Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft and Apache - What's the Angle?
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."
This might sound completely insane but did anyone consider that Microsoft might try and cut costs by using Apache for the backend in Windows Server 2010?
Apple has done it with Apple OS X Server. It would allow Microsoft to keep up to date with web standards without having to spend vast amounts to do it. All they would really need to do is develop propitiatory modules that they could hook in.
Microsoft really have very little vested interest in keeping IIS up-to-date. It isn't a big cash cow and I think most people would agree that it isn't a great web server (although does have some nice tie-ins with the OS).
While I am posting I really dislike the article attacking the Apache licence. The Apache and BSD licenses are the purest form of what OSS stands for. It is freedom in the true sense and not freedom in the American sense (e.g. Freedom at the barrel of a gun).
How are they going to fuck it up exactly? They can submit patches to the maintainers, but they probably won't have commit rights. Even if they did, the changes can be caught and removed in pre-release testing. Worst case they get backed out in the next release. Given a pattern of bad behavior, I'm sure their commit rights would be revoked.
They're making a donation, not buying carte blanche to do whatever they want to the main code base. If they want to fork it and fuck up their own version, well, so be it. Just don't call it "Apache".
Really, people need to back off these guys a bit. I don't mean stop being suspicious and guarded, but sometimes it seems like this reaches levels of the paranoid delusional.
I work for a fortune 100 company and we have a ton of middleware running on Apache Tomcat. Currently we have Tomcat running on old Sun Servers, HP Servers and newly procured Linux servers.
One surprising thing to me is the number of Windows 2003 Servers that we have running Apache Tomcat as well.
Maybe Microsoft realizes that there is some big business potential playing nicely with Apache?
it goes like this, MS doesn't give anything to Windows-based open source projetcs, just primarily Linux-based ones.
So what are they likely to do with Apache? Integrate .NET in with it of course, whch won't work on non-Windows boxen. I think they hope that they'll get open-source developers to develop for Apache(.NET) and thus be locked-in to Windows.
I think that's what people are worried about, MS are trying to gently persuade people to stop development for all platforms in favour of Windows only.
1. They want to talk to regulators as "insiders" in the Open Source community, asking for increases in software patenting that will actually block Open Source.
Is there any reason to think that this would actually work? Why can't a "real" insider just coherently explain that that position does not make sense?
2. Trying to become the dominant server for Apache Foundtion software is an anti-Linux play.
As long as they do this by improving their product, this is a good thing. Linux is not the sole bringer of good into the world; high-quality software is high-quality software regardless of its origins.
3. There is a potential for embrace and enhance of Apache Foundation software.
Better software is actually a good thing, there's only a problem if they start doing undocumented things to the protocols. And it sounds like they've gotten much better about that lately, even if not by choice.
4. If they really want to be sincere community members, let's see them play by GPL rules, not by Apache's "anything goes" rules. What they're doing now is trying to seem members of Open Source without any of the obligation.
Because all the community is GPL, and everyone else needs to be educated and brought into the fold.
The strange part of this is: The Apache Foundation has a MASSIVE portfolio of Java Technology.
Hell, I bet almost every Java vendor out there uses at least one of the several Java projects hosted by the Apache Foundation. Sun itself does!
Maybe Microsoft is hoping to grab some attention from the Apache developers to .NET and away from Java?
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
Microsoft is even actively contributing to Eclipse now.
Now there's no middle term and we'll know the answer soon: Either they really saw the light or they are moving for the final strike.
I just hope have the worst come to be that someone from the future will bring us ablative hull armor technology.
Who's helping them, Bruce? Who?
Not the ASF. The money Microsoft gives Apache gets them no special access to the code, no voting rights, nothing. Nothing other than a logo and press release.
And your argument about Microsoft extending Apache is baseless and you know it. You've even admitted as much in the article:
Apparently your definition of an "anti-linux" play is using any license other than the GPL. Because there's nothing special about this Microsoft strategy of yours that has anything to do with the Apache sponsorship. They could follow that strategy without handing out cash. So apparently all of the BSD, MIT and Apache licensed projects have fallen into Microsoft's deft plan.
But what really upsets me, Bruce, are your subtle allegations that the ASF is somehow selling out the rest of the open source community. You've clearly not been involved in the process, have confusions about what ASF sponsorship means, and hell, have confusion about what the Apache Software Foundation is these days. If you knew any of the people involved, you wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions. So enough with the conspiracy theories already.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
Microsoft stuff isn't just a scare story. The Office Open XML debacle is only a few months ago, and as far as I can tell they committed an actionable fraud in connection with it. I have independent comfirmation for what is at that link.
It's sort of like a totalitarian scare right after Tianammen Square, where we had real reason to be scared. By the way, China's problem is totalitarianism, not communism. I've met a head of state who calls what Microsoft does "corporate totalitarianism", and I think he's on target there.
Bruce Perens.
If you develop and don't get given money then the GPL "pays" you in the form of reciprocal freedom.
No, it doesn't. You really don't understand the GPL at all. There is no requirement that anyone give you their changes in return for you giving them your code. I am completely within my legal right to take your GPL'd code, make changes and not give them to you. Even if I distribute the code to my customers, I don't need to give you the changes. I need only give my customers the code (if they ask for it). I can deny you the code if you ask for it. There is nothing in the GPL which requires me to give my changes to random people who i have not given the binaries to.
Now, certainly, you could get the code from one of my customers, and that's a possibility, and I can't prevent them or you from that, but if you do that, you have to get the code from them, not me. I only have to provide it to the people I distributed the code to.
The point is, the GPL does not do what most people think it does. Most people completely misunderstand the rights granted by the GPL, and the restrictions required by it. For instsance, most people don't realize that if they take some GPL code, like a Fedora distro, make a few tiny changes, and then post the ISO then they are required to supply all upstream code. You can't just point them to Fedora, you are legally required to provide it yourself, including whatever bandwith costs that would encumber you with. The MEPIS developer lost a court battle on that one.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here