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..."
Indeed.. there is a huge difference between shared source and open source.... I've been told also that shared source some how they make it so that it will not compile??? I don't know exactly how you do that but that sounds like it's not the whole source then!
shared source is not opensource or a license like BSD or GPL so I'm not interested an I will stay with potsgres.
Do they need permission from sybase to do that?
GETPKG - Package Management for Slackware
Look but don't touch that particular code, maybe...but how are they going to enforce/prove it if someone looks at their code and gets ideas from it...and doesn't use their exact syntax, or even copy their entire concept verbatim?
If Microsoft are serious here, they've got a couple of different options:-
1) Use a license like the APSL or Mozilla License, which from memory does have a few commercial stipulations.
2) Come up with their own version of something like the LGPL, in the sense that there are terms with regards to specifically where the source can and can't be used.
3) Use the loss leader approach. Find something they don't really care about losing too much, (most likely something in their dev department, since that's not their primary bread and butter) and put it under the BSD license. Bill has already been quoted at one of his keynotes as saying that he likes the BSD license, or at least prefers it to the GPL, and he could earn himself some major PR points if he decides to prove it in practical terms...and good PR is something that Microsoft needs as much of as it can get these days. This would also help a few other people. It could score some free PR for FreeBSD, and if Bill was really smart he could even ally with the FreeBSD Foundation and Apple with the goal of driving back the GPL somewhat...Something which I for one wouldn't necessarily see as a bad thing. Stallman gives himself far too much credit for FOSS in general...the man is in dire need of being put squarely back in his box, in my opinion. More promotion of the BSD and other licenses could go a long way towards demonstrating to him that the world does not in fact need him anywhere near as much as he likes to think. I'm aware the GPL zealots will now materialise howling out of the woodwork and mod me a troll, as they generally do when I express this kind of opinion...but they are welcome to mod me a troll as much as they like...it won't silence me.
On the other hand, if Microsoft "embraced" enough of the open-source philosophy that it placated corporate customers, won't that be a significant blow to the rise of linux?
I doubt those corporate customers are interested in all the feel-good benefits of open source. The feel-good benefits are probably the most difficult for Microsoft to adopt. If I had to guess on what "shared-source" really means, I would guess "Beating linux and open source at its own game in order to solidify the corporate market."
Then what's the point? You cannot change it for your needs, or compile it at all; You cannot put bits of it into your own projects to make them work more efficiently; You cannot even send patches to Microsoft (not that you could compile them to see if they worked anyway). All you can do is say "yes, this is good code" or "no, this is very unsafe" about it, which doesn't get you anywhere. And you can do that from using the product anyway.
It can't be for the curious either, as many curious hackers would then be 'tainted' as people have said, and unable to continue with their own projects in case they get sued for copying Microsoft's code.
'Shared Source' must be doing something correct, otherwise it wouldn't still be here. What is it doing right?
Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
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.
(Hold on while I get my tin-foil hat on)
Since the money they put into SCO is fizzling, maybe this is their next attempt. Release code into the open (not "open source" open, just that some non-MS people have access to it), wait a few years, then go after the OSS projects that compete with your product because they have "stolen your code". Whether they did or didn't is not the issue, the legal wrangling is what MS would be after.
- Tony
Appeasing the lawyers and negotiators in the meetings.
Govt OSS Advocate says "But OSS software is better because everyone can see and review the source code".
MS says: "You can see ours as well".
Its certainly answering some of the critisms against closed source, but its still 100% missing the point of OSS.
liqbase
What about using it to optimize the way you use the software. There's alot of voodoo involved with optimizing databases, this would help DBAs and developers to get more of an idea of why certain optimizations work, and help to find new ways to maximize performance. It's not like sharing the source of SQL Server hurts anyone, if anything it shows how open source is putting pressure on Microsoft.
I mean um... tehrs no point, M$ is eevil OMFG!