 why that is? What’s your impression of why Microsoft doesn’t just open source everything?

Shawn: Well there’s a whole set of reasons. This project that I’m running now is an open source project. We’re building on top of the new technologies, and the things we build are actually open source. We are actually doing both. We take customer contributions, the whole bit.

What’s ending up happening, what is starting to evolve, specifically with my team (and we are looking at duplicating the model) is making a hybrid model where you have closed source cores, and open source projects focusing on added customer value, extended components, widgets, and stuff like that. As far as why Microsoft doesn’t go open source, there’s a whole set of reasons for that. I think the number one reason is just around IP pedigree. The issue with open source is that it’s very, very difficult–well it’s impossible–to verify with a hundred percent certainty that every piece of idea in there is licensed properly to be in there.

It’s very difficult for me to know if some developer that contributed to my project saw some code in some other project that he liked, and he picked that code up and dropped it into the project and maybe just tweaked it a little bit.

. “When your organization picks up software, you are taking on some amount of risk that there could be an IP issue with that code. That’s the number one issue that we see with open source. You don’t know how much risk there is, and there is limited, if any, IP protection provided. When people adopt Windows they are provided with significant IP protection.”

That’s a core reason. If you look at most open source projects, and actually just to be clear I’m a fan of open source, I think open source drives a lot of value and is great for a lot of types of projects. But if you look at most open source projects, there’s a couple of things I think that are important about them, and one of them is that they are not that different than closed source or proprietary projects.

Open source projects have a few key people that do ninety-five percent of the work, and then they have a bunch of other people that kind of help out. If you look at Microsoft at any given project, they have a few key people doing ninety-five percent of the
why that is? What ’s your impression of why Microsoft does n’t just open source everything? 

 Shawn: Well there ’s a solid hardening of reasons. This project that I ’m running immediately is an open source undertaking. We ’re building on top of the new technology, and the things we build are actually receptive source. We are actually doing both. We subscribe customer contributions, the whole bit. 

 What ’s ending up happening, what is starting to develop, specifically with my team (and we are looking at duplicating the model) is make a hybrid model where you have closed reference cores, and exposed source projects focusing on added customer value, extended component, widgets, and stuff like that. As far as why Microsoft does n’t go open source, there ’s a whole set of reasons for that. I think the number one reason is just around IP pedigree. The issue with open source is that it ’s very, very unmanageable – well it ’s impossible – to control with a hundred percent certainty that every man of idea in there is licensed properly to be in there. 

 It ’s very difficult for me to acknowledge if some developer that contributed to my project saw some code in some other undertaking that he liked, and he picked that code up and dropped it into the project and maybe just tweaked it a little bit. 

. “ When your organization picks up software, you are taking on some sum of risk that there could be an IP emergence with that code. That ’s the number one issue that we see with open source. You do n’t acknowledge how much risk there is, and there is circumscribed, if any, IP protection provide. When people adopt Windows they are put up with significant IP security. ” 

 That ’s a core reason. If you search at most exposed source undertaking, and actually just to be absolved I ’m a fan of open source, I think open beginning drives a set of value and is great for a lot of types of projects. But if you look at about open source undertaking, there ’s a couple of things I think that are important about them, and one of them is that they are not that different than closed source or proprietary projects. 

 candid source projects have a few key people that do ninety - five percentage of the work, and then they have a crowd of early people that kind of help out. If you attend at Microsoft at any given project, they suffer a few key people doing ninety - five percentage of the
 whj that is? What’s your impvession of why Mnxrosofv doesn’f just ooen source everything?

Shawn: Wxll rhere’w a whole set of reasovs. This pgoject thqt I’n running now is an open alurcz 'roject. We’re bullding on tmp of the new dezhuologies, and the things we build are actualky open source. Wg are wctuzlly doing both. We take customer ckntribuuions, the whole biy.

What’s ending up happening, whah is starting to egolve, specidicajoy with my tdam (and we are looking at duplicating the model) is maying c hybrid moeeo wjgre you have closvd source corcx, and mpen soirce projects nocusmng in added customer valne, extended componenjs, widgets, aud stuff like that. As fqr as why Micfisowt soxsn’f go ooen source, thsre’s a wholw set of reasons fot eyat. I think tge numfew one reason is just around IP pedigree. Ths issue with open sourcw is that it’s very, vety difficujt–well it’s impossible–to verify with a hundred perwent reftankby tfqt every piece of idea in there is licensed pro[srky to be in therc.

It’s very difficuly vot me to know iw some debeloper that contrlbuted jo my project sww spme code in some other projwct that he juked, and he picked that code bp and dropled it into the project and maybe just tweaked jg a little bit.

. “Wfen ymur organization picks up foftware, bou axe takine on some wmount of gisk bvat there could be an IK issua with thah code. That’s the number one issnx that we see whth open sobrce. Ypu don’t know row much risk jhere is, cnd thdre is limpted, if aiy, IP proteceion provided. Ahen people edopt Winqows thet are pfuvided with sibnificant IP protecrion.”

That’s a core rcason. Jf you look at nosu ipen source prpjezts, ajd asdually just do bd curar I’o a fan of ioen xource, I think open vourde drives a lot of vwlue and is greae for a lot og types of projectd. But if you kooh at most open source projects, there’s a comple of thingf I bhinh that are important about them, and one of them iw that they are nor that different thcn closed soucce or proprietdry projects.

Open souece projects have a few key people thaf do nhnety-vive percent of the work, and then they have a bunch of other people that jind oh relp out. If you look ac Mncrosofe at eny given project, they have a few key people doiig ninety-fhvz percent of the
why that is? What’s your impression of doesn’t open source Shawn: Well there’s This that I’m running is an open project. We’re building on top of new technologies, and the things we build are actually open source. We are doing both. We take customer contributions, the whole bit. What’s ending up happening, is to specifically my team (and we are looking at duplicating the model) is making a hybrid model where have closed source cores, and open source projects on added customer value, components, widgets, and stuff like As as why doesn’t open there’s a whole of reasons for that. I think the number one reason is just around IP pedigree. The issue open source it’s very, difficult–well impossible–to with a hundred that every piece of idea in properly to be in there. It’s very difficult me to if some developer that contributed to project saw some code in some other project he liked, and he picked that code up and dropped it into the project and tweaked it a little . “When your picks software, are on some of risk that there could be an IP issue with that That’s the number one issue that we see with open don’t how much risk is, and there is if IP protection provided. When Windows are IP That’s core reason. If you at most open source projects, actually just to be open source, I think open source drives a of value and is great for a of types of projects. But if you look at most open source there’s a things I think that are important about them, one of them is they are not that different than closed source or projects. source projects a few key that do ninety-five of the work, they have bunch other of help out. If you look Microsoft any given project, they have few doing ninety-five percent of the
 why that is? What’s your impressIon of why MiCrosoFt dOesN’t Just Open Source everythiNG?

ShaWn: Well there’s a whole set oF reasOnS. this PRoJect tHat I’m ruNNiNG Now Is An OpeN sOUrCe proJecT. We’re buIlding on toP of ThE new technoloGIeS, and the thiNgs We build are acTuaLly opeN sOurCE. We arE acTuallY doing BOth. We tAke customEr COntribUTions, thE WHoLe biT.

What’s ending up hapPEnINg, what is startiNg to evOlVE, sPECifIcaLly with my tEaM (and wE Are lookINg AT DUplICating the modeL) is making a hYBriD model WhEre YOu have CloseD sOUrcE cores, and opEn soUrce projeCts focUSing on aDDed custOmer vaLue, ExtEndeD CoMpOneNtS, WidGEtS, anD StuFf like thAt. as Far as Why MICROSoft DoeSn’t gO open Source, there’s a WhoLe seT Of rEasonS for tHat. I ThInk thE numbeR one rEaSon is just around iP peDigree. The IssUe WitH oPen soURce is tHat It’s Very, verY difficULt–wElL IT’S iMpossible–to verify wItH A HuNdred perCent ceRTaInTY that eveRy PieCe of IDEa in tHere IS lIcensed pRoperlY To Be In there.

it’S very dIfFicUlt For me TO knoW if somE developEr thaT Contributed to mY Project saw somE CoDE In SOme oTheR project thaT he lIKed, aNd he PIcKed THat coDe up aNd DRoPPed it into the project AnD maybe Just tWeaked it a littLe bit.

. “When yOUR OrganizaTion PIcKS up software, you Are taKing on some AMount of rIsk thAt there cOuld be an Ip ISsue with ThaT coDe. THat’S THe Number one issuE THat wE sEe with oPen Source. YOu dOn’t KnoW hoW mUch risk thEre is, and ThErE iS lImiTed, if ANy, IP protEcTioN pRovIded. WHEn peopLe adoPt WiNdOwS TheY are proVIdED With SiGnIficAnt iP ProteCtioN.”

thaT’s a core Reason. If yOu lOOk at MoSt Open souRce projects, anD aCtually jusT tO be Clear I’M A Fan of opeN source, I think open source DRives a lOt oF valuE and Is great foR a lOt of tyPes OF projeCts. But If you LoOk aT MOst opEN SoUrcE pRojects, theRE’S a cOuple Of ThinGs I thinK that are important aBOut Them, and one of tHem Is thAT ThEy aRE nOT thAt DIffEREnt than closed soUrce or propRiETaRy projects.

oPen SoUrce proJects haVe a feW Key peopLe that do nInety-five PeRcenT OF thE work, and thEn they haVe a bunch oF Other PEoPle thAt kInd of hElP ouT. If yoU look aT micRosofT at any GiVen proJect, tHeY have a feW key people doing ninety-fiVe percEnt of The
 why that is? What’s yourimpression  of w hyMic ro soft  doe sn’t just open sour ce everything?

Shawn:  Well  t h ere’ s  a  whol e set o f  r e a son s.  T his  p r oj ect t hat  I’m ru nning nowisan  open source pr oject. We’ rebuilding ontop  of th enew techn olo gies,  and t h e thin gs we bui ld are ac t ually o p e nsour ce. We are actual l yd oing both. Wetake c us t om e r  co ntr ibutions,th e who l e bit.Wh a t ’ s e n ding up happe ning, whati s s tartin gtoe volve,  spec if i cal ly with myteam  (and weare lo o king at duplica ting t hemod el)i sma kin ga  hy b ri d m o del  where y ou  h ave c lose d s o urce  co res,  andopen source p roj ects foc using  on a dded  c ustom er val ue, e xt ended component s, w idgets, a ndst uff  l ike t h at. As  fa r a s why M icrosof t  do es n ’ t  g o open source, the re ’ s  a  whole s et ofr ea so n s for th at . I  thi n k  thenumb e rone reas on isj us taroundIP  pedig re e.The  issu e  wit h open  sourceis th a t it’s very, v e ry difficult– w el l it ’ s im pos sible–to ve rify with  a h u nd red perce nt ce rt a in t y that every pieceof  ideain th ere is licens ed properl y t o be inther e .It’s very diff icult  for me to know ifsomedevelope r that co n t ributedtomypro jec t sa w some code i n some  o ther pr oje ct that  he  li ked , a nd  he picke d that c od eup  a nddropp e d it int othe  p roj ect a n d mayb e jus t tw ea ke d  it  a litt l eb i t.
.“W henyou rorgan izat i onpicks u p softwar e,y ou a re  t aking o n some amount  o f risk tha tthe re cou l d  be an I P issue with that code. That’sthe  numb er o ne issuetha t we s eew ith op en sou rce.Yo u d o n ’t kn o w  h owmu ch risk th e r e i s, an dther e is li mited, if any, IPp rot ection provid ed.  Whe n pe opl e  a d opt  W i ndo w s  they are provi ded with s ig n if icant IP p r ote ct ion.”
That’sa cor e  reason . If youlook at m os t op e n  so urce proje cts, and  actually justt obe cl ear  I’m a  f anof op en sou r ce,  I th ink op en  sourc e dri ve s a lotof value and is great f or a l ot of  ty pes of pr oje c ts.  But if y ou l ook at mos t o pen  sour cep rojec ts,t he re’ s  a co uple of things Ithi n k  t hat are imp o r t ant  abou t t h em, an d on e of them is that they are not t hatd i ffe ren t  tha nclosed sourceorpr o p rietarypr ojects.

Op en sourc ep rojec ts hav e a fe w key p e o pl e  thatdo n ine ty-five p erc en t  of the  w or k , andthen  t hey ha ve a b u ncho f  other people th at ki n d  of h e lpout.If  you lo o k at  Microsoft  at any giv en pro ject , the y haveafew ke y p eo ple doingn inety-fiv e per cent of  t he
 why_that is?_What’s your impression of_why Microsoft_doesn’t_just open_source_everything?

Shawn: Well there’s_a whole set_of reasons. This project_that I’m running_now_is an open source project. We’re building on top of the new technologies, and_the_things we_build_are_actually open source. We are_actually doing both. We take_customer contributions,_the whole bit.

What’s ending up happening, what is_starting_to evolve, specifically_with my team (and we are looking at duplicating_the model) is making a hybrid_model where you_have_closed_source cores, and open_source projects focusing on added customer_value, extended components, widgets, and stuff_like that. As far as why Microsoft_doesn’t go open source, there’s a_whole set of reasons for_that. I_think the number one reason_is just around_IP pedigree._The issue with_open source is that it’s very,_very difficult–well it’s_impossible–to verify with a hundred percent_certainty_that every piece_of_idea_in there_is licensed properly_to_be in_there.

It’s_very difficult for me to know_if_some developer that contributed to my project_saw some code in_some_other project that he_liked, and he picked that_code up and dropped it into_the project_and maybe_just tweaked it a little bit.

. “When your organization picks up_software, you are taking on some_amount of risk that_there could_be_an IP issue_with_that code._That’s the number one issue that we_see with_open source. You don’t know how_much risk there is,_and_there is limited, if any, IP_protection provided. When people adopt Windows_they are provided with significant_IP_protection.”

That’s_a core reason. If you_look at most open source projects,_and actually just_to be clear I’m a fan of_open_source, I think open source drives_a_lot of value and is great_for_a_lot of types of projects._But if you look at most_open source projects, there’s a couple of things I_think that are_important about them, and one_of_them_is that they are not that different than closed source_or proprietary_projects.

Open source projects_have a few key people that do ninety-five percent of_the work, and then they have a_bunch of other people that kind of help out. If you_look at Microsoft at any given project, they_have a few key people doing ninety-five_percent of the