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.
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.
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.
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
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\ /
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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).
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.
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!
I didn't RTFA so this probably has squat to do with anything relevant...
"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."
Perhaps because they are losing mindshare amongst developers? This affects the long term but in a very dramatic way.
BSD is designed. Linux is grown. C++ libs
Create bloat in disk and RAM usage
GNOME and KDE. Check.
Access NULL pointers to decrease stability
I hope you're not implying that dereferncing NULL pointers is something that happens exclusively at Microsoft. But either way, this happens frequently enough with free software. Check.
Program major security holes into common apps like xterm
Is ssh good enough for you? Check.
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
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.
As the owner of the copywrite of their code, they could do this even if they released it under the GPL.
What they would not be able to do if they GPLed a version of thier code is to fold contributions back into thier non-GPL versions.
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.
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.
Artifical barrier to whose entry? Microsoft's goal certainly isn't to deny as many developers as possible from developing on its platforms.
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
...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.