Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Blesses LGPL, Joins Apache Foundation
Penguinisto writes "According to a somewhat jaw-dropping story in The Register, it appears that Microsoft has performed a trifecta of geek-scaring feats: They have joined the Apache Software Foundation as a Platinum member(at $100K USD a year), submitted LGPL-licensed patches for ADOdb, and have pledged to expand their Open Specifications Promise by adding to the list more than 100 protocols for interoperability between its Windows Server and the Windows client. While I sincerely doubt they'll release Vista under a GPL license anytime soon, this is certainly an unexpected series of moves on their part, and could possibly lead to more OSS (as opposed to 'Shared Source') interactivity between what is arguably Linux' greatest adversary and the Open Source community." (We mentioned the announced support for the Apache Foundation earlier today, as well.)
He doesn't like cold.
Even if they finally turned around and will finally work with everyone else with no dark agenda for the future, old-timers like me (i.e. more than 25-30 years old) will not trust them until they have really proven themselves.
Their most recent move was the OOXML fiasco, so you can understand my skepticism.
Hey, Duke Nukem Forever still isn't out. It's not the end of the world YET.
In unrelated news, evolution picks up pace as pigs gain wings.
I love seeing things get open sourced just as much as the next guy, but who in their right mind would WANT the source code for Vista?
There's some 'embrace, extend, obsolete' in here somewhere, but I'm beginning to think that this behavior from MS has a lot more to do with Ballmer's seemingly obsessive desire to overtake Google.
In other words, in order to defeat their enemy, they're going to try to BECOME their enemy first. MS is trying to emulate everything Google does, including supporting open source projects.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
The Apache and LGPL licenses aren't much of a threat to them. GPL is, because GPL prevents "embrace and enhance", Microsoft's commonly-exercised strategy to take over a market. Microsoft has signed over work to FSF in the past when it was necessary to get changes into GCC for one of their (past) divisions that was making a Unix compatibility layer. I don't think this is the first time they've had to deal with GPL, by far.
So, the big question is, have they turned over a new leaf? I think they're still a super-size multinational for-profit corporation, and the reality is that every one of those will be self-serving first, whether they are Microsoft or someone more usually identified as a "friend" to Open Source. But Microsoft has managed to set themselves ahead of other corporations as a frequent user of dirty-fighting tactics to get its way. I don't expect that corporate culture to go away.
I think we still have some big problems with Microsoft, primarily around software patents. They are still in a position to attack Linux with them, although they would probably do that using a proxy, as they did with SCO. Their increased involvement in Open Source organizations means that they will be taken as a member of the Open Source community when they speak with national legislators. This is terrible for us, because it means they'll be able to short-circuit our work to protect Open Source from software patents by speaking to government as an insider in our communities. They've been lobbying for a software patent treaty between Europe and the U.S. (part of the "anti-piracy treaty" currently under discussion but not available to the public) which could make criminal prosecution a new tool against suspected patent infringers on both sides of the Atlantic. And because this is a treaty rather than legislation, it effectively takes the question out of public debate and just leaves it to congress to approve or reject the entire treaty. Want to guess how many people in congress want to be seen as "for piracy"? Any non-trivial software program infringes patents, Open Source or not. We're still in rather deep trouble regarding this, if anyone wants to push the issue. And their general counsel made clear, in a recent speech at OSBC, that they're still not willing to put down the patent "gun".
So, I can't say I think this is a good thing.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Wasn't the Java situation more like embrace, extend, lawsuit, retreat?
The Mayans never claimed the world would end. They only claimed their funky calendar would run out of days.
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
Apple will never use Intel processors.
Dell will never ship AMD processors.
Dell will never ship Linux.
These things happen. People can change their minds. Microsoft is still doing evil and illegal things on a regular basis (like last year, offering illegal bribes to get Nigeria to drop Mandriva) but not every single employee at Microsoft is evil. Not every department is necessarily evil.
Microsoft has been doing a number of reasonably good things for a while now, and everyone keeps suggesting they are part of some scheme and conspiracy. People shouldn't be completely shocked by this act.
I think it is just a continuation of a new trend towards being slightly less evil. Every time Microsoft opens more protocols, releases more code, and tries to work with the OSS community, instead of acting like children and calling names, I think the community should encourage Microsoft to continue the trend of migrating to a more open company.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Apple doesn't take 30% off the top. I believe they do with iPhone apps, but certainly not with Mac OS X apps. Secondly, you completely misinterpreted my comment. I said Apple was gaining market share (which they are). I made no comment on their being more or less open than MS. The point I'm making is that no one stays on top forever. MS knows this, and they know they need to start getting their shit together, or they are going to lose their asses in the long run.
The real reason they are doing this is to make the option of running Apache on Windows more appealing. This way Windows has an easier time gaining ground on Linux in the server market.
Like others have said, embrace and extend typically leads to something getting extinguished. They are not to be trusted. Sorry.
Microsoft making their protocols available isn't the same as "work with everyone else". Microsoft's protocols and file formats all:
a) tend to be very complex and/or virtually impossible to fully implement. See OOXML.
b) change with every version of Windows, and then sometimes in between. Somehow, documentation lags implementation by quite some time. Years sometimes. See Europe's attempt at extracting up-to-date documentation from them.
While releasing documentation closes the gap somewhat, it still leaves the game as "Works best when you only use Windows machines". Which is exactly what is best for Microsoft.
While this can be viewed as a positive step, it very much is a "you can play with my ball, but under my conditions, and whenever I get a new one, you can't play with it until I feel like it", and not "let's all play together with all the toys so everyone can have more fun".
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Let's not get overconfident. Whatever gains we once made on the desktop have been blown away by Apple. Despite the fact that we give away a wonderful compatible office suite in OpenOffice 3 for free, most companies and individuals are still buying MS Office. The software patent system is still tilted against us, and may be getting worse depending on an upcoming treaty - assumptions that the Bilski case will solve the problem for us are unrealistic to say the least. And it looks like they will get ISO to publish Office Open XML.
So, sure Microsoft is positioning itself for future strategy, but I bet they still see themselves winning. And they may well do so.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
A wise man once passed away and went to Heaven. He asked God when Duke Nukem Forever would be released. God replied, "Not in my lifetime."
yes, but they had no era defined for what happened next
Ah, so the world will end not with a bang, but with a segfault.
The British killed millions (just in Kenya 1 million natives died during rebellions prior to independence).
This nonsense about how civilized the British were while oppressing other peoples has got really to stop, it has no base in any credible evidence.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
13.0.0.0.0 is supposed to be the end of the present creation, rather than just a change of the same significance as the rollover to 12.0.0.0.0 from 11.19.19.17.19.
Maybe 13.0.0.0.0 is the era of the linux desktop.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The release of this April Fools gag was handled by the Vista team.
During much of the time I was at HP - hired to be an Open Source leader first and an HP employee second - I knew about this and had to keep it secret. It was a pretty big hardship for me, obviously I felt I was being disloyal to my own community. I'm pasting it in here today so that we don't forget Microsoft's previous intentions toward Apache. - Bruce
From: Campbell, Gary [mailto:gary.campbell@hp.com]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 7:27 PM
To: Stallard, Scott J; CTO Office Directs; Chaffin, Janice; Denzel, Nora; McDowell, Mary; Elias, Howard; Fink, Martin R; Becker, Rick (ISS); Beyers, Joe Cc: Blackmore, Peter; Robison, Shane
Subject: Microsoft Patent Cross License - Open Source Software Impact
Microsoft Patent Cross License - Open Source Software Impact
Today we agreed on a new patent cross license with Microsoft that protects HP in the short term, but it has significant impact on HP's use of Open Source software in the long term. More importantly, we now understand that Microsoft is about to launch legal action against the industry for shipping Open Source software that may force us out of using certain popular Open Source products. We need to create a cross-HP staffed program to understand the implication by product group and to provide the short term and long term steerage. I'll hook up with Martin tomorrow and start planning next steps for a cross-HP planning team.
Background:
HP is we believe, protected by our previous cross license for patents filed by Microsoft up to June of 2001, to ship open source software that violates Microsoft patents that was developed or shipped prior to today. This means that we can freeze on today's open source functionality and we are protected.
The new cross license does not protect us against new Microsoft patents filed after June 2001 against new open source product functionality shipped or created after today. So we have a two year window before HP has exposure on new Microsoft patents against new open source functionality, but we have exposure because of the MAD clause in the GPL if Microsoft attacks another entity with existing patents. See next section.
Open Source Software is described as a license that follows the intent and process of GPL or GPL lite. Additionally several major products are explicitly called out as not protected by the cross license, such as Samba, Wine, KDE, Gnome, Apache, Sendmail, and Linux.
Microsoft's Intentions:
Microsoft could attack Open Source Software for patent infringements against OEMs, Linux distributors, and least likely open source developers. They are specifically upset about Samba, Apache and Sendmail. We believe Samba is first, and they will attempt to prove it isn't covered by prior patent cross as a so called "clone" product carve out in the previous agreement.
OEMs that don't have a cross(like SUN), or OEMs like HP that they force a change in their cross license to exclude open source software are probably the first target. Intel, Red Hat, SuSE, UBL, Oracle are probably in the first wave as well.
IBM we don't know what the status of termination of their Microsoft cross license is. They could be protected by their previous OS/2 deals?
Mutually Assured Destruction Clause:
But it probably doesn't matter, because the GPL license has a mutually assured destruction clause in section 7, if anyone is sued over a patent infringement, no one is licensed under the GPL to ship GPL-ed products. This is probably what Microsoft intends to do.
Basically Microsoft is going to use the legal system to shut down open source software, and for all of its cleverness, the GPL makes it fairly easy unless a white knight steps in.
Best guess on the timing, this fall when they are finished settling with DOJ and the states.
Industry Reaction:
At this point we have no information on who would defend open source with
Bruce Perens.