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.
nothing says BSD is dying like MS moving in on your turf.
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.
This new license only has an outcome (closed source derivative) common with BSD. It is nothing like BSD or GPL licensed code (which starts free and in case of BSD might end up non-free)
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
It's an irony. Microsoft counters the GPL with an even less restrictive license.
:)
Free Software will rule the world, and Microsoft will play multiple parts in making that happen.
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.
How expensive is a commercial QTopia License ?
..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
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
- Create bloat in disk and RAM usage
- Access NULL pointers to decrease stability
- Program major security holes into common apps like xterm
Let's level the playing field!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\ /
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 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.
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.a milyId=F663BF48-31EE-4CBE-AAC5-0AFFD5FB27DD&displa ylang=en
Check it out http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?F
Embedded Visual C++ and Embedded Visual Basic are included the last time I checked.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
OK so what do you use to develop for a Zaurus?
Yeah sure you can make an ncurses app, but what if you want it to integrate nicely?
So yeah you have some choice but for a commercial app I'd still go with commercial QTopia as would anyone with a bit of common sense..
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.
It might be expensive if the end users were required to have it to install software. It is a one time fee for the developer. For most companies that can afford to design and ship a PDA this is a drop in the bucket.
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.
Spread windows far and wide. Now when the next MSvirus hits it can take out all the other appliances too!
"ffs! How many time do we have to tell you, you need to run windows update on your microwave at least once a week"
Waking Up - There must be a better way to start the day.
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.
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
more than 2.5 million lines of code...
Just what I always wanted in my embedded OS!
"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.
This license also induces MASSIVE FORKING. You will have no way of knowing that the version of Windows you use will work the way you expect. Millions of version of Windows CE will be created, each slightly incompatible.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
the biggest example of how MS's shared source license differs: no matter what, you can't ship your source code under any license.
MORTAR COMBAT!
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?
A lot of people are making a stink about this not being GPL, and even poking fun at the fact that this style license is, in fact, less restrictive then the GPL... but make no mistake, MS knows what they are doing. If they were to make it GPL, then make changes... guess what... they have to release them. With this license, they release a code base, and everyone can pick at it as they want, even them... and they don't have to give the changes to anyone. So while everyone is making base systems with "Windows CE version X, with some tweaks", Microsoft can start adding whole chuncks of warm binary goodness and call it "Windows CE Super Platinum Edition", with "Super secure cryptography and cutting edge realtime multimedia support", while the base code under shared source has none of this.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
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
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).
Their shared source has two problems:
First, by making the source available to a limited audience for cost, dedicated crackers can get thier hands on it (illegally) but legitimate developers can't without paying big bucks. It's good to know only law-breaking coders will be looking for secrity vulnerabilities.
Second, by allowing third parties to modify the source without requiring peer review (either by MS or by the community), they are likely to introduce new bugs. At least with the Linux kernel, there's a hell of a lot of review before changes are integrated into the mainline. Forks also frequently get merged back into the mainline. Now there will be hundreds of modified WinCE varients, none of which getting peer reviewed or integrated into the trunk, and who knows how MS will handle distribution of security updastes to modified WinCE variants.
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.
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
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!
Ah, imagine the fun someone could have with a network-attached WinCE microwave: // virus.c
while(true) {
if(microwave.containsPet()) {
door.close();
microwave.start(Power::High, 30);
} else sleep(5);
}
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.
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.
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.
plim-plam-plompudding
Trying to compete with Linux in the PDA market???
I hate to tell you this but Linux is trying to compete with CE in the PDA market and not doing all that well.
Where Linux is doing well is in the Embeded market for things like Wi-Fi routers and such. The PDA market is on that Linux is not doing well in at all.
Would I like a Linux based PDA? Yep but I have not seen one yet that will work as well as my old Palm does. I can even sync it under Linux.
BTW $995 is not bad for a development system. Take a look at what Troll Tech wants for QT under Windows!
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
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
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.
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.
Just like we're not going to get anything good out of using Microsoft's code.
Paranoid? Look at it this way: would you put some sort of rights to your companies code in the hands of Microsoft? Do you trust them that much?
Me neither.
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.
Especially since Windows CE is the thing on PDAs
sorry, but MS likes to think that but Palm OS still outnumbers it 3 to 1. The sexiest PDA's run palmOS (sony Clie) and up until just recently it was the only thing available for integrated PDA+PHONE (which still suck, but are starting to get better...)
Microsoft has been playing catch-up to palmOS for years and this new Linux thing is starting to nudge it's way in further pissing them off.
Microsoft is second fiddle in the world of consumer embedded systems and they are a distant fourth in commercial and industrial embedded... behind DOS!
$995 is not for supported version. I guarentee they they will not answer my phone calls about it for free (um that is what "supported" means... I don't know what ms has you believeing) $995 is for your right to install it and NOTHNIG MORE.
Artifical barrier to whose entry? Microsoft's goal certainly isn't to deny as many developers as possible from developing on its platforms.
If $995 was expensive for a commercial development venture, I'd be out of business already.
Think about it.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
"They are recting to Linux rather than leading the IT market."
Point well taken, except that Microsoft has, by-and-large, _never_ lead the IT market. Never. What they have done a good job of is buying good ideas from others, and shoving their own mediocre ideas down eveybody's throats via their marketshare and bundling contracts.
What is changing ever so slightly is that Microsoft doesn't necessarily make all the rules any more. And that is very dangerous for a company that has such an addiction to cash on one hand and, on the other, millions of stockholders who still look to them as a growth company that is going to single-handedly finance their retirement.
Dell might still be their lapdog but I bet they fear mightily a shareholder mutiny.
"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).
> 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.
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.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
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!"); }
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
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.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
...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.
If you're really talking about Windows CE, you're probably right. I guess this is sort of confusing to outsiders, but Win CE != PocketPC. CE is a kernel slash toolkit intended for all embedded devices that lacks a lot of the higher level management functions in PocketPC.
PocketPC on the other hand, is an OS for consumer devices. At its core is CE. Besides the basics of program installation and process management, I'm not sure what's different between the two. But they are NOT the same platform, and haven't been since (I think) 2000.
If you were to write a program "for CE devices," your market would be limited to hackers, embedded users and those people who owned the Casio BE 300. If you wrote a program for PocketPC, you'd have a massive market. So if you're a software company looking to expand into the embedded market, your choices are: write a consumer app for Pocket PC, or write a useful utility app for other embedded software companies.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
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.
Basically Microsoft can find no other way so combate open source effect on its revenues other than to become open source themselves. This is a great day indeed! Hopefully this force to open source will happen to all major programing companies. It just goes to show that you can be open source and still make money. In this case, its the _ONLY_ way Microsoft could make money (in this specific feild... I think it was embeded OSs).
Whoever dies with the most toys wins.
How can Communism (or Socialism) really apply to a non-physical product? Software is freely duplicated anyway, regardless of the license that is used - and GPL software can be sold for profit, at that.
Some traits of Socialism and Communism:
-Public or government owns means of production.
-Central committes plan production.
-There is no competition.
-No profit motive in the distribution of goods or services.
Why GPL is not "Communist":
-Individuals can own means of production of GPL software.
-People can own components of software that work with GPL, and they can determine means of production.
-Several (profitable) companies create and utilize GPL software products competitively.
-The pursuit of profit is the reason that corporations like RedHat and Suse distibute their software.
If anything, GPL is more like "Welfare Capitalism", in a sense that you are free to utilize software under the license, and share it, and even profit from it, but there is a system of rules in place that are designed to protect the welfare of its userbase. Those rules are the GPL restrictions that force you to include your modifications, upon request of the purchaser, if you wish to distribute or sell the code. If you don't wish to do this, then write a GPL'd mechanism that glues to your own proprietary code. How is this so restrictive? It's not. How is this like Communism if it allows one to distribute it in a profitable, Capitalist fashion? You probably can't answer that because it's *not* Communism.
Besides... Would it not be ideal to have a system that allows true competition, while allowing nearly equal playing ground for everyone to benefit or profit? Extreme Capitalism does not do this, and is not unlike Socialism or Communism in many ways. GPL software like Linux levels the playing ground. The days when you were locked into a single provider are coming to an end. You now have the choice of purchasing an incredible product from a number of vendors (RedHat/Suse/Novell/Mandrake/Etc). You have the choice of paying for a level of support that fits your needs. You have the choice of making your own product as well, and making a profit from it. Now you tell me what sounds more liberating.
You boneheads who talk about how GPL is similar to Communism don't have a damn clue what either is about. You refuse to accept that software is a changing industry, and the old rules of the dinosaur companies like Microsoft will ultimately be the cause of their toppling. Of course they want you to believe it's Communism, because companies like RedHat are stealing their business (and making money off of it).
It's time for me to get back to programming GPL software for my company.
Artifical barrier to whose entry? Microsoft's goal certainly isn't to deny as many developers as possible from developing on its platforms.
You're right, that's not their goal. Their goal is to make as much money as possible. By charging $995 (guided by their first goal), they are also, as a side-effect, raising an artificial barrier to entry for WinCE developers.
Additionally, one of the guiding philosophical ideals at MS is that MS wants to own and control as much as possible--both their own inventions, standards and technologies and the inventions, standards and technologies of others (historically, virtually every MS product was originally created by people outside of MS, and consider their "embrace and extend" of open standards, for example). By placing a large price tag on a product whose analog you get bundled with Linux and MacOS X, they are reminding you that *they* own it. By doing that, they help make sure it's natural for you to think that MS should own and control as much as they can acquire, and worse, to think that it's a *good* thing.