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.

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-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.