Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft and Apache - What's the Angle?

Posted by Soulskill on from the answer-in-radians-please dept.

A week ago, we discussed Microsoft's contribution to the Apache Foundation. Now, Bruce Perens has written an analysis "exploring the new relationship of Microsoft and the Apache project, how it works as an anti-Linux move on Microsoft's part, and what some of the Open Sourcers are going to do about having Microsoft as a rather untrustworthy partner." In particular, he notes: "...Microsoft can still influence how things go from here on. If they have to live with open source, the Apache project is Microsoft's preferred direction. Apache doesn't use the dreaded GPL and its enforced sharing of source-code. Instead, the Apache license is practically a no-strings gift, with a weak provision against patent lawsuits as its most relevant term. Microsoft can take Apache software and embrace and enhance, providing their own versions of the project's software with engineered incompatibility and no available source, just as they forced incompatibility into the Web by installing IE with every Windows upgrade."

7 of 433 comments (clear)

  1. Angle of teh dangle by ipX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apache.NET?

    1. Re:Angle of teh dangle by Fred_A · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Putting the obvious Microsoft fears aside, can we not give credit where credit is due?

      Microsoft have taken a huge step into open source here and they deserve to be nurtured and supported by a willing community so that we can all make the most of it.

      When your neighbour who has thrown rocks in all your windows, cut down your trees, slashed your tyres and poisoned your cat suddenly acts friendly and invites you to have dinner, what's your first move ?
      To show support and willingness or to go in your garage to decide which of the tyre iron or the baseball bat you're going to bring ?

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
  2. what? by SirShmoopie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So let me see if I have this right.

    1: If they activelly avoid compatibility with open source, they're being evil.
    2: If they just ignore it, they're being evil.
    3: If they try to co-operate with any open source project, they're being evil.

    What, to be blunt, the fuck is going on?

    Ok, I'm not claiming closed source vendors are great or anything, but to my mind, this smacks of closed minded zealotry, and as we know, courtesy of the worlds religions, that generally doesn't work out well in the long term.

    Is the open source movements plan to vilify any and all attempts of the 'establishment' to work with us? Is that the plan?

    I freely acknowledge that Microsoft don't really have much in the way of compatible philosophy, but if all we do is bitch, all we'll get is negative publicity and bad feeling from people who, shock, horror, are actually entitled to think that open source isn't the source of all that is good in the world.

    I'm an open source developer myself, but obviously not a 'proper' one, because all I care about is sharing my code.

  3. It's Cool by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft can take Apache software and embrace and enhance, providing their own versions of the project's software with engineered incompatibility and no available source, just as they forced incompatibility into the Web by installing IE with every Windows upgrade.

    Right on, that's cool. That's the purpose of the ASL. It is written such that commercial entities can extend it in unanticipated directions. That's what makes it different from GPL-like licenses, and it is totally OK. Some people (like myself) prefer to release under GPL-style licenses because we want to prevent commercial proprietary extension, and that's OK too.

    Also, Bruce's commentary is fine. He's using an active case-in-point to demonstrate a behavior that some may view as a downside associated with using a liberal license, and which will help new joiners to the Open Source community to make their personal choice.

    Or, in short, there's no need for yet another GPL versus BSD flamewar. We can all do what we like with our code, and that's good.

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
  4. It's pretty simple by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're trying to take the oxygen from Linux by becoming the dominant server for Open Source applications. But if you're an Open Source developer, helping them displace an Open Source platform isn't such a great idea, is it?

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  5. Re:Apache in Windows Server 2010? by aster_ken · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This will definitely not happen, and here is why.

    1. Microsoft has invested far too much time and far too many dollars into making Internet Information Services (IIS) what it is today.
    2. Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) have invested far too much time and far too many dollars into making modules for IIS. Several ISVs have built their entire business around providing these modules for cost.
    3. Many of Microsoft's own products, such as Exchange Server 2007, Office SharePoint Server 2007, Office Project Server 2007, and more, have been built around the IIS architecture. Changing to a different back-end server architecture would cost Microsoft financially.
    4. Usage of IIS has been increasing dramatically since March 2006. Usage of the Apache HTTP Server has declined significantly beginning in that same month. Netcraft provides these statistics here: http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2008/06/22/june_2008_web_server_survey.html

  6. Re:Relief by dhavleak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you've seen the code Microsoft develops by themselves haven't you? Its not pretty.

    Err no. MS doesn't usually make their code publicly available. I wonder where you saw it..