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."

Comments

Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah.

[TheRealMindChild]

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.
Check it out http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=F663BF48-31EE-4CBE-AAC5-0AFFD5FB27DD&displa ylang=en

Embedded Visual C++ and Embedded Visual Basic are included the last time I checked.

nothing like BSD

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

the biggest example of how MS's shared source license differs: no matter what, you can't ship your source code under any license.

Microsoft and GPL

[TheRealMindChild]

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.

article has the GPL part all wrong

[phoxix]

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

Re:article has the GPL part all wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

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.)

Of course you can't make them not give the source to whomever they please. You can ask them nicely not to do it, but they have the right to if they want, under the GPL.

Re:article has the GPL part all wrong

[swillden]

Perhaps the work can be licensed to all third parties without being available to all third parties; under this interpretation the work would not need to be available to the public. But I would like to see a convincing resolution of this issue.

That's exactly what the GPL says. 2(b) specifies that you have to license it to the world, but doesn't say anything about you having to actually give it to anyone. Section 3 specifies how you go about distributing it, and it gives you three options, saying that you only have to do one of them.

Option 3(a) says that if you hand out source with the binary, you're done, you've satisfied the requirements, you don't have to give it to anyone else. If you choose this option, you do not have to distribute to the public. Of course, whoever you gave it to can give it to someone else, and that someone else already has a license to your code, as required by 2(b), so it may end up published to the public anyway, but _you_ don't have to do it.

If you don't want to hand out source with the binary, then you can use 3(b), which says you have to provide a written offer to give it to _any_ third party. So if you take this option, you are required to distribute it to the public, for three years.

Finally, you can choose 3(c), which says that if you never got source, just a binary and a written offer, you can pass both along to someone else. As long as you're not doing it commercially. No need for public distribution.

Re-Read the GPL!

[schabi]

in contrast to the GPL, which obligates developers to make their modifications available to the public

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.

Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah.

[Cereal Box]

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

Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah.

[dasmegabyte]

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.

Still Learning the GPL?!?

[Bob9113]

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.

Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah.

[dasmegabyte]

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.

Re:Smart move, actually

[Kishar]

I think that you have misspelled "libertarian".

libertarianism
n : an ideological belief in freedom of thought and speech

communism
n 1: a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership
2: a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless
society
socialism
n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital [syn:
socialist economy] [ant: capitalism]

GPL has little to do with the state (read: gov't) ownership of property.