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..."
Microsoft may be willing to open up the source to allow for open peer review of its app; this may be a necessity to stay in the government contracts. The still won't be giving people an open "GPL" type license to use it. Knowing M$, they will find a way to realease enough source to review but not to compile it...
This is just another attempt to try to dillute the term "open-source" by injecting their new buzzword "shared-source".
The preceding message was based on actual events. Only the names, locations and events have been changed.
1) Ship half-arsed product.
2) Let customers spot and fix all bugs, but don't give them the right to use the code they write.
3) Charge same customers again for new and improved product.
4) Profit!
At least until they find out what Free software is really all about... at which point the game is up.
While shared source is not nearly as good as open source, this is pretty dramatic stuff. Microsoft would only be discussing this publicly if they believe that they're getting seriously hurt by open source stuff, e.g., PostgreSQL and mySQL.
This means that open source is really and truly getting a serious chunk of the market.
Personally, I've been using PostgreSQL in situations where I'd otherwise be using SQL Server if PostgreSQL did not exist. PostgreSQL is phenomenally powerful and robust. And, for those who want to go the Windows route, its new Windows installer is so user-friendly that it approaches SQL Server in that department.
This isn't about being FREE, this is about being able to modify and compile the code for your own use, and about being able to fix bugs and security holes and submit those changes to Microsoft for inclusion in the codebase. Being FREE helps the product to increase its visibility so that more developers will work with it (at least, from the developer's point of view), but the size of the installed base isn't a problem for SQL Server.
Being able to look at select chunks of code but not being able to modify anything or recompile is of nominal value. I'm really not sure why anyone would want to do that. It sounds more like a PR initiative, so that MS can technically say that they've embraced "open source".
Shared Source has a purpose that is not yet fully revealed. Until then, we won't really know if it is doing something right or not.
The purpose of Shared Source is to poison open source projects. It is hoped that one day, some non-trivial bit of Shared Source will "somehow" find its way into a major open source project. Then the lawsuits and injunctions can begin.
Despite how badly the fiaSCO is going, the fiaSCO has demonstrated two things very clearfully.
- The courts do not understand the technical issues
- The courts try really hard to treat both sides fairly -- thus giving a bad faith player the benefit of any doubt, and giving them lots and lots of rope. Even for years and years.
As a fallback, even if no Shared Source finds its way into one of our projects, then maybe some open source developer's brain will have been found to have been contaminated by the Shared Source virus.You do understand how this works don't you?
- Get developers to sign away their eternal soul (click AGREE)
- Show them some "Shared" source
- Wait.
- Find one of those minions who have contributed to an open source project
- Sue, get injunctions. Claim intellectual property theft! "Those evil vile open source hippie communist terrorists have stolen our intellectual property!"
- (more) Profit
Even if either of the above scenarios do not pan out (1) direct code copying found, or (2) a poisoned developer found; the Shared Source has several other benefits to Microsoft.- PR value: See, we're sharing, just like the cancerous open source crowd.
- Negotiating value for large organizations. You can get more deeeply hooked, er, um, I mean you can make your code interoperate better with our crap. Yeah, that's the ticket: Interoperability. Your stuff is locked in more deeply, er um, works better with our software.
Shared Source is a win-win. There is no downside at all. I think we can expect to see everything from Microsoft come under a Shared Source license in time.Traditionally, developers treat source with great secrecy. You don't want your competitors to gain advantage by studying your work. The above two scenarios are the ONLY reason that the "gain unfair advantage" would not be a consideration. Microsoft would have to be hoping for this to happen. At the same time, Microsoft has no real commercial competitors who could secretly make use of shared source. It is only against Open Source that Microsoft could consider Shared Source to be a weapon -- because they can study our source.
What would traditionally be a drawback of letting your competitors see your secrets becomes an advantage to Microsoft because: (1) they have no real commercial competitors, and (2) when some real or alleged infringement takes place, they can prove it, unlike with a closed source competitor.
Ergo, Shared Source is only a weapon against open source. It has never been about any other purpose. Microsoft is not in the business of "sharing", they are out to make money. They expect the "sharing" to have an eventual return -- and a huge one. The "risk" that Microsoft is taking is something that they want us to perceive to be real.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.