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
Microsoft Open Sources Windows, its a sign of the antichrist coming.
The people at Microsoft aren't stupid. They completely understand open source. But, they also understand the value of a closed proprietary system. Microsoft earns 80% profit margins on Office and Windows. When Red Hat earns that kind of profit, then Microsoft might switch.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I love how it mentions WiX. WiX has generated enormously good will for microsoft, at least with me.
I don't ever see them releasing all of windows open source, but just releasing small utilities like that open source for others to toy with is a HUGE step forward. Pretend that microsoft hadn't released WiX, and it stayed as time called it, insignificant. No one would have bothered with it except MCP's and others, and they would have used WinInstall LE or whatever.
But because microsoft released it free and OSS, an enormous buzz has been generated and an enormous amount of good will as well.
What I've imagined are thousands of developers worldwide working for years to cut bloat from the operating system eventually landing on a copy of Windows XP with all the relevant features that installs on a Pentium II with 64 megs of RAM on a 1 gig hard drive with plenty of room to spare.
Unfortunately there's a lot of effort and little to no profit to be had in reducing bloat; so for-profit companies rarely do it.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Why would Windows being open source make PCs less expensive? Open source != free.
It also shows that even if it might look that Microsoft doesn't understand the value of open source,
When you say "value", you mean "potential massive loss of revenue", right? Microsoft are there to make a profit. Expecting them to adopt open source is like expecting Ayn Rand to rise from the grave clutching a copy of Das Kapital.
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
Look at your post.
If Windows became open source we would see £100 knock down on the price of every single PC.
This would then make more people buy PCs, which would help the whole industry except Microsoft.
Microsoft isn't going to do anything that won't help Microsoft. They have an obligation to shareholders to increase profits and market share (dominating as they are). Of course, this is only the case with their current business model.
Now, if they switched to a service contract type business model and open sourced Windows, things might be different. Think of those people that still have Windows 98. What if they had been paying, say, $10-$15 a year since then for support? Microsoft would have made more on them than the customer's initial purchase of Windows (assuming an OEM installed Windows, not Retail).
The customer doesn't have to get support, but lots of people pirate Windows anyway. Might as well release it to everyone and work on *really* good tech support.
Maybe I'm simplifying things too much. I'm sure someone will correct me.
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
A tip... when posting on slashdot, do not watch porn... especially hardware porn...
How would M$ make money at this? Before I get blasted the same kind of money they are making today. Open source is great, but aren't most of the posts anti establishment? Why is it bad to make money? If you don't like don't buy it. You can not ask a man who has been making money the same way for years to suddenly stop.
No this is nothing against Linux, I run Linux for certain applications and I run M$ for other applications. They are just tools. I always use the correct tool for the job.
My sigs offend the max # of people all over the world, regardless of race, religion, color, sex or creed. It's a gift.
Read that as "Open source is currently in, we need some of that".
I can't help thinking that someone considers WiX a casualty of war.
Do you see what I did there?
all this " feel-good-happy-sunshine day " stuff is fine, we can all envision our own utopias and see our children playing in wheat fields and whatnot, but the reality of the situation is that a marked paradigm shift would need to occur before microsoft truly embraces " open source " .
open source is not mutually exclusive to programmers and code . open source is the way of the future in terms of the thinking that it fosters: transparent, goal-oriented ( rather than profit-driven ) teamwork . nothing lasts forever, especially not behemoths the size of microsoft . eventually, a better path will be found .
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
Because once making money goes above all other pursuits, it starts to damage the environment, the people, the animals, everyone.
Making money is not bad (it's a tool like anything else, a way to measure resources) but making it your god which justifies all means, that is bad.
Corporations have no soul and no social responsibility. If they could make lots of money by selling babies stolen from the birth ward and then beheaded, you can be 100% sure that's what would happen! "If you don't like, don't buy it" doesn't make a difference since the damage has already been done.
I'm sure these are among the reasons many people consider money and making money to be bad.
This is a sticking point that people in the Windows camp don't seem to be able to get around.
1. "Linux" is just the kernel. I think that's what this guy was trying to say when he said that the Windows tree is not the Linux tree.
2. A mainstream "GNU/Linux distribution" like Mandrake, RedHat, Fedora, Novell or Debian is more akin to Microsoft Windows Professional + Microsoft Office + Microsoft Plus Pack + Window Blinds + Norton Internet Security + Roxio + [insert any brand of CD/DVD ripping software here] + Development tools + IIS + Microsoft SQL + Abobe Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro + Outlook. At least for a start.
So, if you are going to compare Microsoft Windows to a mainstream GNU/Linux distribution, you quickly see that the GNU/Linux tree is not the Windows tree as there is a whole lot more source code that does into your average distro and a lot of it is very tightly integrated. This is why it is pretty amazing that all the distros are really good about not just updating the basic "OS" code, but all the bundled apps as well. If Microsoft really released a Windows distribution with all the same functionality as a typical GNU/Linux distro, I have a feeling they'd have an even harder time keeping up security wise. It's interesting to note that the supposed independent studies of Linux vs. Windows always harp on how many more security updates that GNU/Linux distros put out than Microsoft does for Windows. They attack that claiming that there are far more security holes in the OS but still equate Windows as offering the same services with fewer patches needed. However, it quickly becomes obvious that since Windows provides such a small amount of functionality when compared to a GNU/Linux distro, they do not offer the same services. It's highly likely that if they did, their patchlist would rival all GNU/Linux distro's patch lists combined. :)
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o