Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft Eases "Shared Source" Restrictions

Posted by CowboyNeal on Mon Jun 28, 2004 10:21 AM
from the wincing-at-embedded-systems dept.
Microsoft Programming IT Technology
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."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Microsoft Eases "Shared Source" Restrictions 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by garcia (6573) * on Monday June 28 2004, @10:23AM (#9551051) Homepage
    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.
    • To an individual developer $995 might be a lot of money, but for a software company that's not really all that much.
    • 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.
      Check it out http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?Fa milyId=F663BF48-31EE-4CBE-AAC5-0AFFD5FB27DD&displa ylang=en [microsoft.com]

      Embedded Visual C++ and Embedded Visual Basic are included the last time I checked.

    • Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Cereal Box (4286) on Monday June 28 2004, @10:32AM (#9551134)
      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.

      • Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by garcia (6573) * on Monday June 28 2004, @10:44AM (#9551258) Homepage
        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.
        • 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.

      • Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by happyfrogcow (708359) on Monday June 28 2004, @11:04AM (#9551416)
        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.
    • 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.

      • Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by garcia (6573) * on Monday June 28 2004, @10:30AM (#9551116) Homepage
        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.
        • 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.

          • Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by vadim_t (324782) on Monday June 28 2004, @11:08AM (#9551448) Homepage
            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.

  • nothing says BSD is dying like... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28 2004, @10:24AM (#9551061)
    nothing says BSD is dying like MS moving in on your turf.

  • Just because its source is available (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cbrocious (764766) on Monday June 28 2004, @10:24AM (#9551063) Homepage
    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.

    • Re:Just because its source is available (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia (6573) * on Monday June 28 2004, @10:28AM (#9551097) Homepage
      Just because its source is available 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.

      Ahh, but see, that's coming from someone immersed in the world of OSS. When you are immersed in a Windows world and used to paying high development and licensing fees this would seem like a Godsend.

      People see the benefits of Linux as it being free. They don't always see the "more eyes/better code" side.

      Greed is a much more powerful tool.

  • "More like..." (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 28 2004, @10:24AM (#9551064)
    Competition simply means Microsoft becomes more like the competition. ...more Unixey. ...more open source. ...etc.

    However don't forget to read the fine print.

  • Microsoft shares, who'da thunk it... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Theovon (109752) on Monday June 28 2004, @10:26AM (#9551077)
    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. :)

    • um, yeah, except that's not true (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mattdm (1931) on Monday June 28 2004, @10:37AM (#9551195) Homepage

      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?

      • Exactly (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mcc (14761) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Monday June 28 2004, @11:42AM (#9551753) Homepage
        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.
    • 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

  • Just a little bit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PD (9577) * <slashdotlinux@pdrap.org> on Monday June 28 2004, @10:27AM (#9551088) Homepage Journal
    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 [microsoft.com]. 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.

  • License terms not published yet (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bollow (a) NoLockIn (785367) on Monday June 28 2004, @10:28AM (#9551102) Homepage
    The new version of the Shared Source License, called a "EULA" (End User License Agreement), will be available later this week on Microsoft's embedded website. [microsoft.com]

    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 [freestrategy.info]).

  • Two can play that game. I call on the Linux community to:

    • 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!

  • Not just Linux move (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LilJC (680315) on Monday June 28 2004, @10:29AM (#9551113)
    With CE, they also stand to perhaps gain a foothold over some PalmOS lovers.

    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.

  • "Interestingly"? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JessLeah (625838) on Monday June 28 2004, @10:30AM (#9551114)
    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.

    • Re:"Interestingly"? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by deadlinegrunt (520160) on Monday June 28 2004, @10:44AM (#9551253) Homepage Journal
      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.

  • Still not as open (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bobaferret (513897) on Monday June 28 2004, @10:31AM (#9551123)
    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.

  • this is FANTASTIC! (Score:3, Funny)

    by MEGAMAID (791988) on Monday June 28 2004, @10:32AM (#9551133)
    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"

  • Nice to see MS squirm (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MooseByte (751829) on Monday June 28 2004, @10:32AM (#9551136)

    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

  • lines of code (Score:5, Funny)

    by primus_sucks (565583) on Monday June 28 2004, @10:32AM (#9551143)
    more than 2.5 million lines of code...

    Just what I always wanted in my embedded OS!

  • compete? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by elfstones (177191) on Monday June 28 2004, @10:33AM (#9551146) Homepage
    "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.

  • OMG, Forking! (Score:5, Funny)

    by fermion (181285) on Monday June 28 2004, @10:34AM (#9551154) Homepage Journal
    Make no mistake, this leaves the Windows operating system open to a wide array of potentially fatal problems. Thousands of developers worldwide, who YOU DON"T EVEN KNOW, are going to write the code that YOU USE. You will have no assurance that the code is to the quality specifications of MS. The OS you are running may even have easter eggs added by TERRORISTS. And you will have no way of knowing.

    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.

  • nothing like BSD (Score:4, Informative)

    by MORTAR_COMBAT! (589963) on Monday June 28 2004, @10:37AM (#9551194)
    the biggest example of how MS's shared source license differs: no matter what, you can't ship your source code under any license.

  • Microsoft and GPL (Score:4, Informative)

    by TheRealMindChild (743925) on Monday June 28 2004, @10:38AM (#9551198) Homepage Journal
    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.

    • Re:Microsoft and GPL (Score:4, Insightful)

      by luiss (217284) on Monday June 28 2004, @10:55AM (#9551333)
      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.

      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.

  • article has the GPL part all wrong (Score:5, Informative)

    by phoxix (161744) on Monday June 28 2004, @10:38AM (#9551200)
    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

      • 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.

        That's exactly what the GPL says. 2(b) specifies that you have to license it to the world, but doesn't say anything about you having to actually give it to anyone. Section 3 specifies how you go about distributing it, and it gives you three options, saying that you only have to do one of them.

        Option 3(a) says that if you hand out source with the binary, you're done, you've satisfied the requirements, you don't have to give it to anyone else. If you choose this option, you do not have to distribute to the public. Of course, whoever you gave it to can give it to someone else, and that someone else already has a license to your code, as required by 2(b), so it may end up published to the public anyway, but _you_ don't have to do it.

        If you don't want to hand out source with the binary, then you can use 3(b), which says you have to provide a written offer to give it to _any_ third party. So if you take this option, you are required to distribute it to the public, for three years.

        Finally, you can choose 3(c), which says that if you never got source, just a binary and a written offer, you can pass both along to someone else. As long as you're not doing it commercially. No need for public distribution.

  • Security concerns (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mackman (19286) * on Monday June 28 2004, @10:40AM (#9551221)
    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.

  • As someone who has developed using CE (Score:5, Interesting)

    by feloneous cat (564318) on Monday June 28 2004, @10:42AM (#9551231)
    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.

  • Wouldn't GPL have been better? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by unoengborg (209251) on Monday June 28 2004, @10:42AM (#9551233) Homepage
    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.

  • I Bet (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Monday June 28 2004, @10:47AM (#9551277) Homepage Journal
    They take it all away again once they've crished the competition (Linux and PalmOS.) They pulled a similar stunt with OS/2 back in the day, first by creating the "API of the week club" to release new and incompatable libraries for things like Win32s and ultimately by releasing Windows 95, which IBM didn't hold a source license to (They had contracts to incorporate Windows 3.x stuff into OS/2.)

    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?

  • ...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?

  • Re-Read the GPL! (Score:4, Informative)

    by schabi (54775) * on Monday June 28 2004, @10:54AM (#9551328) Homepage
    in contrast to the GPL, which obligates developers to make their modifications available to the public

    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.

  • RTFGPL (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dwonis (52652) * on Monday June 28 2004, @11:06AM (#9551431)
    in contrast to the GPL, which obligates developers to make their modifications available to the public.

    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.

  • Still Learning the GPL?!? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bob9113 (14996) on Monday June 28 2004, @11:46AM (#9551796) Homepage
    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.

  • Not bad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nwbvt (768631) on Monday June 28 2004, @11:47AM (#9551801)
    ...but $5 says /.ers will still line up to take shots at MS for this move.
    • 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

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.