IBM won't open source DB2. Is this a surprise?

When I first saw ZDNet reporting that IBM may open source its DB2 database, I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop. The comment that led to the report? "We have a light version of the product offered for free, which is a step towards exposing our core (DB2) technology." This was made by a UK-based director-level IBMer, which probably wouldn't be the person one would expect to reveal Big Blue's plans to open source core technology.

Regardless, IBM isn't in the habit of open sourcing technology in which it has a lead or at least a strong position, such as it does with DB2. IBM strategically invests in open source to undermine the margins of its competitors, not its own.

It was therefore no surprise to see IBM quickly follow up ZDNet's article with a blunt statement: "IBM has no plans to open source DB2."

Of course it doesn't. Not yet, anyway. It's only when IBM derives no direct, pecuniary incentive in monetizing DB2. The day that it needs DB2 to undermine Oracle's database, however, we may see IBM making a similarly bald statement...in the other direction.

[driehle]

I think you are right, though IBM doesn't exclusively use open source for this purpose. Seeing Savio's reaction to your blog entry I figured I'd discuss it in more detail on my blog: I call it the share of wallet wars though rather than diminishing competitors' margins.

[RamonFHerrera]

> IBM isn't in the habit of open sourcing technology in which it has a lead or at least a strong position

Eclipse is a counterexample.

-RFH