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..."
It is look but do not touch
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.
They said they would consider it if they received sufficient requests from customers. Thats like me saying I would consider it if I received enough request for me to wear a tutu while on site with clients. At the end of the day consideration is not action.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
As part of our Shared-Source[tm] initiative, you have requested to see the main SQL server[tm] source code.
We at Microsoft[tm] strive to meet customer demands. As part of the Shared-Source[tm] initiative, we are happy to disclose parts of our source code, in stages, after approval of our Customer's requests.
Your request has been approved. Please find attached to this email the main SQL server[tm] source code.
We hope this source code disclosure meets your requirements. The next scheduled disclosure will happen in 450 days.
Regards,
Joe Blow, Customers Satisfaction Manager, Microsoft Corp.
PROJECT: SQL_SERVER
FILE: main.c
*/
#include <common.h>
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
start_sqlserver(argc,argv);
}
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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
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.
I really wonder those shared-source service of Microsoft? Is it checking source only one time? I hardly believe any other developer get to the point he wanted by just checking source at once. So it's actually no use at all apart from marketting trick.
Regardless of the fact that 'shared source' is not 'open source' ( actually its worse, as it could potentially create 'tainted programmers' and ruin their careers, and any open project they touch ) i dont see Microsoft letting anyone take a peek at one of their few GOOD products..
Too much risk for them. Just imagine the next 'slammer worm'...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
SQL Server is a joy to use, in medium-sized databases. So if MS was truly sharing it with the world gratis, that would be wonderful.
But the bigger concern is that by opening their source code, every open source database is now subject to a lawsuit from MS, claiming that it misappropriated some for-loop or comment line that appeared in SQL Server.
IMHO, the open-source DBs are catching up to SQL Server just fine, and would be far better off without the lawsuit risks associated with MS exposing its source code.
Once you look at someone else's source code, you run the risk that they claim that your own future work is "derived" from theirs. Some shared source agreements are quite explicit about that, while others are merely silent on the issue. Some shared source agreements also explicitly state that the code you are looking at is unpublished and contains trade secret information.
The only way to guard against those claims is not to look at other people's source code unless the license not only permits you to look but explicitly permits you to reuse. Open source licenses do that, shared source licenses don't.
Shared source isn't new. AT&T UNIX and DEC VMS were "shared source", for example. Companies hand out shared source licenses because they are too cheap to fix their own bugs and want to get bug reports with fixes from customers, because they want customers to be tied more closely to their product (making it harder to switch), because they want others to do their porting work for them, and/or because they actually want to lay traps for open source developers.
If you have looked at any shared source source code under a non-open source license, do not work on any related open source or proprietary project; you would be putting those projects in jeopardy. Do not be fooled by "shared source" that's downloadable with a click-through: it may look like open source at first glance, but whether it's downloadable or whether you have to go into a room with five lawyers and sign an elaborate agreement may make some difference if it came to a court case, but it doesn't change the principle. Furthermore, most of those cases won't get to court: your future employer or open source project will probably unceremoniously dump you if there is even a hint that you have looked at shared source.
In other words, before you look at some company's proprietary source code, think carefully whether you want that company to own a piece of your brain for the rest of your life, because that's what it comes down to.
Compare it with a dictatorship where all decisions are exposed to the public. The public can whine, rant, yell, scream, protest, but it's still the govt's decision anyway.
Open Source is in contrast, a democratic government, run by the people. Open source isn't about "opening" your source. Open source projects are community driven, designed for and by the people.
If Microsoft wants to share its SQL server source, they must ensure:
a) That the whole thing is released so people can compile it at home,
b) Support the community requests to change this or that part of the code
and most important, c),
NOT use this as a weapon to end the competition. How do we know that they'll sue open source projects because one of their developers has even glimpsed at Microsoft code?
Call it FUD if you like, but As much as Bill says GPL can infect projects, I fear that the "microsoft share code" will "infect" open source projects so that Bill can sue them all and vanquish the competition.
Because you can't compile the code, you have no way to verify that it is even the right source code.
The only thing you will get is [i]some[/i] source code. It might be from a 5-year old version of the product, it might even be from another product.
Once you look at M$ "shared" source, you're tainted - you're now subject to having M$ review all the code you ever write to make sure you didn't "steal" the ideas you saw in M$'s code.
Have a nice career - my company won't even interview anyone who's signed one of those "agreements" that allow folks to see M$ code. You have to sign an affadavit that you've never done such a thing to work with us.
1) They tried to 'dirty' open source, and still do, calling it viral, commie... dirty words in the US/IT dictionary.
2) Open source is a big buzz word, something each IT manager is worrying his job over.
3) Open source is seen as growing competition against M$, they want to remove any unique selling points
4) pressure from gov's looking to switch to open source
IBM have opensourced a DB, sun have/are about to.
So Microsoft invent shared source... I thin they were forced to do this... so they went along... it is pathetic at least.
Now they are trying to us thier 'shared source' to confuse the unwashed masses that microsoft has the benefits of open source... the best of both worlds... pathetic shit like that.
still, doesn't work on me.
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
I modify software I work with quite a bit, actually.
... I rather doubt code mods would be a big step above the often rather major surgery they already do. I've certainly heard enough people swearing about being unable to change a particular setting via group policy....
I usually do so unhappily, bitching and moaning the whole time, as I'd prefer not to have to - but if I need a cusomisation for my site that's not configurable, I'll still modify the product if necessary.
I also fix the odd problematic bug and provide a patch with my bug report. As somone who does OSS development work, I *know* how happy that makes the developers.
That said, I'm working under different constraints than apply to a company buying MS software. We "pay" some of the gains we make on licensing in fixing the bloody software so it does what we need and does it properly. For my workplace this turns out well, for others it probably doesn't. I had someone to scream at for support who would actually fix things, I'd prefer to do that.
I do think the ability to modify MS products would be useful for some. Look at the extent of modifications many outfits already do to their SOEs
Shared Source is simply a way to allow certain users (gov't primarily) to review code for certain audits. It is in no way a relative of Open Source. MS would not be offering the code to just anyone who wants to download it. It is in very controlled circumstances with NDA's being signed. The comparisons to "opening up" code in a limited fashion are just silly. It's comparing apples to oranges.