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..."

Comments

Share Source is not shared

[cyber_rigger]

It is look but do not touch

Re:Share Source is not shared

[matth]

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!

Re:Share Source is not shared

[petrus4]

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.

Re:Share Source is not shared

[Lxy]

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.".

Re:Share Source is not shared

[artemis67]

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".

Re:Share Source is not shared

[tehshen]

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?

Re:Share Source is not shared

[LiquidCoooled]

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.

Re:Share Source is not shared

[DickBreath]

Ah, my son, you seem to misunderstand the entire purpose of Shared 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.

1. The courts do not understand the technical issues
2. 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?

1. Get developers to sign away their eternal soul (click AGREE)
2. Show them some "Shared" source
3. Wait.
4. Find one of those minions who have contributed to an open source project
5. Sue, get injunctions. Claim intellectual property theft! "Those evil vile open source hippie communist terrorists have stolen our intellectual property!"
6. (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.

Open source, but not free to use...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Whatever

[deutschemonte]

This is just another attempt to try to dillute the term "open-source" by injecting their new buzzword "shared-source".

Re:Whatever

[tomstdenis]

They're innovating here!!!

Geez, you anti-american zealots...

Tom

Re:Whatever

[back_pages]

Maybe.

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."

Dear valued Microsoft customer

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Hello Dear Valued Microsoft Customer,

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

/* This file is part of the Microsoft SQL server[tm]. COPY IS STRICTLY UNAUTHORIZED WITHOUT MICROSOFT'S APPROVAL. AND EVEN SO, YOU BETTER WATCH OUT IF YOU BREATHE WHILE LOOKING AT IT!
*/

#include <common.h>

main(int argc, char **argv)
{
start_sqlserver(argc,argv);
}

Re:Dear valued Microsoft customer

[jacquesm]

for a four line program that's actually pretty good :)

Re:Microsoft are not pondering anything

[Lxy]

I, for one, would welcome our tutu wearing overlords.

You can consider this a request.

Underpant gnome problem solved

[zenmojodaddy]

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.

Honestly Great News

[occamboy]

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.

shared source is a trap

[idlake]

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.