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..."

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!

shared source

[H9000]

shared source is not opensource or a license like BSD or GPL so I'm not interested an I will stay with potsgres.

sybase

[datadriven]

Do they need permission from sybase to do that?

is it one time look

[camcorder]

I really wonder those shared-source service of Microsoft? Is it checking source only one time? I hardly believe any other developer get to the point he wanted by just checking source at once. So it's actually no use at all apart from marketting trick.

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: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."

Avoid shared source

[Anonymous Coward]

It still needs an non-free OS, so it's hardly free beer.

Still Interesting to see how Linux/Apache/Mysql/PostgresSQL is shadowing microsoft - They are giving IIS away free, they have to sell WS 2003 web edition cheaper xp home, and now they have to give sql server for free... Ms users should be happy about the competition.

But Shared source is a hideous "Have a look, don't touch, and definetly don't touch any competing product after looking at this". Nice if you are a researcher, but it escapes me why do research where only one corporation can profit from it, when there are less restricting alternatives.

Re:Share Source is not shared

[datajack]

Where Bill says that he prefers the BSD license to the GPL, he is talking about other people's code. Basically, with the BSD licence, code can be ripped out of a project and used within their own closed products. Such as what apparently happened with parts of the NT IP protocol stack

If they tried that with the Linux IP stack, they would have to put the rest of the nT kernel under GPL - that's what's wrong with GPL, he can't make money off other people's work without giving something back in return.

Re:Share Source is not shared

[jacquesm]

you couldn't pay me to use that thing anyway...

I used to have a really good contact with Microsoft, we were running FreeBSD at the time (Linux nowadays) and were quite happy, they suggested we port our stuff to NT so we could 'evaluate' the whole windows thing, they'd pay our way.

So, free NT licenses and MSDN subscriptions and all the other goodies we're slaving away to make this thing work, just to give them the benefit of the doubt (I'm all for looking at the evidence) 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, especially using Microsoft SQL and not end up with a server farm that's twice the size of what you had before. Also you will never ever be as stable, for one you have more hardware, so your mtbf goes down and secondly the Windows core isn't as stable as FreeBSD or Linux on the same hardware.

I don't know why they can't get their act together, I don't give a damn about whether it's open source or not - I just want the best environment for my application to be built on, and it seems that the open source side wins that argument hands down.

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?

Re:Share Source is not shared

[tdemark]

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.

(Hold on while I get my tin-foil hat on)

Since the money they put into SCO is fizzling, maybe this is their next attempt. Release code into the open (not "open source" open, just that some non-MS people have access to it), wait a few years, then go after the OSS projects that compete with your product because they have "stolen your code". Whether they did or didn't is not the issue, the legal wrangling is what MS would be after.

- Tony

Re:Share Source is not shared

[LiquidCoooled]

Appeasing the lawyers and negotiators in the meetings.

Govt OSS Advocate says "But OSS software is better because everyone can see and review the source code".

MS says: "You can see ours as well".

Its certainly answering some of the critisms against closed source, but its still 100% missing the point of OSS.

Re:Share Source is not shared

[roystgnr]

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.

To make it easier for them to find security exploits?

No, I'm serious, and I'm talking about security-conscious users as well as people attempting to break into computers. If you can't modify or reuse the code, isn't security auditing the only other reason to want to look at it?

Perhaps that's why Microsoft only wants to release code a chunk at a time: so they can perform their own audits first. They'd be suicidal to risk the sort of "closed source product suddenly becomes visible source with visible flaws" embarrassment that happened with Interbase's back door when that database went open source.

Lets just look at why they are doing it:

[tod_miller]

1) They tried to 'dirty' open source, and still do, calling it viral, commie... dirty words in the US/IT dictionary.

2) Open source is a big buzz word, something each IT manager is worrying his job over.

3) Open source is seen as growing competition against M$, they want to remove any unique selling points

4) pressure from gov's looking to switch to open source

IBM have opensourced a DB, sun have/are about to.

So Microsoft invent shared source... I thin they were forced to do this... so they went along... it is pathetic at least.

Now they are trying to us thier 'shared source' to confuse the unwashed masses that microsoft has the benefits of open source... the best of both worlds... pathetic shit like that.

still, doesn't work on me.

Re:Share Source is not shared

[Anonymous Coward]

Its even worse if you want to ADD a new feature, much easier and faster to submit the idea to the developers and get it in that way.

What I would like to see from MS however is a PUBLIC bug database, not some SINK of a blackhole for reporting bugs, sure WATSON helps MAJORLY to get bugs, but a more open DB for public use, im not asking for direct access to theyre RAID (thats theyre old DB, they use a new one now) DB.

Re:Share Source is not shared

[GnomeAttic]

What about using it to optimize the way you use the software. There's alot of voodoo involved with optimizing databases, this would help DBAs and developers to get more of an idea of why certain optimizations work, and help to find new ways to maximize performance. It's not like sharing the source of SQL Server hurts anyone, if anything it shows how open source is putting pressure on Microsoft.

I mean um... tehrs no point, M$ is eevil OMFG!

Re:Share Source is not shared

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a long tradition of "shared source" in the IT industry. OpenVMS and commercial UNIX products came as "shared source" for many years. Large customers have demanded read-only access to source code also. This was all done long before "OSS" became any sort of competitive concern.

"Shared Source" has value in and of itself. Just because it is not the same value as open source is no reason to dismiss it. If you don't want it, don't use it.