Viewability of SQL Server code is far cry from open source

Viewability of SQL Server code is far cry from open source

Summary: It wasn't long after the news...

SHARE:
TOPICS: Tech Industry
10

It wasn't long after the news surfaced

Topic: Tech Industry

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

10 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Innovative attack!

    I guess that is one innovative way of attacking MS:
    1. Fabricate a claim on behalf of MS: [i]M$ claims that their [b]shared[/b] source program is really open source.[/i]
    2. Accuse MS of lying for making the claim in step 1: [i]/\/\1Cr0$loTh is [b]lying[/b] because their shared source program isn't really open source. They are EVIL and oooooo, I hate them so much that it makes my blook boil![/i]

    So when are we going to see the following blog?
    [i]Apple iPod is a far cry from being a useable laptop.[/i]
    This just in: the iPod cannot be used as a laptop. "Apple has released the iPod as a portable music player but it does a very poor job of editing Word files" claims Joe Bloe, some guy we interviewed outside our office. Apple has refused to comment.
    NonZealot
    • Your post makes more sense than the article!

      :)
      TechType
      • Sure.....

        .....if you don't think about either.
        scrapheap
    • funny

      :)
      Jake M.D.
  • Waaaaa, we want everything for nothing...

    Sorry, you can't have it. Grow up!
    No_Ax_to_Grind
    • no?

      :(
      Jake M.D.
    • Waaaa...we want the truth. BS at no price.

      "Waaaaa, we want everything for nothing"?

      Actually, most linux fanboys want nothing for any price from microsoft, but the more reasonable/intelligent computer users (regardless of OS preference) simply want the truth. Personally I don't care if I have access to this code or not, but I don't want to be told I have free (as in liberty, as implied by the term "open-source") access to it if I don't.

      Oh yeah, grow up (who the hell uses that phrase anyway?)
      scrapheap
  • So it is, but ...

    Apparently the only ones comparing "Shard Source" SQL Server and open source are clueless (but prolific) CNet writers.

    To their credit, Microsoft never appear to have made any such claim.
    Yagotta B. Kidding
  • You're joking, right?

    You think that starting up a "Shared-source" program soon after "Open-source" headlines gain regular prominence is not a tactic for piggybacking the "Open-source" mindshare? Sure they may not be explicitly stating that "Shared-source" is the same as "Open-source", but by not calling their initiative something like "Code-review" or "Source-view" (both of which are closer to what their program achieves - sharing the right to view their code, not sharing the code itself) they are definitely implying it.
    scrapheap
  • Don't twist definitions

    I don't think Microsoft quite has the spirit of open source down yet, but much of the "open source" community has a problem with the definition too.

    If the source code is made available, it's open source. Open source has been around for at least 30 years, and much of it had nothing to do with public domain software. While many use the terms as a synonym for public domain Unix, open source need be nothing except open.

    When IBM started marketing the VM operating system in the 1970s, it was open source. It still is, but not quite 100%. Users (i.e. systems programmers) are free to see the source code, change it for their own use, and even distribute information about the changes, but not as a commercial product. It didn't stop other vendors from selling replacement components that are proprietary, and there's no doubt that these vendors looked at IBM's code to see what IBM did (or did wrong.) And vendors did put out products that required users to change IBM's code themselves, as described in the vendor's product installation material.

    If you are running a licensed commercial product, the idea that you can improve it and share those improvements with other licensed users is a powerful tool. But the idea that you should be selling your version of somebody else's code goes against the grain of how any copyrighted material has ever been used.

    Microsoft should open up its code to all licensed users, and let them modify it as they see fit, and share those modifications at no charge with other licensed users. But if they open up the source and I had the right to develop and sell modifications, what would that mean? Would my source have to be open too? If not, wouldn't that be a step backwards? If so, then would somebody be able to distribute my modified code for free, or modify the modification and sell that? If so, who gets the royalties?

    But a bigger question has to do with maintenance. If I run the code and have a problem, how do I report it? Is it caused by Microsoft's base code, or by a modification? If Microsoft puts out a patch, will it conflict with my modification, or one I distributed? These things just don't lend themselves well to commercial products. There's a big difference between sharing a zap with other programmers, and sending somebody a "black box" modification that will supposedly work. Even if the modification is open source, it does little good if the end user is not a programmer and applies it blindly.

    If people change the code, and can distribute the code changes freely, Microsoft will have to listen. Some of the biggest innovations on VM came from the user community, including things such as its file manager. Remember that even decades later, MS-DOS came out without one at all. When users see something as "must have," vendors listen. And given Microsoft's history of seeing ideas from others and killing them off by rolling a competing feature into their own OS, I can't see how they can be accused of not listening. They have always let others innovate for them.

    If vendors could sell a mod, they would have to be prepared to support the entire product, though.

    Open source is open source. If you want Microsoft to do other things too, then by all means, discuss those issues. But if the source code is made available, it's open.
    wresnick