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..."

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".

Microsoft are not pondering anything

[Timesprout]

They said they would consider it if they received sufficient requests from customers. Thats like me saying I would consider it if I received enough request for me to wear a tutu while on site with clients. At the end of the day consideration is not action.

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.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Shared source is to appease the customer who wants the ability to evaluate the code and audit its safety.

Why do customers think this works? If you have a partial source tree and you cannot compile it to the binaries that you run on your servers, then no matter how much source the company gives you it is still not the binaries you are running.

Is this trustworthy computing? Your trusting Microsoft that the source they provide is the same source your running and the source they don't provide is simply irrelevant headers? I don't get it.

Re:Share Source is not shared

[DrSkwid]

"and guess what ? YOU CAN'T DO IT. If you're used to a unix environment and all the seamless integration between tools and the ability to tune the server there is absolutely NO WAY you are going to port any major web application over to Windows in any form"

"I just want the best environment for my application to be built on"

The build environment is not the same as the deployment environment.

If your Web application is so tied to one Unix environment that it is impossible to move then I suggest you have problems of your own making.

If it is tuning the server you are worrying about then one wonders how Ebay manages ?

% telnet cgi.ebay.co.uk 80
Trying 66.135.217.11...
Connected to cgi.ebay.co.uk.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD /ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=27947&item=713 6571813&rd=1 HTTP/1.1
host: cgi.ebay.co.uk

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:43:07 GMT
Content-Length: 80399
Content-Type: text/html;charset=iso-8859-1
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Server: WebSphere Application Server/4.0

Re:Share Source is not shared

[Anonymous Coward]

You can do what you want with it, just dont tell them :D

There are plenty of SHARED SOURCE licenses out there like HydraIRC, do you bitch and moan about that, NO?

How often do you MODIFY code? I am a software design engineer and I rarely modify the code on projects available on Sourceforge.net

Alot of the time the amount of effort required to maintain it is a bitch unless you are over 80% confident in the code otherwise you are just plain and simply hacking and poking and proding the product hoping the fix is gona work.

Quit yer whining.

Re:Share Source is not shared

[jacquesm]

hehe, all my problems are of my own making :)

transplanting from PHP to ASP is more then a little bit of work, Apache leaves IIS in the dust, so you need more hardware.

If I can't even get decent performance in the 'lab', and the tools don't let me tune the server to perform at least as good under BSD (or linux for that matter) then why bother throwing it in front of the lions ?

What happens in the open source world is something like this: Developer X is working on some project, needs a feature (say server-status in apache), adds it to the source, compiles and tests it until it works for him, submits the DIFF to the apache crew so he won't need to do it again next time he rebuilds the latest souces, it gets accepted, he feels good, they feel good, the product just got better. You try to get MS to include one of your 'improvements' or even a suggestion of one into IIS. Good luck :)

If you throw enough hardware at the problem it will eventually go away, I don't doubt that (and besides Ebay there are quite a few other large companies that can 'afford' to run windows as their server platform).

It's just that *I* can't afford that strategy and for a small operation like the one we are running (but with a significant web presence) windows is simply not an option due to the above concerns.

Big companies have less of a problem with wasting some money, some are actually quite good at it !

And I really gave it a good try, came away quite disappointed.

FWIW I'm handling some 2000 database driven hits on pages per SECOND.

I'm sure EBAY does a lot more than that but not on a puny little farm like mine.

Re:Share Source is not shared

[tehshen]

It is not answering any criticisms - there is no point in seeing the code if you cannot do anything with it. In fact, seeing the code counts against you, as I said above.

The Govt OSS Advocate should have said "But OSS software is better because everyone can see and adapt the source code". MS just says "You can see ours as well, but don't you dare try to accomplish anything with it."

transparency, not openness.

[Spy der Mann]

Compare it with a dictatorship where all decisions are exposed to the public. The public can whine, rant, yell, scream, protest, but it's still the govt's decision anyway.

Open Source is in contrast, a democratic government, run by the people. Open source isn't about "opening" your source. Open source projects are community driven, designed for and by the people.

If Microsoft wants to share its SQL server source, they must ensure:
a) That the whole thing is released so people can compile it at home,
b) Support the community requests to change this or that part of the code
and most important, c),
NOT use this as a weapon to end the competition. How do we know that they'll sue open source projects because one of their developers has even glimpsed at Microsoft code?
Call it FUD if you like, but As much as Bill says GPL can infect projects, I fear that the "microsoft share code" will "infect" open source projects so that Bill can sue them all and vanquish the competition.

You forgot

[RoLi]

... the most important limitation:

Because you can't compile the code, you have no way to verify that it is even the right source code.

The only thing you will get is [i]some[/i] source code. It might be from a 5-year old version of the product, it might even be from another product.

Re:Share Source is not shared

[ChipMonk]

Then what's the point?

You already answered it:

You cannot put bits of it into your own projects...and if you do, Microsoft will move to shut you down. Such a threat is real enough for the Samba team:

In order to avoid any potential licensing issues we also ask that anyone who has signed the Microsoft CIFS Royalty Free Agreement not submit patches to Samba, nor base patches on the referenced specification.

The conspiracy theorist in me says Microsoft hopes (L)GPL projects will be contaminated by exposure to their code. The more cross-pollenation, the more Open Source they can shut down and bully.

Re:shared source is a trap

[idlake]

Depends on what you mean by "harmed". Here is what GNU Classpath [gnu.org] has to say about it:

3.2 Can I look as Sun's sources to get inspiration?
No. In fact, if you read Sun's sources we can't accept any code from you.

Many other open source projects and many companies have similar rules. If the issue arises in a company, they may try to find another internal position where your previous exposure to such source code doesn't create a legal liability for them; of course, that position may be less interesting and less suited to your skills. Small companies generally don't have that choice, so you could lose your job. Looking at source code that is not under an open source license is a career limiting move.

Note that this is true even if you work for the company that produced the source code. As far as possible, try to limit your exposure to company internal source code to what you need for your job functions and keep track of what you looked at.

Frequency of modification

[Craig Ringer]

I modify software I work with quite a bit, actually.

I usually do so unhappily, bitching and moaning the whole time, as I'd prefer not to have to - but if I need a cusomisation for my site that's not configurable, I'll still modify the product if necessary.

I also fix the odd problematic bug and provide a patch with my bug report. As somone who does OSS development work, I *know* how happy that makes the developers.

That said, I'm working under different constraints than apply to a company buying MS software. We "pay" some of the gains we make on licensing in fixing the bloody software so it does what we need and does it properly. For my workplace this turns out well, for others it probably doesn't. I had someone to scream at for support who would actually fix things, I'd prefer to do that.

I do think the ability to modify MS products would be useful for some. Look at the extent of modifications many outfits already do to their SOEs ... I rather doubt code mods would be a big step above the often rather major surgery they already do. I've certainly heard enough people swearing about being unable to change a particular setting via group policy....

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.

Re:Share Source is not shared

[ShieldW0lf]

Is this trustworthy computing? Your trusting Microsoft that the source they provide is the same source your running and the source they don't provide is simply irrelevant headers? I don't get it.

You've got it. That's Trusted Computing in a nutshell. Trusted isn't about a warm fuzzy feeling, it's a statement of what you've done. You run the stuff, you're trusting Microsoft.