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?

Whatever

[deutschemonte]

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

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: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.