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).
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.
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.
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.