Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Ponders Shared-Sourcing SQL Server

Posted by Zonk on from the more-toys-to-play-with dept.

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..."

3 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. Whatever by deutschemonte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  2. Underpant gnome problem solved by zenmojodaddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Share Source is not shared by artemis67 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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".