Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Eases "Shared Source" Restrictions

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the wincing-at-embedded-systems dept.

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."

4 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. The chain to Remond is still there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    You can get a running start now before you hit the end.

  2. Boooooo by stratjakt · · Score: 0, Redundant

    MSFT believes in Free as in "no strings attached" and not Free as in "whatever RMS' philosophy is".

    BURN THEM

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  3. Re:Smart move, actually by quigonn · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Those who describe GPL as a "communist" license have neither understood communism nor GPL.

    A viable way to make money with Free Software is not so much by GPLing your own software but by using other people's published Free Software to build new software on top of it (e.g. customization) and to make money with this service. The modifications of the source then only need to be given to the client who contracted the developer (or the development company), so it's fully compliant to GPL and nobody really needs to publish the modifications to "everyone".

    --
    A monkey is doing the real work for me.
  4. The GPL Does _Not_ Require Publication by John+Hasler · · Score: 0, Redundant

    > ...the GPL, which obligates developers to make
    > their modifications available to the public.

    The GPL does no such thing.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.