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."
..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
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 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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is correct, but you're kinda missing the forest for the trees. In the application that the code described in the artice is going to be used ... yes ... they would have to release any modifications to the code. They are going to make changes to the operating system of thier device and market that device with this new code. So in the GPL world they are now obligated to make the code available. I don't think there's many people out there making OS changes for a PDA that they're not going to distribute.
Are you sure? I cannot vouch for the full implications of this, but section 2(b) of the GPL states:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
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.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." - Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." - Ken Olson, President, Chairman and Founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977
"640k ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, Co-Founder and CEO of Microsoft, 1981
Regardless of my dislike of the man and his company, no one could ever say he didn't have vision (sort of).
The entire summary reads like a slightly rewritten press release. I bet the contributing "anonymous reader" is actually a Microsoft marketing rep.
> 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. $1000 US a day sounds about right.
Whether or not that's a barrier to the hobbyist is another mattter. I admire Linux and free software, but at the end of the day I code for a living, so I'm not going to complain that something is too expensive - if something is expensive but there's a demand for it then perhaps a free alternative will turn up, but I don't expect people to produce tools for nothing. If it's too expensive then i'll code it myself, if needed, or I'll find a way around it.
Hmm, didn't MS Visual C++ for CE use to be free of charge? I got a version from 2 years back which I could download for free around somewhere...
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
Isn't this very similar to the kind of "open source" that Ken Brown wanted in his notorious book? He did favor "a license similar to BSD" in some limited cases. Coincidence?
The 120 period is there for a reason, I fail to see how this news comes as a problem to you?
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Major security holes in ssh didn't lead to the Microsoft related worm/virus/trojan "funfare". They never had and never will.
It didn't lead to front page news, but did hundreds of boxes get rooted? Are there probably boxes out there still to this day that are rooted without people knowing?
Yes, absolutely.
Just because it's not a national epidemic doesn't mean that the major security problems didn't make a living hell out of IT people's lives.
Don't underestimate the effect of major bugs on people's lives.. yes, even the bugs in OSS/FOSS cause major harm.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.