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."

6 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. "Interestingly"? by JessLeah · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  2. Still not as open by bobaferret · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. As someone who has developed using CE by feloneous+cat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  4. Wouldn't GPL have been better? by unoengborg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  5. Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. by garcia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. by happyfrogcow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.