Microsoft Eases "Shared Source" Restrictions 252
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."
Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah sure you can make an ncurses app, but what if you want it to integrate nicely?
So yeah you have some choice but for a commercial app I'd still go with commercial QTopia as would anyone with a bit of common sense..
Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:3, Insightful)
You complain about the $995 fee and say, well, on Linux you could just roll your own toolkit?
It would take monts or years and a "mobhord" of developers to correctly do that, but at least you save the $995 fee for the kit.
Call it a hunch, but I am willing to wager that you don't design and build PDA's for a living?
Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:5, Informative)
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:5, Insightful)
Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:5, Informative)
Check it out http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?F
Embedded Visual C++ and Embedded Visual Basic are included the last time I checked.
Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:5, Informative)
eVC++ 4.0 [microsoft.com]
Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:5, Interesting)
Either you haven't used CE that much or we use different software.
Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:2)
If someone wants to write some free software, fine. There's free tools for that. If someone wants to sell their software, hopefully they're expecting to sell the 50 copies at $20 needed to recoup the inital investment.
Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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.
Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right, that's not their goal. Their goal is to make as much money as possible. By charging $995 (guided by their first goal), they are also, as a side-effect, raising an artificial barrier to entry for WinCE developers.
Additionally, one of the guiding philosophical ideals at MS is that MS wants to own and control as much as possible--both their own inventions,
Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't think that fully supported development kit for 995$ 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).
Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:2, Insightful)
sorry, but MS likes to think that but Palm OS still outnumbers it 3 to 1. The sexiest PDA's run palmOS (sony Clie) and up until just recently it was the only thing available for integrated PDA+PHONE (which still suck, but are starting to get better...)
Microsoft has been playing catch-up to palmOS for years and this new Linux thing is starting to nudge it's way in further pissing them off.
Microsoft is second fiddle in the world of consumer embedded systems
Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:4, Insightful)
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:3, Informative)
I hate to tell you this but Linux is trying to compete with CE in the PDA market and not doing all that well.
Where Linux is doing well is in the Embeded market for things like Wi-Fi routers and such. The PDA market is on that Linux is not doing well in at all.
Would I like a Linux based PDA? Yep but I have not seen one yet that will work as well as my old Palm does. I can even sync it under Linux.
BTW $995 is not bad for a development system. Take a look at wh
You're thinking consumer rather than business apps (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't imagine having the claim that $995 for development fees (after the trial period) is "inexpensive" especially when this is an obvious attempt to compete with Linux in the PDA market.
The world of embedded devices is only now starting to emerge. The consumer end of things, which might be called "PDAs" [or "Cell Phones" or whatnot], is just the tip of the iceberg.
The potential for business use of embedded OSes is just staggering, however, and Microsoft [as opposed to Sony, or Ericsson] has tradtion
Re:Inexpensive and competing with Linux? Nah. (Score:2)
$995 is cheap -- unless its per unit or recurring (Score:2, Insightful)
Think about it.
nothing says BSD is dying like... (Score:5, Funny)
Just because its source is available (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just because its source is available (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Just because its source is available (Score:2)
Even in cases where a previously proprietary product has been "open sourced" it can take quite a bit of time before the result is truely OSS. Various coding styles and methodologies which may work fine in the proprietary environment are not much good in an open environment.
Re:Just because its source is available (Score:3, Funny)
you mean, you have to submit all changes to Bill Gates who decides what goes into the CE kernel or not?
"More like..." (Score:4, Insightful)
However don't forget to read the fine print.
Microsoft shares, who'da thunk it... (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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?
Re:um, yeah, except that's not true (Score:3, Insightful)
It's certainly a lot more relaxed, but it doesn't let you take the original code and do whatever you want with it.
Correct. Of utmost relevence is the fact that you cannot take "Shared Source" code, and share the source with your friends.
Exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Smart move, actually (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Smart move, actually (Score:2)
Rubbish. The GPL helps me say this: "want modify and use my code? Fine, then make it $free like I did. Want a version that lets you close yours and protect your 'secrets'? Pay me and you can have a different license.
The GPL allows a lot of programmers to protect their work with a license that prevents vultures from hijacking it into their own product and not giving anything back in return.
How could something whose very
Re:Smart move, actually (Score:3, Informative)
GPL has littl
Thank you Mr. Bush for failing to understand again (Score:3, Informative)
Some traits of Socialism and Communism:
-Public or government owns means of production.
-Central committes plan production.
-There is no competition.
-No profit motive in the distribution of goods or services.
Why GPL is not "Communist":
-Individuals can own means of production of GPL software.
-People can own c
Re:Microsoft shares, who'da thunk it... (Score:2)
Will you see the Windows CE kernel code in any other software? Probably not. The license doesn't allow that. This is *NOT* free software. The modifyable code only guarantees that you will have a bit more flexibility over the use of it in your own devices. You can make your own improvements without having to give them back to Microsoft.
Guess what... You can do that with GPL code as well. Think of something like YAST (bef
Just a little bit (Score:5, Insightful)
License terms not published yet (Score:5, Insightful)
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]).
Re:License terms not published yet (Score:3, Insightful)
The most important word here is if. You are under no obligation to distribute any GPL program at all. Also you are under no obligation to make the source available to to anyone other than a party you have supplied the binary to. The specific point is that b
Re:License terms not published yet (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
This is correct, but you're kinda missing the forest for the trees. In the application that the code described in the artice is going to be used ... yes ..
M$ adopting Linux features (Score:5, Funny)
- 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!Re:M$ adopting Linux features (Score:3, Insightful)
GNOME and KDE. Check.
Access NULL pointers to decrease stability
I hope you're not implying that dereferncing NULL pointers is something that happens exclusively at Microsoft. But either way, this happens frequently enough with free software. Check.
Program major security holes into common apps like xterm
Is ssh good enough for you? Check.
Re:M$ adopting Linux features (Score:2)
And you have to pay for Windows and those products withing being able to see the source or modify it so you can't fix the problem or help others fix it...
Besides, I don't think GNOME or KDE with a linux kernal take NEAR as much disk space as Windows. The Windows version I'm running takes almost 2 GIGS of disk space IN THE WINDOWS DIRECTORY alone!
Re:M$ adopting Linux features (Score:2)
Re:M$ adopting Linux features (Score:2, Informative)
Here we go again. No, GNOME and KDE are not linux. Linux is just a kernel and yes you can customize GNOME and KDE to any degree you want. That in not true in MS software unless I pay (more) money for a third party software to do this for me (possibly) without braking anything.
I hope you're not implying that dereferncing NULL pointers is something that happens exclusively at Microsoft. But either way, this happens frequently enough with free software. Check.
What happens even m
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not just Linux move (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not just Linux move (Score:3, Informative)
Are you implying that amateurs can't write for WinCE devices? I'll remind you that the development tools are free and widely available.
"Interestingly"? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
"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.
Not That Obvious (Score:2)
Well, it's not that obvious. The GPL is definitely the more controlling of the two, and I don't think it is a matter of course that Microsoft would give up their control.
Re:"Interestingly"? (Score:3, Informative)
We have deployed literally HUNDREDS of Intel servers over the past 3 years. We started with Windows and now are almost completely Linux. Windows WAS replacing some *NIX systems, but now it's Linux on IBM blades or 44x series machines.
To be frank, the only reason we have any Windows at all is the ease of development and a slew of undertalented developers who can't write proper Java or C/C++ code. Aside from that we're excusively Linux (with AIX for some of the
Re:"Interestingly"? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
That's because you're talking about desktop and server OSes, and this move has to do with embedded device OSes, where MS doesn't have the
Re:"Interestingly"? (Score:2)
You probably cannot take the Windows kernel code and write your own free derivative based upon it.
Don't confuse shared-source with free (speech) software until you know all of the details of the license. GPL is still free, even if you need to jump though a few hoops to avoid violating the license if you wish to glue it to proprietary code. It's doubtful that "Shared Source" will be this way.
Re:"Interestingly"? (Score:2)
Um, how do you know Microsoft hasn't used more BSD code? Since their code is closed you really have no idea what's in it or how much BSD code it could contain. The TCP/IP stack & FTP client are just things which we happen to know about.
Still not as open (Score:5, Interesting)
this is FANTASTIC! (Score:3, Funny)
"ffs! How many time do we have to tell you, you need to run windows update on your microwave at least once a week"
Update your microwave (Score:3, Funny)
while(true) {
if(microwave.containsPet()) {
door.close();
microwave.start(Power::High, 30);
} else sleep(5);
}
Nice to see MS squirm (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Just what I always wanted in my embedded OS!
Re:lines of code (Score:3, Funny)
Just 500k more lines of code and you got a nice looking pony.........as long as the code is BASIC........and the holoshed doesn't malfunction.
Re:lines of code (Score:2)
compete? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:OMG, Forking! (Score:2)
And this differs from Windows today... how?
Re:OMG, Forking! (Score:2)
Ballmer: Windows CE is like Pac-Man! It's a cancer!
nothing like BSD (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft and GPL (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Microsoft and GPL (Score:2)
OSS proponents tell me this is one of the best features of OSS though, the ability to build on existing software rather than reinvent the wheel. If OSS developers are as good as they claim then they should be able to outdo anything MS can build on the share
Re:Microsoft and GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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
Re:article has the GPL part all wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Of course you can't make them not give the source to whomever they please. You can ask them nicely not to do it, but they have the right to if they want, under the GPL.
Re:article has the GPL part all wrong (Score:2)
Re:article has the GPL part all wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
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 p
Re:article has the GPL part all wrong (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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)
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.
Re:As someone who has developed using CE (Score:3, Interesting)
This is on top of their "pay as you go" type system where your license is purely based on what you put in the OS. Okay, that may change tomorrow. Depends on the freakin' whims of MS. Makes it terribly difficult cost out a project.
But, hey, it could all change b
Wouldn't GPL have been better? (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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?
So Microsoft is taking their embedded OS... (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, that makes a lot of sense from their perspective, but are we supposed to be impressed by this or something?
It's Linux that dunnit... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is significant that Microsoft seems to be losing the lead on where things are going now. They are recting to Linux rather than leading the IT market.
I know they are doing this to keep Linux out and to try and get people hooked on XP - but it does not work like that any more. I have just replaced a customer's Outlook Express with Mozilla's Thunderbird - the transission went smoothly - and although the (non technical) person has never used Thunderbird before the training took about two minutes!
I think these strategic decisions of Microsoft are a turning point. Microsoft cannot kill Linux. If they want to keep their current markets they are learning that they need to do it on Linux's terms - ie - give the customer reliable cheap working software that does not involve paying a big "Microsoft Tax".
I think we have seen the value of Microsoft's software, and it's revenue, take a downward turn. I am expecting the trend to continue.
Re-Read the GPL! (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Re-Read the GPL! (Score:2)
I don't think it's so clear-cut; see the language in section 2(b) about causing derived works to be licensed "as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." I'm not an expert and I could be misinterpreting this provision, but I think it's a stretch to say it's "plainly wrong."
Re:Re-Read the GPL! (Score:3)
RTFGPL (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:RTFGPL (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong. The GPL states that if you distribute binaries that you have to make the source code available. It doesn't require you to ship the source code with the binaries. You have that option but you can also choose not to do so and wait until a user asks for a copy of the source. From section three of the GPL [gnu.org]:
Like going to Dr. Kevorkian for a cold.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just like we're not going to get anything good out of using Microsoft's code.
Paranoid? Look at it this way: would you put some sort of rights to your companies code in the hands of Microsoft? Do you trust them that much?
Me neither.
Still Learning the GPL?!? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Still Learning the GPL?!? (Score:3, Informative)
Not bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's All Sun's Fault (Score:3, Informative)
Jeroen
No its brainwashing! (Score:2, Interesting)
Thats not a restriction -its a statutory obligation to remove restrictionns, ffs, sounds like MS mind control signals to me
Re:It's All Sun's Fault (Score:3, Interesting)
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." - Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." - Ken Olson, President, Chairman and Founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977
"640k ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, Co-Founder and CEO of Microsoft, 1981
Regardless of my dislike of the man and his company, no one could ever s
Re:Boooooo (Score:2)