decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing
Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 03:34 PM EST

When my sister and I were growing up, we were almost always about the same size. We still are, actually. So we shared clothes. It was a way to double our wardrobe. But, from my point of view, I shared mine freely and she never wanted to share back. If I'd say, "I'd like to wear your blue sweater today," her answer would often be, "No, I'm wearing it."

This happened so often, I eventually began to suspect that it was deliberate, her (perhaps unconscious) strategy to keep me away from her things. I'd complain to my mother and long discussions on the need to learn how to share ensued, with my mom giving the lectures, but my sister would passionately plead her case with a list of grievances, her justification for why she wasn't sharing with me while borrowing my things freely. I wasn't worthy of borrowing her clothes. I wouldn't take care of them. I would get them dirty. I'd forget them at my friends' houses. I wouldn't hang them up properly. I would be careless and leave something of hers on the schoolbus and lose it.

Fervent but exaggerated reasons why she shouldn't have to share with me but should still have full rights to use my clothes any time she wanted, because in her mind, she'd take good care of my things but she didn't trust me to do the same with hers, despite the reality that she didn't always hang my things up perfectly and also got my things dirty when she wore them. Her position seemed perfectly equitable to her, while it morally outraged me. I couldn't understand how she could fail to comprehend the injustice. I'd try to explain the benefits to each of us if we pooled our wardrobe. Logic was useless, because it clashed with her heart. The real problem was that at that point in her life, she was selfish. She didn't want to share, only to take.

Some people find it truly hard to share anything with anybody. Microsoft, I have decided, falls into that category. It views the GPL with alarm as enforced taking from them rather than as each contributor benefiting from sharing the benefits of a common pool of code, but under pressure from the growing popularity of Linux to open up a little, it has, just like my sister, come up with a variant on sharing, whereby it shares the absolute least amount possible, while scooping up the resources of others. Like my sister, it does not perceive such behavior as unfair or notice the benefits it is losing by it.

Not being a developer, I had never looked too hard at Microsoft's shared source program. I decided it was worth at least taking a look when I read in SDTimes about Wind River's sudden turnaround on the subject of Linux. After explaining the change in that company's direction, the article mentioned another event in the year they thought significant: the Windows CE shared source program:

One of the most interesting and significant developments of the year was the flip-flop of Wind River Systems Inc.'s position on Linux. The company that for years had condemned the open-source development model and its GPL now belongs to Open Source Developer Labs and Eclipse.org, two organizations committed to advancing the platform and its tools. And while Wind River has been a member of the Embedded Linux Consortium since its formation, its anti-Linux position over the years had at times brought its motivation for membership into question. Any such questions have now been answered.

July of last year also saw the resignation of Wind River CEO Thomas St. Dennis, whose sweeping changes to the way the company did business during his four-year reign were not enough to maintain a profitability streak that had been continuous since 1981. Under interim CEO and Integrated Systems Inc. founder Narendra Gupta, the company will return to its roots as a development tools maker and has added Linux to its list of target operating systems. . . .

Also worthy of note were Microsoft Corp.'s moves with Windows CE. Not only did the company reverse its long-standing position forbidding changes to Windows CE source code, but it also cut its prices from roughly US$15 to about $3. The moves were viewed by one analyst as a survival tactic for competing with Linux in markets for devices with little or no GUI, such as industrial automation and consumer electronics. Microsoft was able to slash the prices by omitting components from the operating system.

I started to do a little more digging, and I found this article, linked to from the first, on Microsoft's plans in the embedded space:

Microsoft Corp. has announced plans to incorporate the feedback technology of its Windows desktop operating systems into embedded Windows later this year. Part of its overall road map for versions coming in 2004, the capabilities will permit developers using Windows CE .NET and XP Embedded to gain insight about network-connected devices in the field and to troubleshoot and perform software maintenance, according to the company.

Additional enhancements to the next version of Windows CE .NET, code-named "Macallan," include 3D graphics, improved security and multimedia capture and encoding. The company also spoke of pending enhancements to XP Embedded (XPE) to be part of Service Pack 2, including Bluetooth, SMS and updates to the .NET Framework. . . .

Windows CE .NET also will get a feature boost, Warren said, from enhancements to the .NET Compact Framework, Microsoft’s mobile device runtime. "We’ll be adding more managed parts to the OS so that C# can take advantage of them," he said, including the multimedia capture and encoding needed to control devices such as digital cameras. "UPS now captures your signature, right? Why not your photo as well? And insurance agents can use them" in the field, he said, to gather visual evidence of assets or to evaluate loss claims.

UPS is going to take my picture now with every delivery? For whose album?

Heavens to Betsy.

Why dream so small? What popped into my head was the old joke about some small Southern towns, where you get pulled over by an officer and then go to court only to find him throwing on a robe and acting as your judge as well as your accuser. With Microsoft's embedded devices, he could now take instant mug shots in the field, too. How efficient. Just imagine how much fun we could all have then, snapping evidence on each other right and left. Snooping is surely coming into its technological own, Microsoft eagerly leading the charge against every last scrap of privacy we may have hidden under the rug in a vain attempt to keep this company from tracking our every digital breath.

So, how does the shared source program work, now that Microsoft has broadened it -- according to this article because of pressure from Linux? A lot like my sister when she was a kid:

As part of its effort to deal with the threat of open-source software, Microsoft plans to let device makers modify more of the source code of its specialized Windows CE operating system. But some say the company's licensing terms could kill interest in the plan.

In a highly touted announcement late Wednesday, Microsoft expanded its existing "shared source" program for Windows CE, its OS for "embedded" devices, which include everything from personal digital assistants to cell phones to sewing machines. Microsoft played up giving manufacturers access to the operating system's source code--or blueprint--and an opportunity to modify it. . . .

Under the terms, manufacturers could be compelled to license some changes back to Microsoft, which would get them without paying royalties. Such a situation could amount to the software maker potentially receiving free research and development at the hands of other companies, DeGroot said. . . .

Under the revision, which Microsoft calls the Windows CE Shared Source Premium License Program, manufacturers would have full access to the operating system source code and be able to make modifications. But unlike open-source development, where modifications to code that's intended for outside distribution must be freely published, some changes would either belong to Microsoft or be licensed back to the company.

It seems if you make changes, for six months you can market your embedded device with your changes, but after that, Microsoft gets a *royalty-free* license to your technology, and any other developer can then use it. Bug fixes or code optimizations get transferred to the company. Reactions have been a lot like mine when pleading my case to my mom, namely cries of "Unfair!":

"That's unbelievable. That's patently unfair," said IDC analyst Roger Kay.

"It's as if the manufacturers were doing work for hire for Microsoft and they didn't get paid. But it's different because they paid for doing the work," said Kay, referring to the fact that manufacturers pay a royalty for modified code the same as nonmodified code. . . .

DeGroot faulted both sets of terms. "This highlights Microsoft's problem with shared source," he said. As the world's leading commercial software company, Microsoft should set a better example. "They should either pay a licensing royalty or pay them for their development work," he said.. . .

During a conference call with the media Wednesday, Mundie lashed out at the GPL's use "in embedded systems." Mundie charged that, interpreted one way, the GPL could be applied to the application running on top of the operating system, forcing developers to publish the code and thus resulting "in the loss of their intellectual property." With Windows CE's "commercial license there is no such risk".

Well, some people don't understand sharing. That's the bottom line. And they interpret any proximity to actual sharing as somebody unfairly taking their stuff, whereas they don't perceive their taking yours as unfair at all. It's called selfishness, and most of us outgrow it, with a little help from our parents, friends and siblings. Microsoft never outgrew it evidently, or at least it hasn't yet. I have that deja vu feeling when I read Mundie's words. He's as close to reality as my sister used to be, which is to say not at all, but trying to explain it to him is going to take a while, maybe years, judging from my experience, because it so goes against the heart's grain.

Here is the shared source license, if you are curious. [Update 2008: Note that the page has gone to the great graveyard in the sky for dead links; however, I think this is it [PDF]. Also you can download the original Windows Embedded Shared Source License here, dated 2002.] On this page, Microsoft says [update 2008: now a dead link; it was at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ embedded/ce.net/previous/downloads/source/default.asp but Microsoft gives no hint where the page is now] the link takes you to the new license, but it looks like the old version to me. It seems so restrictive, I kept trying to find a newer version. If anyone has a later one, please tell us where to find it. The ban against commercial use is what has changed, they say. My favorite part is the indemnification clause, or more accurately the 'no indemnification' clause:

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.

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.

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.

6. That the patent rights Microsoft is licensing only apply to the Software, not to any derivatives you make.

"No warranties. None whatsoever." It's the only part they have in bold type, so I guess they want to be sure you grasp their meaning. In case you were thinking of downloading Windows CE as source, be aware you have to "register your Microsoft Passport", as they put it. You think maybe they'd like to know who you are and what you are doing with their stuff from that day forward? Maybe take a quick snapshot? Kidding. Maybe. Anyway, download at your own risk. Great. So now my sewing machine will be able to track my moves. They probably think it's a plus that their embedded platform has a remote connectivity feature [Update 2008: the link is now dead, but it was at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/ ce.net/previous/evaluation/compare/ce212v30.asp] feature, allowing someone to execute things from afar and play with the registry, no less:

Remote Connectivity

Remote APIs allow Windows-based desktop systems access to Windows CE-based devices:

-Manipulate Object Store and device registry
-Transfer files
-CE Invoke for remote execution of procedures or devices

Now we can have security problems with our embedded devices too. Great. Runaway sewing machines. They don't connect that if they can do these things and build them into the system, bad people can do it to you too. Microsoft just doesn't get security. Or privacy. Or sharing.

One thing I never forgot from my class at Berkman's Center on privacy, the syllabus for which you can follow on your own here, was an excerpt from Janna Malamud Smith's "Private Matters: In Defense of the Personal Life", which helped me to understand that without privacy, we aren't fully ourselves. If Microsoft wants to know what I like about GNU/Linux, I like that it doesn't spy on me. It's not a small crime to rob a person of their privacy.

Here's how I worked things out with my sister. I stopped sharing my clothes with her when I was about 14. We drew a line in the sand. Her stuff was hers and mine was mine. It meant we each had half as many clothes as before, which is logically stupid, but it worked better for us because we stopped fighting about clothes all the time. It's sad, but that's really all you can do with a selfish brat.


  


Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing | 130 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 09:39 PM EST
Did you ever fake your sister out by asking to wear the red sweater, then
asking, "How about the blue?" when she declined?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing
Authored by: WhiteFang on Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 10:03 PM EST
Over the years, I've learned to not even bother with any 'announcement' from
MS regarding how it will open anything. This latest is more of the same
'Embrace, Extend, Extinguish' business they've pursued for years.

And you're also correct. Selfish people rarely learn to be anything else.

{sigh}

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS Remote Desktop Protocol
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 10:12 PM EST
"They probably think it's a plus that their embedded platform has a
remote connectivity feature, allowing someone to execute things from afar and
play with the registry, no less:

"Remote Connectivity

"Remote APIs allow Windows-based desktop systems access to Windows
CE-based devices:

-Manipulate Object Store and device registry
-Transfer files
-CE Invoke for remote execution of procedures or devices"

Actually, if implemented securely, this is a plus. The problem I see here is
that WinCE (love that acronym), if I remember correctly, has security that
isn't much better than Win98.

With Win2K, WinXP, and Win2K+3, there haven't been any security problems or
remote exploits via Remote Desktop Protocol, at least none that I'm aware of.

Obviously, with Microsoft's record, I'd still recommend implementing such
connections over a VPN, or using Citrix, but RDP hasn't shown the kind of
security issues that IIS presents.

Frankly, I keep wondering when some hacker will get around to finding and
exploiting bugs in RDP, as they've done with SQL Server. But so far it hasn't
happened, and it seems to be pretty safe.

Of course, I may have missed something in the news or security bulletins, it's
certainly possible. Any other techs here know of issues with it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Only Child
Authored by: overshoot on Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 10:26 PM EST
This rather idiosyncratic definition of "sharing" fits neatly with the fact that Bill Gates was an only child.

Of course, with a child like Bill I doubt most parents would risk another.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing
Authored by: Nick Bridge on Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 10:41 PM EST
Bill must be a chess player:

1. Companies are happy with the exchange, develop software, and hand it over,
gratis, to Microsoft. (This seems unlikely to me, so I suppose I must be
greedy)

2. Everyone ignores the program.

3. Companies choose to develop, but find a legal means to maintain control and
ownership of their code. Microsoft use decisions in this category to fight free
software in the future.

I feel that it is likely that this program will be challenged in court - I am
not a lawyer, and not well versed in the law, but if I were to guess, I'd say
there may be grounds.

I really hope that ifever, and whenever, this issue gets decided in court, that
licenses aren't prevented from making a condition such as "licensees must
license any changes they make and distribute under xyz license"

I don't seem to be able to articulate this very well, but it seems to me that
Microsft have taken the GPL, found the part that they (Microsoft) feel is most
objectionable, and turned it into something totally inequitable simply to raise
objections.

The inequitable part is this:
You can look at this code, and create modifications to it, but you can't
distribute the code to third parties. And in return we get your changes and all
rights to it, including the right to distribute it to third parties.

Microsoft are betting that someone takes issue with being "forced"
to license their creations as a condition - this is the condition that exists in
the GPL (you only have license to modify, redistribute, etc. conditioned on
licensing your modifications - if they are distributed). If it is found to be
uneforceable, the GPL falls apart.

I take issue with the inequity - if I give license to my creations, I expect the
same license. And furthermore, there is no way I would give up ownership
(copyright) of my creations as a condition.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing
Authored by: sef on Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 11:10 PM EST

The "if you make any changes, we get to use them" is pretty standard! You say you're not a developer, so you probably haven't looked at a whole lot of software licenses; to my annoyance, I have 8-).

The Plan 9 license, for the longest time, had a similar clause in it; I remember discussing it with a Bell Labs guy, who defended it with a statement along the lines of, "Well, if we let you use our stuff, we should get to use your stuff!" I also seem to vaguely recall a similar clause in at least one version of the UNIX license from AT&T/USL to source licensees, but I don't recall if it was, uh, I'm not sure the word, if it let AT&T/USL sell licenses to other people without having to pay you.

.

As for the patent one... that is also pretty standard in a lot of licenses, admittedly mainly open source licenses, but I find it ironic, given that Microsoft now owns a whole bunch of patents related to OpenGL.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing
Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 11:55 PM EST
"Under the revision, which Microsoft calls the Windows CE Shared Source
Premium License Program, manufacturers would have full access to the operating
system source code and be able to make modifications. But unlike open-source
development, where modifications to code that's intended for outside
distribution must be freely published, some changes would either belong to
Microsoft or be licensed back to the company."

Very funny: under their "Premium" program, I get to pay top dollar
for the privilege of fixing, debugging and adapting their code. And if my
alterations make the code more attractive, then I'll get to pay more for it in
the next cycle - It would be like my landlord charging me more rent for
repainting, rewiring and refurnishing the appartment myself at my own expense.

As for Craig Mundie's interpretation of the terms of the GPL: he must be
relying on the Microsoft marketing machine as his primary if not sole source of
information. Either that or he has an approved Microsoft corporate information
filter inside of his head. I am sure that we are so trusting of him as an
objective source that the temptation to rush and doublecheck everything he says
would never occur to us.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing
Authored by: eamacnaghten on Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 11:59 PM EST
To say MS does not understand the GPL I think is inaccurate.

OpenSource transfers benefits and profitability of software from the software
company to the end user. In order to make money from OpenSource you need to
consult or work for the end users directly bespoking and using free software to
create specialist solutions, and by supporting the same. You cannot make money
from box shifting OpenSource.

MS makes their money from box shifting software (primarily MS-Windows and
MS-Office) - and a lot of money at that! It is not that they do not understand
sharing, it is that it would slash their profits! They are DESPARATE to keep
software proprietary as long as possible.

Do not think that MS do not understand the GPL - they understand it VERY well.
There problem with it is that adoption of that license creates a scenario that
they cannot compete with, and would effect their bottom line big time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing
Authored by: greg_T_hill on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 12:03 AM EST
This little gem from www.aaxnet.com seems to sum up the heart
and soul of M$ shared source program:

"Microsoft treats it's "partners" exactly as it treats its
enemies.
Basically there are three steps. The difference is, "partners" get
help from Microsoft during step 1, enemies don't.

1. Let them build it
2. Take it away from them
3. Crush them with their own product "

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing
Authored by: blacklight on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 12:20 AM EST
... And as for the definition of what is shared in "Shared Source":
(1) I do not have the foggiest idea what it is that Microsoft is willing to
share with me - Hey, being allowed a look at the pizza is not exactly the same
thing as having a couple of slices from that pizza; (2) If I make any
improvements, I have to give my code to them - that doesn't sound like any
universally accepted definition of sharing that I know of either. In fact, I
could see myself getting sued by Microsoft over using my own code; (3) At some
point down the road, I could see used against me the fact that I had access to
the Microsoft source code - especially if I developed a competing product that
is significantly better than Microsoft's.

Frankly, I don't have any reason to trust Microsoft's corporate integrity as
long as Steve Ballmer aka Microsoft's top used car salesman is at the helm and
sets the corporate tone. I don't know which is riskier: competing with
Microsoft or doing business with Microsoft.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Those Who Refuse to Learn from History ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 12:20 AM EST
I have some experience with Microsoft's Shared Source program, in the form of their Rotor .NET implementation. The license has many of the properties that PJ describes: you can't use ours, but we can use yours.

In essence, the licenses are similar to the non-commercial use licenses that Sun, IBM, etc used to use on their "disclosed source" distributions.

Ultimately, such licensing systems are pointless and counter-productive. Real programmers won't touch such code with a 40 foot pole because they get no tangible benefit from making use of it. So they build their own instead from scratch.

Eventually the "from scratch" version overtakes the non-commercial version in features, stability, security, etc, and the original company is left with (a) holding a dud, and (b) being on the outside of the group doing the real innovation.

Microsoft is merely repeating the same mistake that Sun, IBM, etc made 5-10 years ago: sharing must be mutual or it is pointless. And the person who loses is the one who refuses to mutually share.

I expect that the shared source initiative will be killed sometime during 2004. It isn't working, and can't be made to work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sharing
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 12:39 AM EST
I'm reminded of a brief article I wrote back in 2001, when Microsoft was calling the GNU GPL "un-American".

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • un-American, eh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 01:22 AM EST
Not a very big change for MS
Authored by: kanegs on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 01:17 AM EST
They've been doing a form of this for years with their Office apps.

There's been a thriving developer community of add-ons for MS Word for years.
The most popular features have a habit of showing up in the next release with no
benefits for the original developer. MS might not actually use the same code,
but the concepts are the same.

On the OS side, look into how MS "rewarded" Citrix for terminal
services.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 02:49 AM EST
How many defunct companies has it been in the recent past that have brought
lawsuit and won against Microsoft for stealing their IP or pushing them out of
the market with monopolistic tactics? It's ridiculous! What's funny is how
they pay $10 million to SCO say "We respect IP" when they're in
several suits for stealing IP and unfair business practices.

This kind of drama is what makes me shake my head. I look at these people like
they are quite insane. Is the love of money so great that you would sell all of
your scruples just to make a buck? I understand competition. And I understand
it must be fierce at times, but just to throw off the basics of humanity for the
sake of 'business' just baffles me.

Proprietary systems are doomed to die. PC's succeeded because IBM shared the
architecture. Voodoo video cards failed because they kept Glide proprietary. Zip
drives? Rambus Memory? Microsoft Windows?

It's part of the structure of society. This was/is nivitable. As society
matures and more and more knowledge is gained about a subject, and the more
mainstream it gets, the bigger the base of knowledge is for that given subject.
People will share their knowledge with each other with or without the consent of
others. Thus the tide of such forces such as GNU/Linux are enivitable. And it
will be a force that will eventually make Microsoft join it or be resigned to
niche markets.

I just thank dog that if Microsoft tries to play the patent game, IBM having
invested as much as they have will defend Linux with their patent portfolio. And
how much of a stroke of luck is it that the Knight in Shining Armour happens to
be the best game in town as far as patents go?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing
Authored by: RSC on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 04:19 AM EST
A Number of things.

1. Has your sister learned to share?

2. Obviously MS has no idea what the word "share" actually means.

3. It is also obvious that MS does not give a sh*t about anyones privacy when
there is money to be made.

4. As a SCADA dude, any embeded system I would and do use will and does not have
an MS based OS. I don't want some script kiddy blacking out half a state with
the lastest "blaster" worm.

Interestingly enough some of the devices we currently use have *BSD OSs'...

RSC


---
----
An Australian who IS interested.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 04:33 AM EST
I can tel you most of the winCe developer sI know qare rejecting the license and
figuring out how to use J2ME real fast..

Fred Grott
ShareMe Technologies-The Mobile Future
http://www.jroller.com/page/shareme/Weblog

PS MS is wrong on their GPL intreperetation..Sun did their own legal analysis
before using part of GTK2 in J2ME MIDP gui apis..and found that GPL is cool!

[ Reply to This | # ]

CE Remote API
Authored by: atul on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 05:24 AM EST
The "Remote API" is a set of routines for accessing stuff on a CE
device from a machine running "real" Windows. I haven't done any
embedded CE work, but I've had to work with PocketPCs on occasion, and I don't
expect it's that different for other CE-based devices. The filesystem,
registry, and process execution parts of the API are really similar to the
functions for dealing with local files, registry keys, and processes on a
Windows box. Any experienced programmer will get the idea pretty quickly.

However, to me having a separate API to talk to a CE device is a real botch.
What M$ ought to have done was to have the CE device be accessible via the
normal Win32 api, so Explorer and Regedit would be able to see it, and you
wouldn't have to scare up special utilities to talk to the device. The CE
device's filesystem should either show up on the desktop machine as a new drive
letter, or via a UNC-like path. Something similar ought to be done for the CE
device's registry. The "object store" is kind of a dumb idea --
it's basically a separate, invisible filesystem that looks a lot like the
PalmOS filesystem, where files are called "databases", there are no
subdirectories, and databases have an OS-enforced record structure. I'd just
get rid of it. It does get used a lot by built-in apps, but I think it only
exists as a separate entity because someone at M$ saw that Palm had one, and
figured they'd better steal the idea just in case it turned out to be something
worth having.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Best quote on Windows CE...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 06:38 AM EST
Would be this one:
If you've got kids, you don't want Windows in your antilock brakes

And you can read it here (well, on page 7 that is):
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.09/wind.html?person=steve_jobs&topic_se
t=wiredpeople

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing
Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 06:51 AM EST
Microsoft's Shared Source is a bit of a joke. Plus the comments of Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, et alii, on the downsides of the GPL versus the benefits of the BSD style licenses, led me to make this challenge: An Open-Source Challenge to Messrs Gates & Ballmer.

There is no harm in bearding the leopard in this case, because Microsoft is clearly not capable of responding - though if there is sufficient interest, perhaps someone could put a petition to Microsoft to do as I ask, at petitiononline, or publicly confess that they are as we all know them to be. (I'm not going to put myself forward, because I'm not that sure of how the Petitiononline features work.)

What do people think?

---
finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific torturers stretching back through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on one of these states of view, I duck

[ Reply to This | # ]

Joke? Ever heard of Waldo
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 07:48 AM EST
Why dream so small? What popped into my head was the
old joke about some small Southern towns, where you get
pulled over by an officer and then go to court only to find
him throwing on a robe and acting as your judge as well
as your accuser.

Joke? Hell - Reality is more like it.
Have you ever heard of Waldo Fl on US 24 half way
between Gainsville and Starke.

In years past that was the norm; the exception was the
small town where that was not true.

PJ - You really need to learn something abot US society
outside the North East.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing
Authored by: zjimward on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 08:51 AM EST

Microsoft has basically learned that PR can change any thing. I remember that to
ask a girl out on a date I would have some idle chit-chat asking about how the
week was going and finding out what each progressive day of her week would
entail. Then after I'd gained all of my knowledge of her busy/not so busy week
I would ask her out on a day I seen in her list that was free. This meant that
she would either have to give me a valid reason not to go out or go out with me
because she knew that she would be caught in a lie to tell me that she was busy.
It was my PR and I only had a few date refusals. Any way, that's part of
Microsoft's PR. Find out what every one wants, why they want it and how they
think it should work. Then claim to be able to accommodate them, with a twist in
Microsoft's direction, but so slightly that it appears to follow all the
requirments exactly. The press is right. Microsoft is highly innovative, but not
with software, with PR.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 09:04 AM EST
This is not only a selfish policy on the part of microsoft. It is very very
dangerous.

Not very long ago a reasonably subtle couple of lines was almost inserted into
the Linux kernel tree, something that there is no mechanism to do. And here we
have MS creating a mechanism for non-MS people to add code to their tree.

Sure it may be checked but if a nifty new feature is added of several thousand
lines how well will it be checked for things like that?

How long before a back door makes it into the next general and potentially
'connected to everywhere' release? It seems all you'd have to do is hijack
someones MS passport and away you go.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing
Authored by: emmenjay on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 10:28 AM EST
Without defending the sharing model (which is dodgy) I would say that it
probably suits a large group of potential lisencees: peripheral manufacturers.

If I manufacture a sound card, and discover that by changing the Win source, I
can improve performance for my product, then I am likely to be very happy to
give those changes to MS and to have them incorporated. It will make it easier
for me to sell my product.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sibling question
Authored by: RabidChipmunk on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 11:08 AM EST
Is your sister older or younger than yourself?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Watch SCOX stock price on Jan. 12
Authored by: mitphd on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 12:07 PM EST
One of the most puzzling aspects of the SCO affair has been its stock price. Since September, it has been trading in a band around $17/share. On December 5, it had a major setback in its IBM suit (which lawsuit is now SCO's major asset), yet there was barely a flutter in the stock price. On December 22, SCO revealed a quite diappointing fourth quarter (missing analyst's extimates), and warned that the next quarter's revenue would be off considerably. Yet, at this moment SCOX is trading at $17.15/share. It appears to be a Teflon stock: bad news hits it and slides right off.

One can have many theories about this phenomenon, but in seven days we may see its strongest test yet: if IBM says that SCO has provided no specific source code, or has provided laughably inappropriate source code (such as the code it revealed in Las Vegas), then the stock should fall dramatically. If it doesn't, it will be further conformation that someone doesn't want the stock price to fall, and is spending a lot of money to ensure that it doesn't.

[ Reply to This | # ]

RMS over 20 years of GNU
Authored by: MathFox on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 12:37 PM EST
Richard Stallman has written a piece about 20 years of free software; it is available at Newsforge and Linux.com. His argument: we've made a lot of progress, but there still is the lure of propriatary software.

---
MathFox gets rabid from SCO's actions.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing
Authored by: Dan M on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 01:13 PM EST
"Microsoft was able to slash the prices by omitting components from the
operating system", as if they incur an ongoing expense to this missing
software?

I understand that _the software is never finished_, but an 80% discount???

This is just more FUD.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 01:53 PM EST
Here's how I worked things out with my sister. I stopped sharing my clothes with her when I was about 14. We drew a line in the sand. Her stuff was hers and mine was mine. It meant we each had half as many clothes as before, which is logically stupid, but it worked better for us because we stopped fighting about clothes all the time. It's sad, but that's really all you can do with a selfish brat.
RMS drew that line in the sand 20 years ago....
If you take as your goal the increased popularity of certain free software, if you seek to convince more people to use some free programs some of the time, you might think those non-free program are helpful contributions to that goal. It is hard to dispute the claim that their availability helps make GNU/Linux more popular. If the widespread use of GNU or Linux is the ultimate goal of our community, we should logically applaud all applications that run on it, whether free or not.

But if our goal is freedom, that changes everything. Users cannot be free while using a non-free program. To free the citizens of cyberspace, we have to replace those non-free programs, not accept them. They are not contributions to our community, they are temptations to settle for continuing non-freedom.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing
Authored by: fmouse on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 01:53 PM EST
This attitude goes back all the way to the beginning, and Bill Gates' 1976 "Open Letter to Hobbyists" deserves mention. It's online at blilnkenlights.co m.

To quote, in part:

"As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?

"Is this fair? One thing you don't do by stealing software is get back at MITS for some problem you may have had. MITS doesn't make money selling software. The royalty paid to us, the manual, the tape and the overhead make it a break-even operation. One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Longhorn morphs to Linux?
Authored by: tcranbrook on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 03:33 PM EST
Here is an amusing article, where in which its once again speculated that Microsoft will eventually have to release a Linux distro. I think hes right about one thing, that Longhorn will be totaly out of synch with the market place by the times its out. The FLOSS software model is purely a value-added game, and MS has no value to add at all. The following quote hit the nail on the head.

" Strategically it may have painted itself into a corner by relentlessly pursuing its traditional high-margin model: a weekend Inquirer article points out that there is almost nothing about the company's software quality, business practices, service, marketing, or pricing that have made friends of its customers. Lacking its monopoly position, a lot of customers would just as soon do without flawed software, non-existent support and increasingly-frequent, enterprise-wide, virus-induced shutdowns, especially at Microsoft's astronomical prices.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 03:23 AM EST
"It seems if you make changes, for six months you can market your embedded
device with your changes, but after that, Microsoft gets a *royalty-free*
license to your technology, and any other developer can then use it."

I find it fascinating that Microsoft thinks you only need six months head start
in the market to exploit your own code, and then your code should become
available *royalty-free* to them and everyone else.

Absolutely fascinating!

[ Reply to This | # ]

The difference between Free Open Source and Socialism/Communism
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:46 PM EST
First of all, while I am a staunch capitalist, I also am a staunch supporter of
free open source software. I believe that free software is not an example of the
"virtues" of socialism, nor that free software is an example of
socialism itself. I also don't believe that socialism is a valid alternative to
communism. I would just like to point out my perspective and see if any agree.

Here are some reasons why free software is not socialistic:
No one is required by the government to use free software. It is the choice of
the user.
No one is required by the government to develop free software. It is the choice
of the person's profession.
No one is required by the government to contribute free software by using free
software. It is the choice of the user whether to release modifications or to
keep them private and internal.
No one is required by the government to tell the government what free software
is on one's computer, nor is one required to fill red tape to possess it. Free
software on one's computer <i>is</i> the personal property of the
user, not the government (and not even of the community).

Free software is <i>not</i> socialism or communism. It does not defy
capitalism, but complements it. In my view it exemplifies the remnants of
old-time homestyle hospitality and church offerings.

Not everyone is financially equal, but those who have abundance can give freely
to those who have need. So, in free software, not everyone is equally
intelligent, but those who are have bigger brains donate their talents and
everyone benefits.

Concerning the technical benefits of free software, the fact that software is
totally unlike material objects should be taken advantage of. The fact that
software can be easily redistributed should be a blessing, not an obstacle. The
way companies such as Microsoft and SCO must rely heavily on litigation and
EULAs to fight technicalities related to software takes away from what gives
software its true value. There essentially must be a business model dealing with
software that takes advantage of what software really is, and I believe Linux
companies like RedHat and SuSE prove it is possible.

I hope there aren't many Linux and free software users who consider themselves
and free software "socialist."

I do not appreciate OSS advocates associating themselves with hippies and
socialists, nor do I appreciate companies like SCO pronouncing that their
exuberant litigation strategies demonstrate the importance and purpose of
"capitalism."

I hope others here will agree with these views.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Shared Source: Microsoft's Version of Sharing
Authored by: hal9000 on Friday, January 09 2004 @ 06:49 AM EST
This article is a strong advocate for sharing.
Given the security problems with
Microsoft closed
systems.

http://news.com.com/2010-1071-980462.html?tag=nl

--
Microsoft Village
idiot.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )