Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Releases Windows CE 3.0 Source
from the chase-the-carrot-while-I-swing-the-stick dept.
If you haven't yet taken a look at Microsoft's "Shared Source License," this is a good time: contrast the restrictions on use and redistribution to the clauses on those things in the GPL.
Interesting that Microsoft should denigrate Free Software licenses as pathogenic but require that anyone who redistributes the software as source under their new "broader" license "include a complete copy of this License with your distribution." That license includes a provision that "if you sue anyone over patents that you think may apply to the Software for a person's use of the Software, your license to the Software ends automatically."
But since you may not distribute the licensed Microsoft code "in source or object form for commercial purposes under any circumstances," nor use it to run a business, it may be unlikely that such a suit would arise. All in all, I'm not sure who besides companies selling Win CE hardware or software will benefit from this "sharing."
However, if you ever intend to work on any Open Source programming project which might involve similar code, you might want to think twice about downloading any code under the provisions Microsoft lists here: a simple database query can establish whether "Yourname Lastname" had access to the Microsoft-owned code, which could result in legal problems down the road. Even if you never look at the downloaded code, the electronic trail will look like you did -- which is perhaps the most insidious aspect of this version of sharing.
Direct Download (Score:5)
This is a good thing (with some Caveats) (Score:4)
There are caveats, of course. The licensing restrictions that apply to shared source are wrong in most cases. As long as I don't turn around and redistribute the software, why should they care if I modify the source and use it in my business or personal use? As long as sufficient licenses are purchased (another controversial issue that I have some thoughts about), they shouldn't care.
The second big caveat is that there needs to be a proper and well known legislative infrastructure in place to support the readers of the source code. Possibly, the same standards that apply to books should apply to source code. In other words, a few sentences that are entirely the same might be ok, but taking entire thoughts (subroutines or algorithsm in source code?) is wrong. Right now, the ambiguity of when Microsoft can sue is a bit chilling. It would be beneficial, IMHO, to have some legislation to make fair use type protections explicit.
Sujal
Re:Compare Microsoft with FSF. (Score:4)
"No way, how do you dare asking?"
"Yes, definitely! Sign here, give us the money, and off you go!", rather. And you won't have to redistribute the source to your changes, either. I'm pretty sure all CE manufacturers have had access to the source, and I know that SGI had a deal to sell a modified version of NT with the Visual Workstations.
--
Niklas Nordebo | niklas at nordebo.com
Wow. (Score:5)
From the licence it looks like this code is free (as in beer, not speech).
The Licence:
This License governs use of the accompanying Software.
You can use this Software for any non-commercial purpose, including distributing derivatives. Running your business operations would not be considered non-commercial.
For commercial purposes, you can reference this software solely to assist in developing and testing your own software and hardware for the Windows CE platform. You may not distribute this software in source or object form for commercial purposes under any circumstances.
In return, we simply require that you agree:
1) Not to remove any copyright notices from the Software.
* Ok, thats fair.
2) That if you distribute the Software in source code form you do so only under this License (i.e. you must include a complete copy of this License with your distribution), and if you distribute the Software solely in object form you only do so under any license that complies with this License.
* This is fair too.
3)That the Software comes "as is", with no warranties. None whatsoever. This means no implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or any warranty of non-infringement. Also, you must pass this disclaimer on whenever you distribute the Software.
* Standard Leaglease. This is in the GPL too.
4) That Microsoft will not be liable for any of those types of damages known as indirect, special, consequential, or incidental related to the Software or this License, to the maximum extent the law permits. Also, you must pass this limitation of liability on whenever you distribute the Software.
* Same as above.
5) That if you sue anyone over patents that you think may apply to the Software for a person's use of the Software, your license to the Software ends automatically.
* Hmmm, this is different.
6) That the patent rights Microsoft is licensing only apply to the Software, not to any derivatives you make.
* I don't understand this one, someone care to explain? (I think that they mean that if I make a derivitave, it is not owned by Microsoft? Or, does it mean not protected by Microsoft?)
7) That your rights under the License end automatically if you breach it in any way.
* Very different from the GPL! That your rights "Suddenly end" if you breach it in any way. GPL is designed to maintain rights, this one is designed to take them away.
Granted, you can't blame Microsoft for using this kind of licence. Their whole business model is based on this kind of thing. I still bet that there are people at MS that are having fits over the release of code. But, I guess the battle for free software must be ganing ground - because Microsoft is fighting back... On our turf.
Re:Wow. (Score:3)
> * I don't understand this one, someone care
> to explain? (I think that they mean that if
> I make a derivitave, it is not owned by
> Microsoft? Or, does it mean not protected by Microsoft?)
It's a fair clause actually.
Microsoft MIGHT have licensed patents and included code implementing them in the distribution. Of course they have paid the patent owners to do so. But if you distribute derivative works, you don't own those rights so you have to acquire them yourself.
Let's put this in practice: suppose that there is some code somewhere in WinCE3.0 that generates GIF images. Microsoft has paid Unisys in order to do so. If you redistribute that code, you have to contact Unisys and license the patent yourself, because Microsoft's license does not get transferred to you.
Not that software patents make any sense, mind you.
not true (Score:4)
Re:Isn't CE going to die? (Score:3)
Microsoft is working on Win CE 4.0 (Talisker) and Pocket PC 4.0 (Merlin), which is based on Win CE 4.0, and will most likely have those released and on new shipping devices by September. Just about every new handheld, and cellphone-PDA-combo device is based on Pocket PC and the trend is just more and more in Win CE's favor as we move forward. There's only ONE device released on EPOC 6.x so far - the Nokia 9210 - and it sucks compared to the Siemens GSM-phone & PDA combo device. And don't even mention Palm OS... Psion is out of the handheld market so if an OS is on its way out, it's EPOC.. and.. well.. Palm OS.
Windows CE is more alive than ever!
Re:Lawyer question... (Score:3)
In programming there is the principle of "avoided failure".
You implicitly learn (get) all of the research the previous programmer did to get to that point. All the different failures he went through you can avoid, because you know what he ended up using.
By doing so, you "take" all of his work as yours. All his testing, all his troubleshooting, JUST by lookign at the code and knowing what he used.
Makes a little sense.
Is This how Microsoft Will Kill Linux? (Score:3)
My suggestion is that if you do any open source programming at all or work for any Linux companies, you stay the hell away from any of Microsoft's shared source.
Not Safe (Score:3)
In the historical past, it's been a fairly common practise to have an isolated group study something and document how it works. Another group would come along and implement using only the produced documentation. The best known example of this is the PC BIOS. I wouldn't even consider that without talking to a lawyer (or three) first.
Re:Is This how Microsoft Will Kill Linux? (Score:5)
Source code is really no different than books, magazines, and newspapers. You don't see newspaper editors scrupulously avoiding all printed materials besides their own paper, do you? You don't hear about musicians carefully avoiding listening to the radio, do you?
Re:Compaq, IBM BIOS, and reverse engineering (Score:5)
Clean-rooming the BIOS has nothing to do with this mythological contamination. It's simply so that the judge will instantaneously see that there is no merit.
This is a completely erroneous misinterpretation of copyright law. If it were true, musicians would routinely go to prison for 'willfully and with malice aforethought' listening to the radio. Visiting artists would be deported for going to galleries. In other words, everbody is full of shit. I deeply resent this attack on my knowledge and character. I *am* full of shit, but I resent being told so.No big deal? (Score:5)
If your on the MSDN network you can get the source from the CD's. Im sorry this is a bad example since the source has always been available.
Jeremy
Re:And just like medusa... (Score:5)
Wouldn't that be considered a copy protection circumvention device?
Don't look directly at their code (Score:5)
Re:Wow. (Score:4)
* I don't understand this one, someone care to explain? (I think that they mean that if I make a derivitave, it is not owned by Microsoft? Or, does it mean not protected by Microsoft?)
Basically what it means is that if Microsoft had to license any 3rd party patents in order to produce the software, their license to the patents does not cover any derivative versions of the software you make and distribute, meaning if you wanted to be on the up and up, you'd have to license those patents yourself.
It sounds insidious, but it's more likely than not just in the license to cover their butts, if a derivative that uses someone else's patent becomes popular, the patent-holder can't come after Microsoft for subletting access to their patent.
All in all, their Shared Source license isn't as horrible as some Slashbots would like you to believe. In fact, it's simpler, more concise, and more direct than the GPL, and arguably doesn't restrict you any more than the GPL does (aside from "commercial use" of the code)
Re:Isn't CE going to die? (Score:5)
Perhaps, but this is a big step for Microsoft, to release the source code to what at one time in the recent future was intended to be a flagship product of theirs, and is still in moderate to heavy use. You didn't seriously expect them to start out by opening the Windows XP codebase, did you? (And how come nobody has a similar accusation for id Software when they released the source to Wolf 3d or Quake?)
Armed with only my Hotmail login, I now have their source code on my hard drive. In other news, Hell has frozen over, pigs are flying, and the cows have come home. Film at 11.
I knew it. (Score:5)
[ck@server1 ck]$ grep -r fuck *
private/winceos/coreos/nk/schedule.c:
Those sneaky bastards!
Isn't CE going to die? (Score:4)
With M$'s focus on the 2k/XP kernel, is this just a red herring to attract good press? Isn't CE going to be replaced by XP Embedded or whatever they decide to call it, so they have a common kernel across all their platforms?
And just like medusa... (Score:5)
Bryguy
Passport (Score:5)
Sice when do "easier to use" and "a pain in the ass" have the same meaning??
War against Palm (Score:3)
Yes, but is it FREE? (Score:3)
This is a big Conspiracy!!!! (Score:3)
I knew a nice Linux developer. Today he downloaded the Windows CE code to look at it. Between then and now he has been killed. He laughed himself to death. This is a BIG Microsoft conspiracy to kill and Macintosh and Linux developers. And what is left of the BeOS, OS/2, and Amiga developers. And finally all two of the AtheOS developers.
Once they all have downloaded the source and laughed themselves to death,the only ones able to survive will be the Windows developers, as they already have to use Microsoft's joke of an OS. If this isn't anti-competitive than what is...
--Volrath50
Re:What about DreamCast? (Score:4)
And now for my personal ranting...
Unfortunately, it seemed that Windows CE for Dreamcast was an afterthought - the documentation was horrible, to the point that some functions not available on the Dreamcast were listed, or some functions had completely incorrect information. And, oh, the bugs - the worst thing was finding the cause of the bug, only to have to tell the developers, "Sorry, you'll have to wait for the next bug-fix release". At least with the Sega libraries, I could recompile them myself when needed.
After my experience with Windows CE, I certainly hope to not have to program in it again (or use any of MS' API's) - I found it rather messy and inelegant. For now I don't have to worry about it, since my current job has me doing embedded work using vxWorks.
Wish this "Shared Source" abomination was around back when I needed it, I could have helped some third party Sega developers better.
Actually, one question that I have... Does normal Windows CE come with DirectX, or does it use normal GDI stuff? For the Dreamcast, it came with DirectX 6.0, and a vast majority of the GDI stuff was removed by default (unless you used the integrated version of IE, then it included GDI components, to the best of my knowledge).
-- Joe
Legal ramifications = NULL (Score:3)
So how in the hell are they going to look up your name and trace your footprints regarding who downloads what, when all they really have (using reasonable security with cookies turned off) is your IP address? Sounds like a false alarm on the legal front to me.
Do I intend to download the source? Absolutely. I'd love to see how they code embedded devices (which essentially have to be as tight code as you can get). Do I plan to use the source and redistribute it? No. Do I plan to think more about the more creative code and use highly-changed variations myself? Absolutely. There's only so many ways you can write cout I think I'm going to make it a habit to shoot down alarmists on Slashdot, because there seem to be a great number of them (including the editors).