Microsoft Shared Source -- With a Twist 368
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.
How owns the copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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?
Sounds like it (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:How owns the copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:How owns the copyright? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:
Good thing? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
and seriously, what the world fixes for free in CE, is probably indicative of a root error in the original code base
Re:Good thing? (Score:3, Funny)
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)
(oh well.. a man can dream, can't he?)
Another Money Making Opportunit (Score:5, Insightful)
Whole new twist on outsourcing your development activities to save money.
Re:Another Money Making Opportunit (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:Another Money Making Opportunit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Another Money Making Opportunit (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Write a binary patch instead? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Another Money Making Opportunit (Score:2, Insightful)
open source or Open Source? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:open source or Open Source? (Score:2)
It's not Free Software, it's Open Source. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's not Free Software, it's Open Source. (Score:2)
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.
Re:It's not Free Software, it's Open Source. (Score:2)
Could help :) (Score:3, Interesting)
____
cheap web site hosting [cheap-web-...ing.com.au]
Re:Could help :) (Score:3, Insightful)
In case the second link is /.ed (Score:4, Informative)
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 . .
CNET: Windows CE plan draws criticism -- This article highlights reactions to Microsoft's an
Re:In case the second link is /.ed (Score:2)
"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)
Seems they didn't listen to themselves
Jeroen
Re:fork? (Score:5, Informative)
FP? (Score:3, Interesting)
Free workforce? (Score:2)
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.
You know (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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!
Re:Become a Microsoft employee and earn $0.00 / ho (Score:2)
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!
Re:Become a Microsoft employee and earn $0.00 / ho (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, it seems wrong on its face, but MS is right for a change. Wesayso gets as much benefit (an optimiz
Re:Become a Microsoft employee and earn $0.00 / ho (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Become a Microsoft employee and earn $0.00 / ho (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Uhhh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Splat! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Now things are making sense (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Splat! (Score:2, Funny)
"It's as reliable as your desktop PC!"
Notice: it's just the non-Microsoft parts (Score:4, Funny)
#include "ms.h"
And ms.h was just:
Heck, we might find it that most of it came largely from FreeBSD, or something.
Re:Notice: it's just the non-Microsoft parts (Score:2)
Wait, does that make Windows CE some kind of frankenstein monster? You know, made from corpses and given life anew?
Re:Notice: it's just the non-Microsoft parts (Score:2)
Re:Notice: it's just the non-Microsoft parts (Score:2)
That's the opposite of the situation. It's just the Microsoft parts.
Re:Notice: it's just the non-Microsoft parts (Score:2)
Microsoft releasing source code (Score:2)
Look! They used goto 653 times!
Leeching vs sharing (Score:3, Interesting)
The shape of things to come (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
Re:Could this be it? (Score:2)
Ok, great but why would I want that? (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
... 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.
-- YozRe:The real reason for this (Score:2)
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.
Re:The real reason for this (Score:2)
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)
Microsoft is being 0wn3d by linux (Score:2)
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)
- 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?
put the crack pipe down... (Score:5, Informative)
in the boolean sense "or" means that if either condition is satisfied, then what follows applies. so object code [everything2.com]:
Object code is the result of a program taking source code and running it through a compiler or assembler. This creates the object code which can then be linked together in such a way that the computer can understand it. Executables are created in such a way. Both are platform/processor dependend. A Mac could not understand the object code created for Linux, just as DOS could not understand the object code created for an Amiga, unless an emulator was used.
would include executables and thus you would not be allowed to distribute object code under this license.
Cheap way to fill in the holes... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
did i shit flying bricks (Score:2)
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--
Deathknoll for WinCE (Score:2)
(Yes, this is humor...)
Where are they? (Score:2, Funny)
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)
Making their code more readily available could be a double edged sword.
GNU/Linux as a mainstream valid alternative (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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!
Re:Profit (Score:5, Funny)
Now that's a feat to behold.. sending code back to Microsoft in worse condition than when you recieved it!
Note Shared Source... Not Open Source (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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
At Last, XScale Optimizations! (Score:2)
Hooray for misuse of punctuation.
Is anybody actually happy? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Is anybody actually happy? (Score:2)
Hell yes! Until now, all we could do was assume their code resembled Italian pasta. . . but now they've gone and removed all doubt!
Still a one-way revenue stream (Score:2)
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
I still don't trust them (Score:2)
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)
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)
freely available source? Not that I can find (Score:4, Informative)
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)
We don't want the design notes - we want the source code!!!
Ahh but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Viral (Score:3, Funny)
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!
It's Licencees only not FREE for all (Score:3, Informative)
Pocket PC manufacturers will now be able to tailor their system software to better differentiate their products, after Microsoft today said it would allow Windows CE licensees access to the OS' source code.
Re:It's Licencees only not FREE for all (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not on Microsoft's Site (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not on Microsoft's Site (Score:3, Informative)
Re:...from others.... (Score:2)
They use C++. That would be
while(1){screen.blue();}
Re:...from others.... (Score:5, Funny)
#include "stdafx.h"
CDC dc;
CBrush blueBrush(RGB(0,0,255));
CBrush whiteBrush(RGB(255,255,255));
dc.CreateCompatibl
CBrush *oldbrush = dc.SelectObject(&blueBrush);
while(TRUE)
{
dc.FillEntireGoddamnScreen(&blueBrush);
dc.MakeUpAndDrawScreenDump(&whiteBrush);
MakeHardDriveLightFlash();
}
Re:haha (Score:2)
err...no. I am d/ling it as we speak. Microsoft Windows CE
Took about 5 mins to find and start the d/l.
Re:Aha (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
That is exactly why the right to redistribute derived versions of code is so important.
What happens if you fix a bug or security hole? It seems like you'll have to hand over your fix to Microsoft, which promises not to incorporate it in the next six months. Hee hee.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Informative)
As this cuts out the main revenue from WinCE, I can only see them doing this as a spoiling tactic.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about and seem to be trying to disseminate FUD. You cannot redistribute the source code and all changes have to be reported to Microsoft. Also, Microsoft makes money off of licensing Pocket PC and SmartPhone, and doesn't make as much off of Windows CE itself.
Windows CE was released under Shared Source to aid developers and nothing more. It already comes with the Platform Developer kit that Microsoft has been using since Windows CE 1.0. However the kit requires licensing and is geared for OEMs producing new devices.
I use multiple Pocket PC and Windows CE devices and have never had a crash on any of them yet. They don't blue screen either for your information.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
While this is mostly true, and WinCE really is quite a different OS from full-blown NT, I've had PocketPC 3.0 crash every now and then. However, this isnt much of an annoyance, since it boots up real fast and thus far my crashes havent caused significant data losses. But having never experienced a crash -- I just find that hard to believe. Besides, all the cell phones I've owned have also crashed occasionally.
OK MS Apologist Troll (Score:3, Insightful)
Time to spout off about things you don't want to understand. OSS BAD NO MATTAR WUT I KNOW OR DON'T KNOW
The real issue as many people have pointed out here before is the "poisoning" of developers. The companies who go with the shared source program are going to be signing up with a contract that will make it nearly impossible for those developers to work on GNU (and potentially other) OSS projects should they want to in the future. In the end, this may not matter since the developer who write for Windows
Re:Where's the source? (Score:2, Interesting)
In all serious though, the Connection manager isn't part of Windows CE itself and you won't find it in the source code. If you can score the free (after rape-rated shipping and handling) Platform Kit preview, then you get the extra documentation to