Today, Microsoft is announcing (free reg. req.) that its shared-source program has one million licensed participants, from lone software developers to large corporations. The milestone, said Jason Matusow, manager of the shared-source initiative at Microsoft, shows that the company has responded to the demands of its customers.
Microsoft Effort to Share Code Reaches Milestone
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
cd /windows/src
make menuconfig
make
make modules_install?
What is the point of looking at source if you cannot change or fix anything?
Hi
To decieve people from the originals goals of free software where equality to share is a major criteria. Just take a look at the definition of free/open source software. shared source is otherwise called disclosed source which is touch me not. there is nothing open about it. Microsoft should just stick with proprietary code and fight free software in its traditional way. trying to jump into free software is a very dangerous tactics for it and half baked attempts like shared source doesnt cut it at all
regards
Jess
Atleast they might change there selling behavior. Who knows?
Sad. One million less potential free software developers. Or as SCO is going on, one million potential lawsuits.
To decieve people from the originals goals of free software where equality to share is a major criteria.
I don’t think MS is trying to deceive because they never called this initiative “free software”.
What is the point of looking at source if you cannot change or fix anything?
The reason why they created this shared-source program is to allow third-party software developers to fit their code better to Windows, improve troubleshooting and optimization. It has nothing to do with OSS and it’s not tryint to emulate OSS. People and companies who enter this program are not so uninformed to expect it to be some kind of “open source Windows”.
I don’t know why people is trying to compare this to open-source or free software, it’s just something different.
Please post your full name so we can warn the WINE developers about you. Even looking at the source means that you could subconsciously copy something over and therefore kill the WINE project.
dont get that code into wine else it will be possible for MS to sue wine and end the project! dont even get inspired by MS code(can any one really get!!!lol)
C’mon …. give me a break. Who with a little bit of common sens believes this rubbish? MS exagerated once more to make their initiative look good….
What makes you think they are free???
I’m confident a lot of them get paid for it… universities etc probably don’t but use it for studys.
What is the point of looking at source if you cannot change or fix anything?
The point is you can examine how the system works so you can write better software *for* Windows.
There’s nothing wrong in having commercial software product. Operating system is just meant to work, while main point is still using the applications. In long term, Microsoft has done awesome job with windows in name of ease of use. Something any Linux product hasn’t yet reached. Mac OS X has, tho. For example you just plugin usb printer and it works: ready to print your work out. (After fighting 10 hours with cups and still not having printer work I really missed Windows.)
Don’t get me wrong, I’m very fanatic slackware user but still I live in reality and I gotta admit Microsoft has done great work in words of usability.
Like Microsoft states itself – idea of shared source is to give developers enough information for software developers to develop better Windows software. Is there something wrong with it? It’s better than no access to source at all!
Don’t be so fanatic – there is space for many operating systems and competition. Microsoft is free to compete and so is Linux, BSD’s and Mac.
Ricky.
I have not read the article. I have not signed up w/- the NYT
Microsoft should just stick with proprietary code and fight free software in its traditional way. trying to jump into free software is a very dangerous tactics for it and half baked attempts like shared source doesnt cut it at all
There’s one thing I’ve come to learn about Bill Gates:
He will do _whatever_ it takes. I doubt this “shared source” program is the extent of it. Or that it’s half-baked. If it comes to it, he’ll even make Windows an OSS Platform — not to win, but to make his opponents lose.
I’m not suprised MS did this. Now I’m interested in how many developers will question themselves — “Do I use OSS because of the development model, or because the free-ness?”
“The technology or the politics?”
So many in the OSS world pissed and moaned about Windows features and the lack thereof — Now they have no excuse if that was the _only_ reason they dogged Windows. I’m sure there are plenty out there who aren’t interested in “reinventing the wheel” just because of some political reason. I’m interested to see how “licensing” stays a relative factor, when the two opposing forces will now use (roughly) the same development model.
So anyways…Get ready for Bill Gates “Bizarre Cathedral”.
So many in the OSS world pissed and moaned about Windows features and the lack thereof — Now they have no excuse if that was the _only_ reason they dogged Windows. I’m sure there are plenty out there who aren’t interested in “reinventing the wheel” just because of some political reason. I’m interested to see how “licensing” stays a relative factor, when the two opposing forces will now use (roughly) the same development model.
I’m not particularly worried about this whole thing myself, but I do feel it should be noted that the shared source license is a stark contrast to most OSS licenses. The license itself is not standard from one shared source release to the next, so any statements of what it allows you to do are generalizations, but the most accessable releases for the public have tended towards the restrictive side, allowing the user to read and sometimes modify, but not distribute changes. Most of them do include some method for submitting changes, especially to fix security problems, but you have no rights to those changes (copyrights are all held under the shared source license for Microsoft).
“The license itself is not standard from one shared source release to the next, so any statements of what it allows you to do are generalizations, but the most accessable releases for the public have tended towards the restrictive side, allowing the user to read and sometimes modify, but not distribute changes. Most of them do include some method for submitting changes, especially to fix security problems, but you have no rights to those changes (copyrights are all held under the shared source license for Microsoft).”
That sounds _very_ much like the OpenVMS “shared source” license because with that one was allowed to code they must give that code back to the OpenVMS developers which results in them _possibly_ including that in the next (not-so-)OpenVMS version…
The thing is, that this development model is completely different. With Shared Source, you don’t actually have any influence on the source. You just get to look at it. You can’t modify it, distribute your changes, or sell your improvements. Its not *real* open source, by any measure of the term.
Hi
Its a reaction to open source software getting popular. even microsoft admits that. its decieving because its not anywhere near close to open source and is called shared source where there is no real sharing. its could be called read only code
regards
Jess
isn’t it this shared source program that got the Windows source code onto the net recently? The problem with showing the source if it is not open source is that leaks can occur from participating companies. This leads to more vulnerabilities being exposed. In the open source community exposing vulnerabilities is a positive thing, because the open source programmers will fix the flaw. Microsoft hates to fix anythiung until it is already too late. So, ultimately this is a problem, not a solution. I predict that within 5-8 years it will be generally accepted that even commercial projects will be at least partially open source, and that future operating systems will either be open or die. Look at how Apple has created OS X. This will be a template for all successful operating systems in the future.
I’m not particularly worried about this whole thing myself, but I do feel it should be noted that the shared source license is a stark contrast to most OSS licenses.[i]
Yeah, I should have clarified myself a bit. I know shared isn’t OSS, but I do see this as a sign that Microsoft is worried about the future, that they’re just as confused as most companies.
If code sharing, .NET, whatever..doesn’t keep OSS at bay (or should I say “penguins”?), it’s very possible that Microsoft will open source Windows, [i]just for the sake of competition, to keep the platform relevant.
“don’t know why people is trying to compare this to open-source or free software, it’s just something different.”
Probably so the anti Microsoft zealots can find some way to make them look bad…
Hi
“Probably so the anti Microsoft zealots can find some way to make them look bad…”
Maybe because the pro microsoft zealots can claim windows is more open eh?
Jess
I for one am grateful for the Shared Source Initiative and being a member of the Open Source Community and working with Open Source code I have not seen anywhere that problems could surface with exposure to either. I believe the problems that Eric Raymond bring up are total crap and more his attempt to create FUD.
There is no way in hell, that MS will ever release their source code as OSS.
On another note. Do you people actually believe had it not been for OSS, puting some heat on MS’s bottom-line, would microsoft actually willingly share their source code?
If any of you dared to look at the windows source, you would see that there are patches and hacks all over the place to maintain application compatibility. Thus, I see this shared source initiative as an attempt by microsoft to reduce the numbers of hacks they have to write in the future. By looking at the source, application programmers can see how things specifically work so that their software will work nicer with the OS. This is only a positive thing.
Looks like they might meet a real milestone in Europe. I can olny pray.
Maybe, maybe not. Is there a good reason to take the chance?
Hi
“I believe the problems that Eric Raymond bring up are total crap and more his attempt to create FUD.”
What crap are you talking about specifically?
Jess