OSNews

That means nothing.

I disagree. I think this is a step in the right direction, no matter how small. I'll be interested to see where people go with this (if anywhere).

"The right direction" leading ... where? Don't be fooled by the "shared source" tag, this has nothing to do with open source.

rehdon

The ability to at least look at the source will undoubtedly help the folks who have standardized on WinCE. But of course, if you develop OSS apps, you'd better keep away from this, since it can create all sorts of legal problems for you.

I'm guessing the idea behind this is that creators of new mobile devices will be able to modify the kernel and use Windows CE rather than using embedded linux.

Edited 2006-11-01 16:01

Open up the GUI and we'll start talking.
Yeah right so you can steal from it?

Ask Apple to Open their GUI source, they are based on free kernel still they don't open.

For embedded devices related development, kernel source matters a lot. It is a good move.

Given that GUI's are, well, primarily graphical in nature, it matters little whether you have the source or not; it's basically artwork and modes of interaction ("feel"). Easily ripped-off, I would think?

Maybe MS can share-source Microsoft Bob to run on top of Win CE 6.0 kernel )

Ohhh noooooo (imitating Lemmings)..

I don't know whether your statement should be considered funny or offensive - it's sort of both

yep i still have the dvds of the win ce 4 source somewhere

That depends entirely on what license they put it under.

MS's shared source program is a look but dont touch and you have to jump through a lot of hurdles to see the code, sign agreements, etc. In the end, you can see the source, but you can't build your own kernel or submit modifications back to MS. It's 99% hype.

Microsoft has several "Shared Source" license types[1]:
Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL)
The Ms-PL is the least restrictive of the Microsoft source code licenses. It allows you to view, modify, and redistribute the source code for either commercial or non-commercial purposes. Under the Ms-PL, you may change the source code and share it with others. You may also charge a licensing fee for your modified work if you wish. This license is most commonly used for developer tools, applications, and components.
Microsoft Community License (Ms-CL)
The Ms-CL is a license that is best used for collaborative development projects. This type of license is commonly referred to as a reciprocal source code license and carries specific requirements if you choose to combine Ms-CL code with your own code. The Ms-CL allows for both non-commercial and commercial modification and redistribution of licensed software and carries a per-file reciprocal term.
Microsoft Reference License (Ms-RL)
The Ms-RL is a reference-only license that allows licensees to view source code in order to gain a deeper understanding of the inner workings of a Microsoft technology. It does not allow for modification or redistribution. This license is used primarily for technologies such as development libraries.

I think you are thinking only of the last one.

[1] http://www.windowsfordevices.com/articles/AT3157033949.html

These three licenses are merely a minor part of the many "Shared Source" licenses Microsoft have floating around. But none-the-less I'll thank you for the content of the post. Nice reference

Actually, according to the articles, there are no hurdles, just click on the button in VS, agree to the terms, and the source code is installed, no hurdles there. Read the articles, don't just make stuff up

Because it's not GPL?
Because it's not OSI approved as being Open Source?
As I recall, Shared Source includes licenses that are perfectly qualified to be called Open Source license.

edit: changed from OSDL to OSI

Edited 2006-11-01 17:08

It can easily be Open Source without being GPL. It can even be "Free Software" (a badly chosen name) without being GPL.

It can be Open Source without being OSI-approved. What matters are the principles. And "Shared Source" licenses will typically not give you the right to freely modify sources and distribute the modified sources or binaries based on these.

One has to watch out when looking at "Shared Source"-licenses and "Shared Source"-licensed sources.

Yup, it's not Open Source.

It doesn't allow for modifications of sources unless they are for Windows CE only, and the license do not allow for distribution unless for Windows CE only.

With such terms it cannot be considered Open Source.

It is most certainly not closed source at least.

Like how "not Open Source" does not equal "Closed Source" and the other way around.

Disregarding any discussion on if it's called "open" or "shared" source, this is most certainly going to be appreciated by a lot of companies.
Companies that for one reason or another don't want to use GPL stuff, and for one reason or another don't want to base their product on BSD.

It's not closed source, it's not open source. It's shared source.

The reason why this can happen, is because it gives more freedom than closed source, but doesn't give you as much freedom as open source. So it ends in the middle, being neither (with this particular MS-license).

But no doubt it'll be useful for those who develop for Windows CE. They couldn't care less about porting it to non-Windows CE platform.

Exactly, i thought it was always open for last few years.

Exactly, i thought it was always open for last few years.

It has been, but only a percentage.

In conjunction with the 10-year anniversary of Windows Embedded, 100 percent of the Windows Embedded CE 6.0 kernel is now available through the Microsoft® Shared Source program, an overall increase of 56 percent from previous versions of Windows Embedded CE. The Shared Source program provides full source-code access for modification and redistribution by device-makers (subject to the terms of a license agreement), who are under no obligation to share their final designs with Microsoft or others. Although the Windows operating system is a general-purpose computing platform designed for creating a consistent experience, Windows Embedded CE 6.0 is a tool kit device-makers use for building customized operating system images for a variety of non-desktop devices. By providing access to certain parts of the Windows Embedded CE source code, such as the file system, device drivers and other core components, embedded developers are able to choose the code they need, compile it, and build their own, unique operating systems, quickly bringing their devices to market.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/nov06/11-01MSKernelPR...

you right this means nothing to people who do not use windows ce. bot for those who do this is a huge upgrade. and haveing platform builder as a plug in to Virtuan studio is great!

BUT with shared source you can use the code given by microsoft and not have to open your product so that your competitors can see your work.

Just like the freedom you get with BSD licensed code. You're not forced to release your changes or additions, and if you're only using a small part of something, you're not forced to open up the whole application.