Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Ponders Shared-Sourcing SQL Server

i_frame writes "C|net is reporting in an interview with Tom Rizo, director of product management in Microsoft's SQL server unit, that 'the company is thinking about including the forthcoming SQL Server 2005 in Microsoft's shared-source program for disclosing product source to customers'. Is Microsoft reinventing themselves, and are they ready to learn the benefits of open source?" From the article: "It's not finalized. It's not anything there, but if a lot of customers demand it, we'll definitely look at doing shared source with SQL Server..."

2 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. Share Source is not shared by cyber_rigger · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is look but do not touch

    1. Re:Share Source is not shared by Lxy · · Score: 5, Informative

      IIRC, Shared Source is limited in several ways.

      You do not get a complete copy of the source. You get large chunks... enough to examine the code, but not enough to compile a working product.

      Modification is a no-no. Even sending code modifications to Microsoft is against the license. You may NOT modify code or write patches against the code.

      You absolutely may NOT incorporated shared code into anything. If you've seen MS source code, you must wash your eyes and cleanse your brain as not to inadvertantly introduce MS code into other projects. Some would say it goes as far as not participating in GPL projects.

      Shared source is to appease the customer who wants the ability to evaluate the code and audit its safety. It goes something like "purchase XXX licenses, and we'll show you the source code. Of course, if you don't like the poor quality of the code, you don't get a refund, just that sinking feeling that you're screwed.".

      --

      There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
      :wq