Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft

Microsoft Shared Source -- With a Twist 368

Posted by michael from the twist-of-lemon dept.
chill writes "Microsoft is now willing to share all the source code to WinCE that they don't license from others. This includes the rights to alter the code and sell the altered code! Of course, they want copies of the changes, but the program is FREE." There's another story at Windowsfordevices.com.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Shared Source -- With a Twist More

Microsoft Shared Source -- With a Twist

Comments Filter:

  • How owns the copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by brejc8 ( 223089 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:04AM (#5701181) Homepage Journal
    Well I like the fact that microsoft is looking at adopting mozilla like (i think) licences. But "Of course, they want copies of the changes".
    Do they inherit the copyright to the changes? Can they then release your code as their own? Can they use your code in other products?

    • Re:How owns the copyright? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Angry White Guy ( 521337 ) <CaptainBurly[AT]goodbadmovies.com> on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:28AM (#5701461)
      Personally, I don't care if they use any code of mine, even if they profit from it. At least this follows the spirit of Open Source, if not the letter of it. Face it, developers are just going to do tweaks and fixes, not rewrite the entire thing or add stellar new features that will revolutionize pocket computing.

      The only thing that I'm worried about is if the code taints OS compatibility projects like Samba or Evolution. If developers use MS code, does the entire project become MSFT's, or does it provide a powerful tool for MS to stomp out these projects?
    • If you enforce that the code changes have to be released to a 3rd party and that any changes in the code can be resold, then yep.

      Sounds like you'd have to patent whatever you did, to keep MS or someone else from using your code to make money. But then again isn't this already part of the GPL, you can sell your code, but the changes can't be proprietary.

    • Nothing like the Mozilla license (Score:5, Insightful)

      by XNormal ( 8617 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @11:00AM (#5701799) Homepage
      Well I like the fact that microsoft is looking at adopting mozilla like (i think) licences

      Microsoft owns the copyright.

      You are not allowed to distribute the source.

      You must pay royalties to Microsoft for every device incorporating the binary (modified or not).

      You can make changes and I think you don't have to give them back to Microsoft. If you want to avoid repatching everything on Microsoft's next release you can hand the changes back to Microsoft for inclusion.

      AFAICT it's exactly like "Shared Source" except that you are allowed to compile it and distribute the binaries - but only as part of a hardware device.
    • Well I like the fact that microsoft is looking at adopting mozilla like (i think) licences. But "Of course, they want copies of the changes".
      Do they inherit the copyright to the changes? Can they then release your code as their own? Can they use your code in other products?

      From the article:

      Yesterday, Microsoft chief technology officer Craig Mundie said the company won't charge companies to participate in the program, despite the word "Premium" in its name. Microsoft will receive a royalty for each copy
    • But "Of course, they want copies of the changes".
      Do they inherit the copyright to the changes? Can they then release your code as their own? Can they use your code in other products?

      It's all in the article. I quote:

      If it is altered in a generally useful way, such as to work optimally with a particular processor, Mundie said Microsoft expects the alterer to license the new version back to itself, for free, for incorporation into future versions.

      But if it is altered to work particularly in one device, wit

  • Good thing? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by freedom_leffo ( 605662 )
    Serioulsy, is this a good thing or is there some kind of trick behind the scenes?

    • Re:Good thing? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by teambpsi ( 307527 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:19AM (#5701367) Homepage
      they're hoping to use 'free labor' to submit bug fixes :)

      and seriously, what the world fixes for free in CE, is probably indicative of a root error in the original code base

      • they're hoping to use 'free labor' to submit bug fixes :)

        And combine that with their stated "We won't use your code for 6 months" and ... If you find an exploit, and submit a bug fix for it, you can cheerfully go on abusing the exploit for another half a year!

    • Re:Good thing? (Score:5, Funny)

      by CoolVibe ( 11466 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @12:00PM (#5702351) Journal
      No, it's just Microsoft reinventing open source all over again. Maybe in the distant future you'll see MS twisting itself in so much turns, it'll eventally settle at some BSD-like license.

      (oh well.. a man can dream, can't he?)

  • Another Money Making Opportunit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by abcxyz ( 142455 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:04AM (#5701189) Homepage
    This looks like an excellent opportunity for MS to make more money, and spend less on development costs. From the articles it appears that if I modify the code in a really good, general purpose way -- they get a copy of it back for free. They can then incorporate the changes and sell it royality free (to me). But if I sell my modified version, I have to pay royalities per copy.

    Whole new twist on outsourcing your development activities to save money.
    • Wait a minute. Isn't that one of the big things about Open source development? A huge swath of developers looking over your code, making improvements, and submitting them back to the maintainer for inclusion?

      I mean granted, the MS license isn't GPL or anything. About the only superficial difference I see is that MS requires a royalty for every copy of your modified source code, and there is no provision to ensure the end-user gets a copy of the source as well.

      On the surface, it doesn't look like that b

      • Re:Another Money Making Opportunit (Score:5, Insightful)

        by oddjob ( 58114 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:37AM (#5701566)
        The difference between this program and the GPL is more than just superficial. Under the GPL, all parties are on equal footing, and have equal insentive to share their work. Under microsoft's new plan, they reserve the right to sell your work for a profit without paying for it, but they don't give the same right to you.

      • Re:Another Money Making Opportunit (Score:4, Informative)

        by Trilaka ( 172371 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:53AM (#5701725)
        Now granted, open source and free software have different conotations, but free software is not meant to benefit the developer. It is meant to benefit the end user.

        This program is obviously meant to benefit the developer, and only the developer. From the article (which is, admittedly, very low-tech), it seems end-users aren't going to have access to the source code. Only device manufacturers and those licensed to sell copies of WinCE. Now, they can alter the code before they sell it, but those alterations must be given back to Microsoft for free.

        In fact it was this same clause, that all modifications must be submitted back to the main developer, that were sticklers for free software, and possibly open source software, advocates in the APSL, MPL and other corporate tries at open source licenses.

        The real stickler though, is that the one who modifies the code, does not have unrestricted license to distribute their version of WinCE. They must pay Microsoft the same royalty for each copy sold. So, Microsoft makes WinCE look a little more enticing to developers who may want to make changes, gets any modifications for free, and doesn't lose anything on licenses of WinCE...seems like a pretty sweet deal--for Microsoft.

        No freedom here folks. Move along. There's nothing left to see.

    • But if I sell my modified version, I have to pay royalities per copy.

      Actually, what they mean here is that, as an OEM reseller, you still have to pay a windows license whether or not you modify it. But you don't have to pay extra to modify it. That clause isn't very onerous. The "all your source are belong to us" clause is the kicker.

      It would be nice and kludgey, but I think the best route around this would be to make the released changes to the binary instead of the source. Easiest way would probabl

  • It's not Free Software, it's Open Source. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by $$$exy Gwen Araujo ( 654821 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:05AM (#5701194) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft will receive a royalty for each copy of CE that is distributed, whether it is altered or not.
    So, you can look at the source all you want. But if you want to do anything with it, you still pay Microsoft. No change there!
    • That as it looks is not bad.Suppose you have linux code, you modify it and sell it to a customer.Suppose m$ buys one of your $100 devices, they can demand the code, and then redistribute it,even demand money for it.
      This license should (in effect since the devices themselves are so cheap) break down to GPL if they added a condition saying all users can have code access.Now microsoft can restrict code access preferentially.
    • Shared source is *not* open source. It clearly fails to meet the OSD definition. [opensource.org] You may prefer free licences to open ones but shared-source is neither free nor open.

  • Could help :) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mattygfunk1 ( 596840 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:09AM (#5701244)
    I know a few open source office suites that wouldn't complain about being shown how to correctly interpret .doc formats.

    ____
    cheap web site hosting [cheap-web-...ing.com.au]

    • Re:Could help :) (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wcbarksdale ( 621327 )
      You think they'd let someone look at it without an NDA? A person who's looked at that code could contaminate anything related they work on -- which is why groups like the XBox on Linux project specifically asked that you not help them if you are a professional XBox developer.

  • In case the second link is /.ed (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:09AM (#5701250)
    [Updated 10:10 pm PDT] -- Microsoft Corp. "dropped the other shoe" today, as it were, announcing the first source code sharing program for its Windows CE embedded operating system (OS) that allows developers and manufacturers to actually redistribute modified OS code in real products. Previously, the commercial use of Windows CE source code was essentially restricted to technical support purposes only, in that developers could use the code to solve problems and understand how to work within the capabilities of the OS, but were not permitted to employ modified Windows CE code to fix bugs, add functions, or tune the OS to tight resource constraints. Under the terms of a new "premium" shared source license, Microsoft will now allow silicon vendors and systems integrators "full access" to Windows CE source code, including rights to redistribute modified code within commercial products. This capability is generally considered critical among developers of embedded systems and devices, either to tune the systems to their unique requirements, or to differentiate their products. In Microsoft's own words: "Shared Source Premium code empowers licensees to optimize and differentiate software and hardware for Windows CE."

    Additionally, "CEP also includes a customer feedback program, which enables customer collaboration and community contribution to ongoing improvements to Windows CE products," Microsoft said.

    "This is the first time that Microsoft has allowed derivative works to be produced from one of our operating system platform products," noted Craig Mundie, Microsoft senior vice president and chief technical officer of Advanced Strategies and Policy, in a conference call tonight. Customers doing so will still able to take advantage of the "Windows CE" brand, he added.

    Mundie also said there is no extra cost for the "Premium" shared source program. Currently, there is no decision to open up XP Embedded source code, Mundie added.

    This is the first time that the "complete body of Windows CE source code" has been made available, Mundie added. In answer to WindowsForDevices.com's question, "What percentage of CE source code is available?", Mundie replied "as close to 100% as we can make it -- we can't release sources that belong to other companies." Most operating systems contain code licensed from other sources.

    Mundie said customer modifications per the new license must be sublicensed back to Microsoft -- without royalty -- so that Microsoft has rights to incorporate the changes into its products if it so chooses. However, Mundie added, companies can request a 6-month delay before Microsoft can release a version of Windows CE that contains the customer-contributed code, allowing the customer to have a "leg up on the competition."

    To provide added perspective on this extremely significant announcement from Microsoft, WindowsForDevices.com brings you this Special Report, which includes Microsoft's full announcement of the new CEP Shared Source program along with a roundup of some of the more interesting news items and articles from around the web that relate to this announcement. Additional links will be added as they come to our attention, so check back here for the latest.

    Press release: Microsoft Announces First Windows CE Shared Source Program to Allow Commercial Distribution of Modified Source Code -- "Microsoft Corp. today announced the latest addition to its Shared Source Initiative, the Windows CE Shared Source Premium Licensing Program (CEP), . . . the first Windows CE program under the Shared Source Initiative to allow [manufacturers], silicon vendors, and systems integrators full access to Windows CE source code. All licensees will be able to modify the code, and OEMs now can commercially distribute those modifications in Windows CE-based devices . . ." Announcement [windowsfordevices.com]

    CNET: Windows CE plan draws criticism -- This article highlights reactions to Microsoft's an

    • "as close to 100% as we can make it -- we can't release sources that belong to other companies."

      Sounds semi-reasonable.

      I kind of wish that nVidia would do something similar with its graphics drivers for Linux, which, from what I've read, have been sequestered as closed source due to the presence of Other Companies Property in the code.

      I wonder if it's too late for my company to put in a patent application for printf() ?

  • fork? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pe1rxq ( 141710 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:10AM (#5701256) Homepage Journal
    Wasn't "There are 1001 different and incompatable linux versions/distributions" part of their FUD?
    Seems they didn't listen to themselves :)


    Jeroen

  • FP? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HoneyBunchesOfGoats ( 619017 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:10AM (#5701259)
    "What percentage of CE source code is available?"..."as close to 100% as we can make it -- we can't release sources that belong to other companies." Most operating systems contain code licensed from other sources.
    This seems like a good idea, as 'embedded' applications have a much different set of operability requrements to fulfill, and an all-encompassing OS just isn't right for that. I wonder what might happen though, after time, if the majority of the code gets rewritten by third parties? Will MS just be plain unable to share anything useful anymore?
  • Given this comment


    Yesterday, Microsoft chief technology officer Craig Mundie said the company won't charge companies to participate in the program, despite the word "Premium" in its name. Microsoft will receive a royalty for each copy of CE that is distributed, whether it is altered or not.

    .... one has to wonder if it's just a smart method of getting work done for free? Every single copy sold (modified or not) still generates revenue for MS.

  • You know (Score:5, Funny)

    by fizban ( 58094 ) <fizban@umich.edu> on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:10AM (#5701264) Homepage
    It's April 10.

    Microsoft, like usual, probably made a calculation error in their proprietary calculator software, shifted the digits and thought it was April 1.

  • Become a Microsoft employee and earn $0.00 / hour! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:10AM (#5701268)
    Microsoft pledges it won't incorporate the changed portions into CE for six months after the modifier begins selling its product. It says it will pay no royalties to such alterers, because "it's of mutual benefit," Mundie said. .....
    If it is altered in a generally useful way, such as to work optimally with a particular processor, Mundie said Microsoft expects the alterer to license the new version back to itself (Microsoft), for free, for incorporation into future versions.

    So, if you write code to improve Win CE, not only does it become Microsoft's code, but you don't get paid for your work either! Let the Microsoft bashing begin!
    • So lets get this straight.
      Blue badges for fulltime employees. Good pay, benefits, and you go to their parties.
      Orange badges for interns/contract employees. Decent pay, you dont go to their parties.
      A large "L" on the foreheads and kick to the nuts to those of whom improve their code.

      Why do they bother hiring anyone!
    • This isnt necessarily wrong. Say I'm Wesayso, Inc. and my new KickassIII processor is the next big thing for CE machines. Everyone is going to be using them, Dell in the cheapos, Compaq in the iPaqs, etc. etc. It certainly makes sense for me to take the source, optimize CE for it, and make sure that my product is stable, as opposed to letting MS do it themselves and screwing up like they usually do.

      Granted, it seems wrong on its face, but MS is right for a change. Wesayso gets as much benefit (an optimiz
      • Lets make a pretty similar analogy here.
        You are a car manufacturer, and make a new kickass car. Now OPEC gas is not elite enough for this new car of yours, so you make this additive which adds octane to the OPEC gas.

        The kiddies that buy your car go to the gas station, and they buy gas which has the additive in it, which they pay more for (or the same considering microsoft isnt going to make it cost MORE for the improved CE), and the money from the gas all goes to the OPEC gas company.

        You developed the
    • "So, if you write code to improve Win CE, not only does it become Microsoft's code, but you don't get paid for your work either! Let the Microsoft bashing begin!"

      How much do the Linux distributors pay you for your contributions?

      $0

      I don't see the point of this complaint. This program seems to cover every positive aspect attributed to open source. i.e. you have the source, you can contribute changes back to insure they are in the next release, so on and so forth.

      From a corporate perspective this all loo

  • Just how "free"? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Alcohol Fueled ( 603402 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:11AM (#5701274) Homepage
    "Of course, they want copies of the changes, but the program is FREE."

    Okay, sure, it might be free to obtain a copy of the source or whatever, but Microsoft STILL makes a profit on it, since they receive a royalty on all copies of Windows CE that are distributed.


    "Microsoft expects the alterer to license the new version back to itself, for free, for incorporation into future versions. But if it is altered to work particularly in one device, with "value-added engineering," the modifier retains ownership of the changed portions, although it must sublicense a copy to Microsoft."

    Now that right there sounds like one fucking lazy way of getting people to code shit for you. Plus another way to use OTHER PEOPLE'S ideas.


  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Splat! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JumpingBull ( 551722 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:11AM (#5701278)
    This is a business admission that the market share for winCE is, in fact, dropping like a stone. The embedded market uses Linux, which allows the tailoring of capabilities, a general understanding and lots of third party documentation ( like o'Rielly). And, the development platform is congruent to the target platform - increasing productivity.
    I would not use WinCE for a design, and I am a hardware engineer, with a real need to keep the costs way down. WinCE was 50 bucks, which is a lot of money in an embedded product.
    And, dammit, even being fairly inarticulate in software, I have been able in the past to debug the hardware using linux - even if I had to learn the software tools to do it, on the run, as it were.
    Others probably have similar experiences.
    • I tried to get some Delphi development tools for a CE project, and the Borland rep said they didn't have any.

      Why? Because Borland had heard from Microsoft that WindowsCE was on the way out. They had other things they were going to use to take its place.

      This must be some sort of *what do we have to lose?* trial balloon on Microsoft's part.

      So what did we do instead? We figured out that the device we were going to use had a web browser. Now, how many free languages exist to drive one of those puppies?

    • Re:Splat! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Bethor ( 172209 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:46AM (#5701658)
      The embedded market uses Linux

      Linux is a great alternative for embedded. But SymbianOS is what
      Microsoft is really going after here. Symbian is being adopted by most [symbian.com] big cell phone manufacturers, and
      the source comes with the license.

    • I disagree... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Embedded Geek ( 532893 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @12:38PM (#5702705) Homepage
      the market share for winCE is, in fact, dropping like a stone

      I've got Windows CE on my resume [thehaws.org] and I'm getting 3-5 unsolicited calls/EMAILs weekly for headhunters looking for CE guys. We work with a CE house [cocomamerica.com] that is buried. I won't say CE's market share will overcome VxWorks anytime soon, but for anything with a GUI display or that's web enabled, it's a very valid choice.

      WinCE was 50 bucks, which is a lot of money in an embedded product.

      First, I'd need to verify with our contract guys to be sure, but I believe we're paying more on the order of $10/licence. $50 sounds a lot more like embedded XP to me (which we're using in other products). Also, we're running an x86 with no BIOS, so BIOS royalties go away. In anycase, while recurring cost is a big issue, for lower volume products (say under 100K) the savings in initial software development costs (our biggest item here) recoups.

      Now, before you say "Low volume, what a cop out!" I need to point out that there's an enormous amount of embedded development out there that meet this critera. Go to a trade show and you'll find at least half of the atendees are not building VCRs or PDAs but niche products - medication inventory trackers embedded within pharmacy carts, portable diagnostic equipment for high voltage power lines, or (in my case) in flight entertainment systems. You won't find any of these things at your local Best Buy, but there's more than enough demand for them to support these lower volumes. I agree that this was not MS'es initial goal, and it makes me wonder if they'll ever turn their back on CE because of that, but for the moment CE looks quite healthy to me.

  • Notice: it's just the non-Microsoft parts (Score:4, Funny)

    by YetAnotherName ( 168064 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:12AM (#5701288) Homepage
    Maybe I'm just trolling, but how much of Windows CE is non-Microsoft? 50%? 90%? Wouldn't it be nice if it pretty much boiled down to something like this in every file:

    #include "ms.h"

    And ms.h was just:

    /* Copyright 1995-2003 by Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. */

    Heck, we might find it that most of it came largely from FreeBSD, or something.
  • This is the time for all developers to join in laughter.
    Look! They used goto 653 times!

  • Leeching vs sharing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gatesh8r ( 182908 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:12AM (#5701293)
    What M$ is doing here is just leeching; per usual off of other people's efforts. This time however it is made to look like they're actually sharing source, but altercations that is really your copyright have to be licenced royalty-free to M$ yet to sell those changes you have to pay M$ as well as your engineers!? That's not in the spirit of OSS.

  • The shape of things to come (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I think this could be the start of a new business model for Microsoft and others. They have seen the effect that open source has had in the marketplace and it both scares and excites them.

    On one hand they see that high quality software can be produced by the open source method (apache, linux, java) due to the sheer volume of (admittedly less talented) programmers and beta testers involved. This takes money away from their products (especially in the server end where W2k advanced servehas been soundly thr

  • Could this be it? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 )
    Could this be the give-away that unlocks Windows, in general? Recall, Microsoft prospered because IBM allowed Bill Gates to sell DOS in their licensing agreement. An error I'm sure IBM will never forget. Microsoft is banking on many things, same as IBM was back then, and perhaps assuming WinCE isn't that important in their grand scheme. Maybe it isn't, maybe it will be. Once the horses have left the corral it takes some effort to bring them back. Of course, Microsoft's solution, lurking in the wings c
    • I truely doubt it. Windows CE is such a dumbed down version of Win32 geared completely for the embedded market, that I can't see Microsoft actually losing anything releasing it. If you take a look at the source code, you aren't presented with much. About the only thing that interested me were the heap routines and you find far better ones looking through a BSD kernel. Microsoft is only releasing this to try to spark developers attention. It is already released in the Platform Kit so that OEMs may tweak the
  • Seriously, CE sucks. I'm not going to pay to improve CE for them.

    Still, CE does allow us to make jokes about it in combination with ME and NT in a bucket with my feet in it. . .(rimshot) Thank you! I'll be here all week. . .

  • Who's the target? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Spasemunki ( 63473 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:17AM (#5701346) Homepage

    The article makes it sound like this is primarily aimed at countering the presence of Linux in the embedded/handheld market, but I wonder if this won't do more harm to PalmOS in the short term. Palm has allowed its licensees a pretty free hand in making alterations and requesting features and changes to the OS, at a pretty low level. This is part of what has made it possible for licensees like Sony to run with the platform, and do a lot more with it than Palm's own handhelds do.

    If MS extends this kind of freedom to their licensees,
    then new clients (which Palm is going to try and acquire more aggressively once the device/platform split in the company is complete) will have one less reason to work with Palm rather than MS. So this is pretty win/win for MS; they get some extra edge on Palm during a vulnerable time for the company, when the pending division could cause things to go either way, they get some enhancements and/or fixes to their code from their lincensees, and they get to collect their royalties no matter what. I doubt that there are any real principles relating to support of Free Software involved; it's just a smart business move.

    Remember, there's a reason they got to be the Evil Empire, and it doesn't necisarily involve the quality of their products. . .

    • Re:Who's the target? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jasno ( 124830 )
      No, the reason companies like Sony use PalmOS is because its more appropriate for a handheld device. Non-technical users, in my experience, get confused by the PocketPC user interface. It also, contrary to a previous poster, is much less stable than an equivalent Palm device.

      I have a friend who owns a Sony NX-70v(along with a NR-70v and N710C), while his dad owns a IPaq with the latest PocketPC OS. The Sony('s) is solid as a rock. The PocketPC needs a hard reset almost daily. I've had similar experien

  • The real reason for this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by yoz ( 3735 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:18AM (#5701357) Homepage

    ... is that MS has realised that, without opening up in this way, WinCE doesn't have a hope in hell of making it onto phones.

    Case in point: Sendo [sendo.com], who were the main UK manufacturer of WinCE-based phones, eventually gave up and switched to Symbian [windowsfordevices.com]. One of the reasons behind the move was the release version of Stinger (WinCE for phones) getting later and later and playing havoc with their schedules.

    It's worth noting, though, that there's still a lot of ugliness left over with the Sendo case, with suits and counter-suits going back and forth. Andrew Orlowski's piece in The Register [theregister.co.uk] contains many fascinating bits, but most interesting (and most applicable here) is that the main thing Sendo couldn't handle was their own code going back to MS to be incorporated into the OS, thus losing any competitive edge.

    The new WinCE license demands such code returns. It shows they've learned their lessons about lawsuits, but maybe not about what their OEM customers actually want.

    -- Yoz
    • "but most interesting is that the main thing Sendo couldn't handle was their own code going back to MS to be incorporated into the OS, thus losing any competitive edge."

      This would also happen with the GPL. The funny thing is that this makes the SSI every bit as viral as the GPL.

      The point is that viral licenses are ok as long as everything are belong to us.
    • Stinger was only there to test the waters, which is why it mainly only showed up in Europe. Microsoft wanted to experiment with different licensing/signing programs which resulted in a big confusing mess.

      Apparently, the Giant liked what he saw in the mess for whatever reason.

      Ozone is already being completed with phones on the way [msmobiles.com]. Also, many Stinger phones are on their way. Ozone itself runs on top of the Windows CE.NET 4.1 OS.

      I would keep your eyes peeled. I really want to start developing for the mo

  • MS knows (Score:2, Insightful)

    by abhisarda ( 638576 )
    that the only way to gain marketshare in the handheld arena is to go open source. There are many well entrenched companies in this area and they are making it difficult for MS to gain marketshare. Windows in desktops is different because they have a monopoly and there is no viable competition(excluding Llinux). MS is relatively a newcomer in the mobile market and one has to keep in mind that WinCE is reduced bloatware unlike Palm or Symbian which are built for mobility from ground up. Samsung was supposed t
  • ..in the embedded world. My company is wrapping up a project to move from a NT/IE embedded system running a web application to a Linux/Konq one. There's no contest which is better. It's not even close. This is too little, too late.

    We're also migrating from MSQL server because of the insane licensing fees. There's been some movement here from Microsoft too, but once bitten..

  • License Details (Score:5, Informative)

    by geldart ( 95734 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:21AM (#5701396)
    The story seems to be a little inaccurate - MS don't appear to be allowing you to sell on modified versions at all. The details from the license are:

    - The right to use the Windows CE source code for any noncommercial (educational, research-related, or developmental) purpose, including distribution of derivatives of the software. Running your business operations would be considered commercial.

    - The right to use the Windows CE source code for commercial purposes solely to assist in developing and testing the licensee's own software and hardware for the Windows CE platform. The user may not distribute the software in source or object form for commercial purposes under any circumstances.

    You can read this for yourself here [microsoft.com].

    Doesn't seem such a dramatic shift to the existing SSI to me - or am I missing something?

  • Cheap way to fill in the holes... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jmacgill ( 547996 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:22AM (#5701412) Homepage
    "What percentage of CE source code is available?"..."as close to 100% as we can make it -- we can't release sources that belong to other companies."

    As it's not 100% anyone who wants to re-distribute CE is going to have to fill in the gaps left by the code MS can't pass on.

    As soon as they fill those holes, they will have to pass the new code back to MS.

    MS can then ditch the pesky dependance on other companies code, which is probably making a dint in each sale.

    Question is, are MS obliged to make the code they get back from this program freely available, if so great, if not then they probaly only have to do this for a year or so, wait till all the holes get filled and release a new version of CE where they have 100% of the code royalty free.
  • microsoft just went open source?

    and with their perceieved flagship product (soon to be since it is predicted hand-held devices and dedicated hardware that use CE will begin outselling traditional boxes by 2005)

    ive got a lot of bridges back-ordered, ill be seeing you guys soon.


    --Enter The Sig--
  • Haven't we been encouraging companies to release source code their obsolete and failed software products instead of taking them to the grave with them? Why should we complain when M$ follows our advice?

    (Yes, this is humor...)
  • ...where the person using the device doesn't knowingly interact with a computer. Typical CE-based devices include personal digital assistants and cell phones

    What the hell do you think they think they're interacting with? Magic little people that do what you say at the tap of a stylus?

  • We need to be careful (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:30AM (#5701481) Homepage
    Although I welcome the (partial) opening of the source code; the open source community needs to take care that it isn't bitten. Think what could happen: The samba team makes a new advance in unpicking a part of the SMB protocol; M$ says ``they only did it because they had access to our source code from WinCE''. There then rages a huge debate that Samba is tainted by proprietary code ...

    Making their code more readily available could be a double edged sword.
  • The combination of GNU utilities, Linux kernel and several extremely successfull Free Software projects (read Mozilla, OpenOffice, GNOME, KDE, Apache ...) has gotten big enough as to make the 10 million ton gorilla (MS) at least shake a little bit.

    They first ignored Free Software, later on they attacked it with arrogance, now they are switching from FUD (mainly misleading arguments against free software) to mimicking (we share our source too, you see ? We are open too, really).

    I guess from my view the

  • Profit (Score:3, Funny)

    by psyconaut ( 228947 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:30AM (#5701494)
    1. Get Windows CE source from Microsoft -- FREE
    2. Write new code, contribute it back to Microsoft (containing many, many destructive bugs)
    3. Microsoft distribute code, many WIndows CE machines crash
    4. We offer to fix bugs, for a fee
    5. PROFIT! :-)
  • A big mistake in the interpretation of many of the posters here is the fact that they are assuming that this code release is Open Source.

    It is not.

    It is Shared Source, which means that all of the licensing loopholes, etc that Microsoft used before still exist. They are just willing to give you the code as well as the binaries for the software that you sell.

    They haven't gone anywhere near as far as GPLing their License. They just reduced the shared source cost from more than 0 to 0. Which allows companies

  • One Possible Reason... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tspauld98 ( 512650 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:37AM (#5701558)
    I'm working for a Fortune 500 client as an independent contractor. The group that I'm working with runs a massive Internet application that is multi-tiered. The front end of this application runs on Microsoft platforms (currently NT), but the application software we run could be deployed on *NIX. There is tremedous pressure on my team to upgrade to something because NT is being "End-Of-Lifed". So, while we debated whether to switch to *NIX or upgrade to Windows 2000, MS rides in like a white knight trying to explain how Windows 2000 is just as automated and scriptable as *NIX. They convinced management to upgrade to Windows 2000 because MS claimed that they could automate the entire upgrade process.

    Guess how they choose to automate it... using WinCE. They basically did a WinCE instance running off a CD to suck all the config off the NT machines and install Win2000 from an image and reconfigure it based on the NT config.

    Needless to say, we ran into many problems and it wasn't as nearly as seamless as MS advertised. Based on the bugs in WinCE that I've seen, they need many eyes -- both development and user -- on this product as quickly as possible to get any market traction. Anyway, be warned, I don't think this software is as "free - as in beer" as your labor will be if you choose to use this product, IMHO.

  • Fuck (Score:3, Insightful)

    by defile ( 1059 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:40AM (#5701604) Homepage Journal

    That's upsetting. The biggest problem with handheld devices is that whenever a new product line comes along, the manufacturer starts almost from square one again to write the operating system. (Fortunately this is less-so the case with PDAs).

    Lots of wasted effort goes into rewriting the same functionality over and over again, and ISVs have to deal with hell to write portable applications. What's that? Java? BREW? Please, that garbage isn't going to encourage innovation on handhelds.

    You'll only start seeing real innovation when developers have raw unfettered access to the entire phone, and that's just not feasible until 90% of the phones are running the same platform. Right now all of the manufacturers and providers are getting hardons for how much proprietary pay-by-use junk they can cram into their phones, and in the meanwhile the people with ideas can't see them realized.

    These suckers are starting to come with internet access and GPS, coupled with a portable device which can retain state you have bundled some amazing potential, but it's all being retarded by the entire industry's inability to cooperate.

    It troubles me that Microsoft of all people is the one that sees this and is trying its damndest to make Windows CE the unified handheld platform, so much so that they're even opening the code to some degree.

    I suppose if Windows CE becomes the ubiquitous standard, it paves the way for Linux (or whatever) to be an easy drop in replacement, but it's easier to capture unclaimed marketshare than to fight Microsoft for it...

    Advice to vendors: Adopt a standard now -- Linux may be a good one. Don't wait for Microsoft to get its act together, because by the time they come onto your radar it'll be too late.

  • When are you sharing your source.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by GerardM ( 535367 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:43AM (#5701623)
    One of the interesting things about this is that Microsoft will allow itself to use the source that it is given AFTER a grace period.

    Two things, Microsoft will have the right to use your code; so a commercial advantage is time limited. When an organisation finds a security issue in Windows CE, Microsoft will NOT have the right to include the patch as there is this period of a few months that a company has as a competitive edge.

    Consider what it means for a company coding in Windows/CE; your additions are NOT guaranteed to provide a commercial advantage; Microsoft allows itself to your code. So the advantage of coding in Windows/CE has to ofset coding in Linux. With the GPL you do not NEED to contribute back to the community; you only have to provide the source and objects to customers! When you contribute to the community, there is no grace period for nobody.

    I wonder when somebody writes a Windows/CE security patch and insists on the grace period would Microsoft be liable under the existing laws?

    Thanks, Gerard

  • Quick! Quick! Somebody compile an XScale optimized version of CE! It's about god damn time one was available. Even just an XScale optimized GAPI library would probably result in a 2x frame rate improvement in PocketMVP. Somebody get on this, stat! I can't wait for/don't want to use CE .NET.

    Hooray for misuse of punctuation. .NET. Right.

  • Is anybody actually happy? (Score:4, Funny)

    by goldcd ( 587052 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @10:44AM (#5701639) Homepage
    MS releases their entire source to an OS - and you whine about it even more?
  • Yesterday, Microsoft chief technology officer Craig Mundie said the company won't charge companies to participate in the program, despite the word "Premium" in its name. Microsoft will receive a royalty for each copy of CE that is distributed, whether it is altered or not.

    If it is altered in a generally useful way, such as to work optimally with a particular processor, Mundie said Microsoft expects the alterer to license the new version back to itself, for free, for incorporation into future versions.

    But
  • Why does it seem to me that they are simply trying to get some free development on a piece of software they aren't really focused on right now?

    Who else sees them removing the "free" lisence after a few companies make some very usefull changes/enhancements to CE?

  • Marketing genius (Score:4, Insightful)

    by l33t-gu3lph1t3 ( 567059 ) <arch_angel16.hotmail@com> on Thursday April 10, 2003 @12:01PM (#5702355) Homepage
    This is great from Microsoft's angle, for a few reasons:

    A: MS gets goodwill from one of the new-growing areas of programming and computing.
    B: MS gets, for free, all enhancements anyone makes to its CE OS.
    C: Modified WinCE a go-go. This quite possibly will foster greater acceptance for the OS itself.
    D: I'm not sure, but I believe that MS isn't going to have to provide any tech support for modified software.
    E: MS gets to dip its toes in the water of shared-source. It's easy to see this as a tentative step in the right direction for better MS operating systems in the future.

    Good idea, Microsoft...

    *gives Bill Gates a cookie*

  • Having trouble establishing a monopoly? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by IGnatius T Foobar ( 4328 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @12:02PM (#5702367) Homepage Journal
    People do seem to realize that "shared source" isn't open source. In the embedded universe, even though you can read and modify the source code to Windows CE, you still have to pay a license fee to Microsoft for each device that you ship. Not so with Linux. That's why Linux is currently *beating* Microsoft in the embedded space. Microsoft recently contracted with a third party to make Windows Media available on embedded Linux. (Not on desktop Linux -- they'll make sure that doesn't happen.) This shows that they're admitting that they don't plan to have a monopoly in that space anytime soon, but that they're still working hard to try to achieve a monopoly on digital media. In reality -- no change. The number one rule of everyone, everywhere must continue to be: avoid ALL Microsoft products. Think of Microsoft products the same way you would think of cancer. You don't want even a little bit of it, because it *never* continues to be just a little bit.

  • freely available source? Not that I can find (Score:4, Informative)

    by the_Bionic_lemming ( 446569 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @01:41PM (#5703364)
    Right now - all I know is that you need a smart card to log into Microsoft to see the code - they intend on maintaining the code and keeping it at Microsoft.

    Here's a video by microsoft describing it [microsoft.com].

    I could be wrong - all I'm asking is for more info ;)

  • Blueprints? (Score:3, Funny)

    by jaavaaguru ( 261551 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @01:51PM (#5703465) Homepage
    From the article: ...the company is allowing the blueprints to its software...

    We don't want the design notes - we want the source code!!!

  • Ahh but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zurab ( 188064 ) on Thursday April 10, 2003 @02:35PM (#5703903)
    Beyond all that has been mentioned already, you have to have a passport account to download the source. Gimme a break!

  • Viral (Score:3, Funny)

    by Florian Weimer ( 88405 ) <fw@deneb.enyo.de> on Thursday April 10, 2003 @04:43PM (#5705152) Homepage
    Quote from the first article:

    But if it is altered to work particularly in one device, with "value-added engineering," the modifier retains ownership of the changed portions, although it must sublicense a copy to Microsoft.

    Hey, that's as viral as the GPL! We're almost winning!

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close