| Subject | Re: [Firebird-general] Microsoft ponders "open-source" database |
|---|---|
| Author | Milan Babuskov |
| Post date | 2005-02-24T21:13:02Z |
marius popa wrote:
to). It is not the ability to be able to read the source, but to take
it and improve it. But look at this, it's a ripoff. You can look at
the source, find some bug, propose the fix. M$ might accept it.
Therefore you increase the value of their project (which you paid for
in the first place), but they keep all rights on it.
The other thing is that open source gives you a sense of security that
even if the original developers go away, you can still hire someone to
maintain the code. If M$ decides to abandon the product, having the
sources doesn't mean anything to you since you don't that the right to
alter it.
--
Milan Babuskov
http://abrick.sourceforge.net
> it's shared source (look but don't touch)IMHO, M$ completely missed the point of open source (or didn't want
>
> "Will the software industry's wave of open-source databases spill onto
> Microsoft's turf? Perhaps. The software giant is considering making the
> source code for its SQL Server database available to customers,
> according to Tom Rizzo, director of product management in Microsoft's
> SQL Server unit."
>
> http://news.com.com/Microsoft+ponders+open-source+database/2100-7344_3-5587451.html
to). It is not the ability to be able to read the source, but to take
it and improve it. But look at this, it's a ripoff. You can look at
the source, find some bug, propose the fix. M$ might accept it.
Therefore you increase the value of their project (which you paid for
in the first place), but they keep all rights on it.
The other thing is that open source gives you a sense of security that
even if the original developers go away, you can still hire someone to
maintain the code. If M$ decides to abandon the product, having the
sources doesn't mean anything to you since you don't that the right to
alter it.
--
Milan Babuskov
http://abrick.sourceforge.net