Slashdot Mirror
A Perspective on Microsoft's Shared Source
Masa writes "ONLamp has an insightful article by Stephen R. Walli about Microsoft Shared Source Initiative and some thoughts, what it would really mean if Microsoft would open-source their operating system.
The article gives a nice perspective on the Shared Source Initiative and what it is meant to be. It also shows that even if it might look that Microsoft doesn't understand the value of open source, there actually are some projects under the OSI-approved licenses, for example the WiX Toolset, which is a good example of a successful open source project by Microsoft."
Perspectives on the Shared Source Initiative
by Stephen R. Walli
03/24/2005
Nat Torkington and I were discussing Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative not long ago. I left Microsoft in early December and had spent the last three years directly involved in various aspects of Shared Source work. The more we discussed his questions, the more we realized others probably shared the same questions. This article came from that realization.
Microsoft began pushing the idea of "shared source" a few years ago as a way to talk about source code sharing exercises they continue to develop in the face of open source software practices. The idea holds the premise that they will share the source code of their software appropriately with appropriate audiences. Free and open source software was happening all around them. They were certainly thinking about the phenomena all the way back to the original Halloween document in October 1998. After talking to many of their customers, they discovered that many Windows developers did want access to read code and debug against it, but not necessarily modify the code. There was even an early university program for academic access, but this early program was not particularly popular. By Spring 2001, Microsoft needed to have an active position on the open source phenomena, and thus launched the Shared Source Initiative.
I will not discuss the past executive miscommunication and misconception, or the marketing rhetoric, but will look at what Shared Source is and some of the challenges open source presents to a large publicly traded company.
First, recognize that Shared Source isn't one program with one license. Shared Source is an umbrella program for all source sharing programs from Microsoft. Any time Microsoft makes source code available through a program, it brands it as part of the Shared Source Initiative, the marketing machine has the message to deliver, and a new program ends up on the Microsoft Shared Source website. These licenses span the spectrum from very locked down, look-but-don't-touch licenses to licenses approved by the OSI, and everything in between.
Most people imagine Shared Source as an avenue to open sourcing Microsoft's key product assets and are disappointed when they see restrictive licenses and difficult eligibility requirements. It's easy to assume that clearly Microsoft doesn't "get it" with open source, or more deliberately is generating confusion in the marketplace. Microsoft has a breadth of software assets and artifacts. The sharing program eligibility and licensing reflects the value of the software asset to shareholders. On one end of this software spectrum are the narrow-eligibility, high-liability programs around the Windows and Office core revenue generating assets (e.g. Government Security Program, Enterprise Source License Program, etc.) There is tightly controlled access to the code, with restrictions on what people can do with it (often read or debug or limited modification without redistribution rights). The penalties for license breach are high.
These restricted "sharing" programs are tied to the core revenue generating products for the company. (Take a look at the recent quarterly SEC filing. Go to the last page on revenues. Add Client plus Server and Tools and compare that to the total.) The responsibility of the executives to shareholders kicks in pretty quickly. They must take a worst-case, conservative view of the risks (brand damage, legal, revenue stagnation, engineering costs). They must have some form of hard data to support the premise that the more they open the source code base then the more revenue will grow. With these key revenue generating software assets, the company is essentially caught between the shareholders and customer base.
Opening Windows
Related Reading
Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing
Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing
By Andrew M. St. Laurent
Table of Contents
Index
Sample Chapter
Read Online--Saf
Why is this so important? The PII was release in 1997 I believe. At the rate that hardware speeds are changing, why is it necessary to be able to install on hardware that is 8+ years old? Fry's had an ad in my local paper this past weekend for a compete system with a 2 GHz Celeron, 128 MB RAM, and a 40 GB hd for $179. At those prices, it doesn't make sense for Microsoft to spend millions of dollars on making XP capable of running on ancient hardware (actually, even the specs I mentioned are somewhat ancient). I have two machines, and one of them has a 700 MHz slot-A AMD Athlon with 256 MB RAM. It is running Windows XP Professional without a hitch. 64 MB of RAM is your biggest problem, but that is cheap these days as well.
MS did not create anything. It was shown that Eolas introduced MS to the technology, and then MS told them that it was worthless and they would not use it. However, MS was fast and furiously incorporating it into their stuff. Eolas had MS dead to center. What went wrong for them, is that the patent will be shown to be invalid by prior art on a number of other products/projects, which happened to include some stuff out of Unix when it was OSS. IOW, OSS is saving MS's butt.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Umm, no, actually it is you who seems to be confused.
Here's a summary (from the page linked above):
Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
You are confusing Shared Source with Open Source. Shared Source means that you can peek at the source, if Microsoft likes you, you are willing to sign a NDA, etc.
Open Source also means that you can look at the source, but much more than that. You are also allowed to run the program for every purpose, modify it the way you want, and distribute the program and modified versions of the program. See the Open Source definition: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
Term "Open Source" is confusing, and Microsoft only adds to that confusing with their "Shared Source" (that wasn't on purpose of course). That's why I prefer talking about Free Software, which has a very nice definition at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and doesn't give the impression that being able to look at the source code would be enough.
The difference between Free Software and Open Source is of political nature and the question of what you want to emphasize (a good development model versus freedom). But if you talk about the licenses, they are very similar. I only know of 2 or 3 licenses which qualify as Open Source but not as Free Software.
Open Source is, from a legal point of view, practically identical to Free Software. The group of people who created the OSI intended the term be used to "sell" Free Software as a concept to businesses by extolling the virtues of a community development process enabled by licenses that gave developers free use of the code created.
While Open Source, in practice, is less about freedom and more about methodologies (sometimes to the detriment of freedom, unlike the FSF, the OSI doesn't urge developers to avoid licenses that are technically free but actually create genuine practical problems), you most certainly are granted more than just the right to see the code.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
share1 Audio pronunciation of "shared" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (shâr)
................
n.
1. A part or portion belonging to, distributed to, contributed by, or owed by a person or group.
2. An equitable portion: do one's share of the work.
3. Any of the equal parts into which the capital stock of a corporation or company is divided.
v. shared, sharing, shares
v. tr.
1. To divide and parcel out in shares; apportion.
2. To participate in, use, enjoy, or experience jointly or in turns.
3. To relate (a secret or experience, for example) to another or others.
4. To accord a share in (something) to another or others: shared her chocolate bar with a friend.
Don't microsoft mean Displayed Source initiative, as your not allowed to use all of it , Yes some is under OSI aproved licenses, though some of it effectivly puts your anatomy in a vice if you want to work on certain projects in the future.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
Cheap for first-world citizens, maybe. U$179 is more than what my mother earns by month. Public schools around here need computer labs badly, but can barely afford a bunch of Pentium IIs. Windows 9x is still the most used OS. 128 RAM is a lot. Apple? What is Apple?
Prescriptive grammar:linguistics