Microsoft Ponders Shared-Sourcing SQL Server 194
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..."
Share Source is not shared (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Share Source is not shared (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Share Source is not shared (Score:5, Informative)
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.".
Dont hold your breath. (Score:3, Informative)
Too much risk for them. Just imagine the next 'slammer worm'...
Re:Share Source is not shared (Score:3, Informative)
That's what patents are for, and MS has been known file quite some lately. Also, they have the option of isolating what they consider their 'most innovative' pieces in libraries still hidden from view. Finally, if you are good enough to get ideas from them without incurring in copyright infringement by inadvertently doing derivative work by inconscient memory afterwards, you are probably worth your weight in gold.
But seriously, how innovative is MS SQL Server? It is as decent a Transact SQL implementation as it can get in a substandard OS as MS Windows. It does not conform fully to the ISO SQL standards, it contradicts the relational model, the only interesting thing it has is integration with and extension of MS .Net's type system -- not exactly rocket science, PostgreSQL for example has had an extensible type system for years and neither of them conform to, for example, Date's and Darwen's specialisation by constraint type inheritance system.
Gift of polution (Score:4, Informative)
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.
shared source is a trap (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Share Source is not shared (Score:1, Informative)
WTL [sourceforge.net]
They donated this to sourceforge.
Quit yer whining. zealot.
If you view "shared" source you're forever tainted (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Shared Source has *NOTHING* to do with Open Source (Score:2, Informative)