run on the newer one and it certainly doesn't run well or include all the hooks into the advances that were made in the more recent releases.
Thats just plainly wrong, please re-read the GPL! The GPL just obligates to make the source avaliable to every receipient of the binary, and enforces that you cannot change the license.
Thus, if you develop complex modifications for a GPL software, and your customer pays you lots of money for it, nobody is forced to give those modifications to the public.
GPL enpowers the customer, not the public. The customer gets the freedom to modify (or pay someone else to do it) the software, independently from the original vendor.
plim-plam-plompudding
``Of course MS is going to go with a more BSD-like license, as opposed to a more GPL-like license.''
Well, it's not that obvious. The GPL is definitely the more controlling of the two, and I don't think it is a matter of course that Microsoft would give up their control.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Trying to compete with Linux in the PDA market???
I hate to tell you this but Linux is trying to compete with CE in the PDA market and not doing all that well.
Where Linux is doing well is in the Embeded market for things like Wi-Fi routers and such. The PDA market is on that Linux is not doing well in at all.
Would I like a Linux based PDA? Yep but I have not seen one yet that will work as well as my old Palm does. I can even sync it under Linux.
BTW $995 is not bad for a development system. Take a look at what Troll Tech wants for QT under Windows!
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Call it a hunch, but I am willing to wager that you don't design and build PDA's for a living?
And the people that would want to use Linux and save the $995 on the toolkit wouldn't be doing it for a living either.
IBM, for instance, has a piece of PDA client software used in conjuction with WebSphere portal server. That's at least one company doing it. Let's not forget game makers like PopCap, etc. They're real companies too.
If someone wants to write some free software, fine. There's free tools for that. If someone wants to sell their software, hopefully they're expecting to sell the 50 copies at $20 needed to recoup the inital investment.
Need something they have, but modified slightly? Do it yourself.
Want it on Linux?
Do it yourself - port it.
Not screaming for the Windows side of things here - posting this from a SuSE 9.1 box. Still have my SuSE 6.0 cd's...and 7.0 and 8...
If you think this is a permanent change in MS behaviour, I have a swamp to sell you. As soon as they get any significant advantage in that market, they'll change back to screwing their customers. MS WILL NOT CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOUR.
BC
I can't imagine having the claim that $995 for development fees (after the trial period) is "inexpensive" especially when this is an obvious attempt to compete with Linux in the PDA market.
The world of embedded devices is only now starting to emerge. The consumer end of things, which might be called "PDAs" [or "Cell Phones" or whatnot], is just the tip of the iceberg.
The potential for business use of embedded OSes is just staggering, however, and Microsoft [as opposed to Sony, or Ericsson] has tradtionally made their money in business [not consumer] sales.
And a blinding one at that.
Just wait until those fools that look at Microsoft's source write something similar a couple of years later....
The original poster linked you to a download for the old version, for some reason. Make no mistake, the latest dev tools are also freely available:
eVC++ 4.0
maybe it's not targeted at individual developers, but it's an artificial barrier to entry. it's like raising the rent of the building you own so minorities (statistically they make less per capita) can't rent an apartment from you.
Or like a hardware store raising the price of hammers so you would think twice about "doing it yourself" in favor of hiring a handyman.
analogies are fraud. take this with a grain of salt.
Sigh. No it doesn't. It requires that source code for the binaries be distributed with the binaries. There's no obligation to release anything to the general public.
Just like we're not going to get anything good out of using Microsoft's code.
Paranoid? Look at it this way: would you put some sort of rights to your companies code in the hands of Microsoft? Do you trust them that much?
Me neither.
wow, looks like you are the one that got owned.
I've personally used development tools costing in excess of $15,000. $1000 is nothing - my daily rate to our clients is more than that. Hell, my monitor cost more than that.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
This way of thinking is very strange. If you're a company, then yes, but if you're an individual it makes no sense at all to count the hypothetical cost of everything you do. For some people like me, $995 is a very significant of money that I'd prefer to spend on a laptop, while a say, month of programming during the summer is not a cost, and maybe a benefit in terms of practice and satisfaction, apart from giving me something to do.
Also, not everybody who can write code has the ability of doing so in an commercial environment. People can perfectly have a completely different way of earning money, and may not wish to do programming professionally to avoid killing their hobby.
And anyway, this is free software we're talking about. I wouldn't write my own toolkit, I'd look at existing ones and choose the one that'd be easier to port to the required architecture.
Ah,,, Noticed any similarities between:
i ndowsfordevices.com/
http://www.linuxdevices.com/
and
http://www.w
??!?
What is this you can't beat them join them?
Can't beat them be them?
What the hell is going on with these 2 websites and why are they almost exactly the same freaking thing?
Especially since Windows CE is the thing on PDAs
sorry, but MS likes to think that but Palm OS still outnumbers it 3 to 1. The sexiest PDA's run palmOS (sony Clie) and up until just recently it was the only thing available for integrated PDA+PHONE (which still suck, but are starting to get better...)
Microsoft has been playing catch-up to palmOS for years and this new Linux thing is starting to nudge it's way in further pissing them off.
Microsoft is second fiddle in the world of consumer embedded systems and they are a distant fourth in commercial and industrial embedded... behind DOS!
$995 is not for supported version. I guarentee they they will not answer my phone calls about it for free (um that is what "supported" means... I don't know what ms has you believeing) $995 is for your right to install it and NOTHNIG MORE.
Artifical barrier to whose entry? Microsoft's goal certainly isn't to deny as many developers as possible from developing on its platforms.
...open their license some more and drop their prices then, if they weren't feeling the heat from the alternatives? If they have such a lock in, and they thought it would continue, they could ignore it, heck, they could INCREASE prices then and they could even further restrict the license.
But they aren't, they are slowly going the opposite way, ergo, I think they are "feeling the heat".
If $995 was expensive for a commercial development venture, I'd be out of business already.
Think about it.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
"They are recting to Linux rather than leading the IT market."
Point well taken, except that Microsoft has, by-and-large, _never_ lead the IT market. Never. What they have done a good job of is buying good ideas from others, and shoving their own mediocre ideas down eveybody's throats via their marketshare and bundling contracts.
What is changing ever so slightly is that Microsoft doesn't necessarily make all the rules any more. And that is very dangerous for a company that has such an addiction to cash on one hand and, on the other, millions of stockholders who still look to them as a growth company that is going to single-handedly finance their retirement.
Dell might still be their lapdog but I bet they fear mightily a shareholder mutiny.
The entire summary reads like a slightly rewritten press release. I bet the contributing "anonymous reader" is actually a Microsoft marketing rep.
There's no technical support beyond bug identification included in that figure, that's just the price of the dev kit license. Information on Essential and Premier support for devs requiring a SLA is available at the included links. That $995 is pocket change compared to the price of a support contract but that's no surprise since support and runtime fees are where the money is at in the embedded space.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
These are not the licenses you are looking for.
> it's like raising the rent of the building you own so minorities (statistically
> they make less per capita) can't rent an apartment from you.
While "minorities" (you're talking about black people, right?) are statistically less well off than the majority, such barriers are not neccessarily the motive, nor is racism - it's simply just a manifestation of the desire for more money. If minorities were better off on average, then you could look at the situation the other way around.
Anyway, the poster you're replying too is right. I often buy third party controls, because it's not me who's paying for it - my company does. And if they want something (in a certain category, such as printing labels or creating zip files) done quickly then it's usually quicker to download a free demo, see if it's easy to work and that it actually DOES work (you'd be suprised) and buy it, than it would cost to do it yourself. $1000 US a day sounds about right.
Whether or not that's a barrier to the hobbyist is another mattter. I admire Linux and free software, but at the end of the day I code for a living, so I'm not going to complain that something is too expensive - if something is expensive but there's a demand for it then perhaps a free alternative will turn up, but I don't expect people to produce tools for nothing. If it's too expensive then i'll code it myself, if needed, or I'll find a way around it.
This is some FUD. You do not *need* to use Microsoft anything if you develop for CE...there are several third party toolkits as well as the Java Micro Edition.
However, Microsoft's tools are very good, and have classically cut develoment time significantly. We have one guy working in CE.NET doing the work that three guys did for our Palm OS port. Is that worth a one time charge of $995? Sure is.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Then there's no point.....Microsoft isn't trying to market their development kit to you (essentially a hobbyiest)...they're trying to market the kit to professionals and businesses.
Hmm, didn't MS Visual C++ for CE use to be free of charge? I got a version from 2 years back which I could download for free around somewhere...
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
GPLed software gives you a complete product with source which you may do whatever you like with and asks only for your source in return.
This new MS shared source thing gives you 25% of Windows CE, tells you you can do whatever you like with the resulting binaries, and asks only for an eternal monetary tithing for every unit you sell containing these binaries.
It would be reasonable to say these are different kinds of restrictions. It would probably not be reasonable to call the MS thing less restrictive.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
If this license is really what it seems to be, this looks like the perfect business opportunity:
"You can tweak WinCE all you like, correcting its bug, adding functionality, and all that, and you can even SELL the result - you just have to pay that $995 license first !"
If that's it, great move.
Thomas Miconi
There is GTK for the frame buffer. I'm sure that QT is more mature, and the fact that QT is written in C++ is a plus for many developers. KDE seems to be winning the Linux desktop wars, probally because it appeals to the developers. As Balmer said, developers, developers, developers, developers!!!. Also, for a commercial app $1,000 is nothing. Especially when you dont have to shell that out until you ship the application. Putting asside the closed vs. open source advantages, if your going to release a closed source commercial application, you would probally expect to make more than a thousand dollars off of it.
--- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
If they were trying to raise the bar of entry it would be tens of thousands of dollars and come with very strict redistribution and licencing restrictions like the xbox SDK.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
in contrast to the GPL, which obligates developers to make their modifications available to the public.
Once again for the slow learners among us: The GPL does not obligate you to make your modifications available to the public. The GPL only requires you to make the source code available to anyone to whom you provide a copy of the derivative work. If, for example, you modify GNU Emacs for your personal use, you do not have to publish your work.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
...but $5 says /.ers will still line up to take shots at MS for this move.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
For those interested:
0 4/06-28DerivativesPR.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/jun
If you're really talking about Windows CE, you're probably right. I guess this is sort of confusing to outsiders, but Win CE != PocketPC. CE is a kernel slash toolkit intended for all embedded devices that lacks a lot of the higher level management functions in PocketPC.
PocketPC on the other hand, is an OS for consumer devices. At its core is CE. Besides the basics of program installation and process management, I'm not sure what's different between the two. But they are NOT the same platform, and haven't been since (I think) 2000.
If you were to write a program "for CE devices," your market would be limited to hackers, embedded users and those people who owned the Casio BE 300. If you wrote a program for PocketPC, you'd have a massive market. So if you're a software company looking to expand into the embedded market, your choices are: write a consumer app for Pocket PC, or write a useful utility app for other embedded software companies.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Isn't this very similar to the kind of "open source" that Ken Brown wanted in his notorious book? He did favor "a license similar to BSD" in some limited cases. Coincidence?
OK so what do you use to develop for a Zaurus? Yeah sure you can make an ncurses app, but what if you want it to integrate nicely?
So yeah you have some choice but for a commercial app I'd still go with commercial QTopia as would anyone with a bit of common sense..
Well, for one, Java is available for embedded platforms (both Linux/Zaurus and WinCE/PocketPC, IIRC).
Second, Qt/Embedded, just like Qt/X11 and Qt/Mac, is only non-free if your app is also non-free (as in speech, not beer). If you're developing an GPL app, Qt is available under the GPL (there's also the QPL, but I'm not sure if Qt/Embedded is also available under it).
I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
The 120 period is there for a reason, I fail to see how this news comes as a problem to you?
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
So does this mean more programmers will be put out of work?
I don't think this is about compleating with Linux in the PDA market but in the imbeded hardware market.
I have a Linux PDA and Palm is a greater threat to Microsoft than Linux when it comes to PDAs.
But WinCE is also for imbeded devices and while WinCE for PDAs will generally work "out of the box" when your building a cable box or PVR (for example) your adding on new features that serve no purpous outside this one application.
It's ironic really. Microsoft has the desktops Linux takes the servers.
Microsoft gets the PDAs Linux gets the imbeded market.
The reality is that Microsoft has less chance on the imbeded market than Linux has on the desktop.
Companys use Linux becouse it's available on a wide range of processors has a broud range of features and really slashes costs and develupment time.
Now let's say Microsoft chouses to FUD Linux. Thats not a big deal. Microsoft can chance imbeded develupers away from Linux all day long.
There is a large number of operating systems imbeded systems manufacters would prefer to use before ever considering all the hastle that results from working with Microsoft.
In most cases I imagin before they'd fork over money to Microsoft the would develup there own operating system. Often cheaper and more effective that going with Microsoft. Many still do this today when Linux isn't the best option.
Alterntively many companys and inventers will willingly DUMP products rather than use WinCE.
In the long run if you DO need the sort of freedom given by this new tweek to Microsofts liccens then I recemend looking at BSD as it is better for imbeded devices than WinCE.
I don't actually exist.
Basically Microsoft can find no other way so combate open source effect on its revenues other than to become open source themselves. This is a great day indeed! Hopefully this force to open source will happen to all major programing companies. It just goes to show that you can be open source and still make money. In this case, its the _ONLY_ way Microsoft could make money (in this specific feild... I think it was embeded OSs).
Whoever dies with the most toys wins.
The real question is, what can you do with your code modifications? Can you put out 'patches' under the GPL ala early Minix development?
Not too surprising they'd stay away from anything GPL like, given their oblique hatred of it.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
While "minorities" (you're talking about black people, right?)
why is there a need for "minorities" with quotes? and why the need to assume i'm talking about a particular ethnicity, trying to weaken my point by making me sound racist? particular ethnicity is irrelevant here.
sorry, but MS likes to think that but Palm OS still outnumbers it 3 to 1.
Yes, but only in the pockets of consumers. Look at the figures in the warehouses. Find a pos scanner running palm os, Symbol and other big names use Win Ce exclusively. Oh and MS is not "behind Dos"
There's no technical support beyond bug identification included in that figure, that's just the price of the dev kit license.
Of course not, but the point is it is supported as in support is available. The best source of support for linux on PDA (besides maybe zaurus) is some russian guys website. 995$ is a drop in the hat and if you need support it is well worth it.
I agree $995 is more or less a moderate developers week salary. And it will take much more time then a week to develop your own toolkit.
-- I don't buy it, I grow it.
Thats ok but how many individuals design, build and sell PDA's? Talking about hardware + software here.
-- I don't buy it, I grow it.
Competition is a good thing.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
How can Communism (or Socialism) really apply to a non-physical product? Software is freely duplicated anyway, regardless of the license that is used - and GPL software can be sold for profit, at that.
Some traits of Socialism and Communism:
-Public or government owns means of production.
-Central committes plan production.
-There is no competition.
-No profit motive in the distribution of goods or services.
Why GPL is not "Communist":
-Individuals can own means of production of GPL software.
-People can own components of software that work with GPL, and they can determine means of production.
-Several (profitable) companies create and utilize GPL software products competitively.
-The pursuit of profit is the reason that corporations like RedHat and Suse distibute their software.
If anything, GPL is more like "Welfare Capitalism", in a sense that you are free to utilize software under the license, and share it, and even profit from it, but there is a system of rules in place that are designed to protect the welfare of its userbase. Those rules are the GPL restrictions that force you to include your modifications, upon request of the purchaser, if you wish to distribute or sell the code. If you don't wish to do this, then write a GPL'd mechanism that glues to your own proprietary code. How is this so restrictive? It's not. How is this like Communism if it allows one to distribute it in a profitable, Capitalist fashion? You probably can't answer that because it's *not* Communism.
Besides... Would it not be ideal to have a system that allows true competition, while allowing nearly equal playing ground for everyone to benefit or profit? Extreme Capitalism does not do this, and is not unlike Socialism or Communism in many ways. GPL software like Linux levels the playing ground. The days when you were locked into a single provider are coming to an end. You now have the choice of purchasing an incredible product from a number of vendors (RedHat/Suse/Novell/Mandrake/Etc). You have the choice of paying for a level of support that fits your needs. You have the choice of making your own product as well, and making a profit from it. Now you tell me what sounds more liberating.
You boneheads who talk about how GPL is similar to Communism don't have a damn clue what either is about. You refuse to accept that software is a changing industry, and the old rules of the dinosaur companies like Microsoft will ultimately be the cause of their toppling. Of course they want you to believe it's Communism, because companies like RedHat are stealing their business (and making money off of it).
It's time for me to get back to programming GPL software for my company.
IDEs for both Visual C++ and VB for CE 4.0 Pocket PC 2000/2003 are free-as-in-beer. The new CE 5.0/CE.NET tools are for-pay, but only because they're included with the REST of VS.NET.
The compilers and SDKs for CE and Pocket PC always have been and still are completely free (again, as in beer) with free documentation and great examples.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
It would take monts(sic) or years to write an animated paperclip that gets bored as well.
Or, it could take days to write a decent man page, and use the already existing components you find to read the documention.
"Call it a hunch, but I am willing to wager that you don't design and build PDA's for a living?"
Are cell phones (w/ video) close enough? All the manufacturer have reference designs, and if you're a well established enough software company company they'll "loan" you their $6995 kit.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Artificial barrier between "developer" and "user". Microsoft does this because they want their developers to feel like they have special privileges, such as to not have to worry about their users competing against them. The kind of developers who like to be babied and led around by a leash prefer this sort of artificial partitioning, because it ensures that their crappy $45 shareware program has less of a chance of being replaced by something cheaper or free by a user turned developer who suddenly decided to pick up a C book and compiler.
Phil Usatine, Chief Architect and VP of Technology Development for Gibson Audio says: "We've also seen incredible value in the Windows CE core license as it enables us to use advanced technologies like Windows Media codecs and digital rights management to provide our customers with an amazing music entertainment experience."
Thanx for the heads up!
Now I know to avoid all Gibson Audio products. I for one have no interest in the "amazing experience" provided by DRM crippled crap.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
you can be sued for ANY NUMBER of resaons in their shared source programs it strikes me as nothing more than marketing bullet points. This might make the cutting edge PHBs feel better but it means nothing to anyone doing the work.
Actually the 2003 versions are available for free, what they are offering for $995 is the Windows CE Platform Developer which lets you completely customize the CE operating system. So no, it's not outdated software you are getting, go download the goods.
I _personally_ do not call the GPL Communism, but that's the criticism that's been leveled against it by the likes of Microsoft and SCO. By the way, big corporations are more likely to view it that way, regardless of the GPL zealots screaming otherwise.
It's quite simple, if you look at software that has a license that says "do whatever you want, just give us credit" vs. a license that says "do whatever you want and also give it away for free and give it back to us", which are you going to choose (as a corporation, trying to make money)?
If you look at where Open Source code is being used in the industry, it's mostly in networked servers, appliances, or dedicated networking hardware (switches, routers, load balancers, etc). The majority of the larger players (Cisco, Juniper, F5, what was Alteon, etc) use BSD licensed code rather than GPL, while the smaller players going for SMB/SME markets often opt for Linux/GPL based software.
The big corps. are much more concerned with holding onto IP and being able to use what they know/what they've created competitively, where as the smaller players just want to be able to bring a product to market quickly and start shipping it. The smaller players aren't nearly as concerned with IP and long-term issues, they're concerned with buying able to make money quickly.
So no, I don't think the GPL is Communism, but I also don't think it fits will with giant corporations trying to dominate markets. Now you and RMS can argue that this is the root of all evil and it must be abolished, but the investors of those large corps. are more likely to want market domination and proprietary inventions that do not get shared for free.
And by the way, to your point about Red Hat I actually don't see them stealing MS's business, I see them stealing from Sun. Why do you think Sun has switched from attacking Microsoft (and losing) to attacking Red Hat? Because Red Hat is more of a threat to replace them now.
I do not think Red Hat will ultimately profit immensely from Linux, I think IBM, HP, and perhaps Novell will. It's not Windows that's dying out, it's UNIX. There will simply be a shift from Sys V-based proprietary OSs to Linux-based proprietary OSs. I mean, look at Red Hat, their Linux doesn't really look like anyone else's Linux now any way. The utilities and commands are fairly proprietary to RH and RH knowledge isn't all that portable to other Linux-based OSs.
Just in case someone gets the impression I'm a Microsoft fan (20% troll??), let me assure you that I'm not. Interestingly enough, I actually work for a company that sells Linux-based appliances (after previously working at a company that sold BSD-based appliances). At my previous employer we never had to worry about the license, because they were safe. With this company I'm suspicious that they're violating the GPL because they've done a fair amount of tinkering with the kernel and of course we don't release the source. I'm also willing to bet that there are a ton of other companies doing the same thing, but the FSF just isn't pursuing anyone about it.
Someone is WRONG on the Internet!
With linux, you must release source code when you ship your product. With WinCE you no longer need to release source code to anyone when you ship a product with WinCE.
Windows CE 5.0 License on MSDN site.
That this is a trap. The second enough people buy in to this there will be a "security update" making the fees $50/minute per customer and removing all hope of ever asserting your own copyrights.
I don't think linux is threatened by this. Then again, I'm counting on basic intelligence on the part of mangers...
I don't know about YOU, but this is in regard to the WindowsCE embedded OS - not the software that runs on top of it. Most customers of this toolkit will be looking to improve or customize the WinCE embedded OS, not create a nifty new address book. I would image the VAST majority that would be interested in this would be companies with a budget to easily absorb this cost.
"This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
Remember what it's all about?
Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers!
> ...the GPL, which obligates developers to make
> their modifications available to the public.
The GPL does no such thing.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Competition is a good thing for the consumer
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You should have read the article a little more. To deploy anything using CE, you will need to pay per-unit royalties of $3.00 (for very limited functionality) to $15.00 (or potentially more, the article only says "starts at $15").
BSD doesn't come with a per-unit royalty, and the GPL specifically prohibits per-unit royalties.
Sorry. Try again.
Interestingly, the revised Shared Source terms are reminiscent of the BSD open source license...
Does this mean that Microsoft is dying?
The quotes indicate that you are not using the term "minority" literally. The term in the US implies disadvantaged, regardless of actual numbers. There are places in the US where whites are the minority. Yet, in those places, whites are not generally referred to as minorities.
Anyway, the point is that certain housing practices hurt low-income families regardless of race. They may or may not be part of a particular race or "minority".
You are right. This is FUD. You don't have to use a tookit. Just use any handy text editor! Toolkits just speed up the process of writing code.
...to the MS expected steps against its competition?
....and finally they realize they cannot beat you so they join you....
Hows it go?
First they ignore you, then they laff at you then they.......
Maybe not yet... but its certainly in teh direction of...
I don't see your point. In order to develop for CE you have to use their development tools and libraries. When you develop for a Linux based PDA you aren't *TIED* to any specific toolkit.
That argument doesn't hold water. In the same way you aren't tied to using QTopia, you aren't tied to WinCE! Linux is an OS kernel and therefore incomparable to WinCE which is an OS kernel + toolkit. Now the linux kernel + a toolkit is a different beast...
Artifical barrier to whose entry? Microsoft's goal certainly isn't to deny as many developers as possible from developing on its platforms.
You're right, that's not their goal. Their goal is to make as much money as possible. By charging $995 (guided by their first goal), they are also, as a side-effect, raising an artificial barrier to entry for WinCE developers.
Additionally, one of the guiding philosophical ideals at MS is that MS wants to own and control as much as possible--both their own inventions, standards and technologies and the inventions, standards and technologies of others (historically, virtually every MS product was originally created by people outside of MS, and consider their "embrace and extend" of open standards, for example). By placing a large price tag on a product whose analog you get bundled with Linux and MacOS X, they are reminding you that *they* own it. By doing that, they help make sure it's natural for you to think that MS should own and control as much as they can acquire, and worse, to think that it's a *good* thing.
For a company the size of Microsoft, who is not used to sharing, to be taking these steps towards a more open software base seems a bit unprecedented. They don't need to be as open as Open Source. Indeed that probably wouldn't be feasible for their survival. However they just need to be open enough to draw more developers and customers and increase market share. I think a lot of people here (including myself) assumed Microsoft would not (could not) start taking such steps. They are either fighting to remain in the market, or else a lot smarter than they have been credited with in the past (they've been credited with sly-ness in the past). As a result Open source may have more of a fight on its hands now with Microsoft than ever before. It might even make SCO look like a walk in the park.
The potential for business use of embedded OSes is just staggering, however, and Microsoft [as opposed to Sony, or Ericsson] has tradtionally made their money in business [not consumer] sales.
I wonder what the true breakdown is for Sony if you look a bit higher up in their electronics division. Sony has quite a few products which will never see a consumers hands, whereas Microsoft has very few. Windows Server, SQL Server, etc. Even their development tools are available in some stores off the shelf.
Sony's high end video cameras, where Betamax lives, sell very well to studios. Panasonic is their main competitor, along with JVC, and Canon is coming up right on their heals with their affordable "proffessional" DV1 line. It may not be truely a Pro camera, but it sure comes damned close.
And that is exactly the blind spot that Microsoft is just now starting to realize it has--that there are a lot of good programmers out there who are not working for a software company and want to program on their spare time. While most companies will swallow $1000 like a drop of water, the hobbyists (and remember where Linux, Apache, and friends started) will go elsewhere.