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."

Comments

Perens defending proprietary licenses

[synthespian]

How ironic that Perens, whilst all the time deriding the Apache license and sanctimoniously gloating about the purported high moral ground and the higher intelligence ("Stallman has a Macarthur 'genius award'") that delivered unto this poor world of ours the Holy GPL - for us, the hoi polloi - unabashedly supports proprietary licenses - just as long as it's MySQL's.

I just can't take Linux advocates seriously anymore.

Re:Angle of teh dangle

[skaet]

Let me rephrase that for you:

When your neighbour who has thrown rocks in all your windows, cut down your trees, slashed your tyres and poisoned your cat suddenly loses their father in a car accident then acts friendly and invites you to have dinner, what's your first move?
To show support, willingness and perhaps just a little understanding?

We all have the opportunity here to be the Good Samaritan and to show we are better than this.

I don't know about you but I don't remember anything in the GPL about open source being available to everyone except Microsoft. They have as much right to be here as the next person and we don't persecute them because of it! If someone said to me "I've been a proprietary software developer for 20 years but I'm interested in looking at open source alterantives." I would say "Welcome, Brother!" and not "GTFO my lawn!"

semantic pedantry

[Gary W. Longsine]

No, I'm not confusing them. I'm suggesting that the GPL, which is the license for much of the software on the typical Linux distribution, has effects which reach beyond the project (whatever it may be). Those effects, I suggest, result in massive amounts of wasted effort, and hold back progress of open source software. Let's take Linux out of the discussion for a bit, since it seems to be such an emotional issue for so many.

Let's talk about compilers. Only real nerds get emotional about compilers. Here's my prediction: LLVM will take over the world of free compilers, almost entirely displacing gcc, and most geeks are going to love it. GNU/gcc enthusiasts will make all kinds of excuses, but one of the biggest reasons why this is going to happen is that LLVM projects use a free license, not a copyleft license. It will be years before I'm proven correct, but this will happen. The world of free compilers will be liberated from the tyranny of gcc (credit to jcr for first uttering that phrase on the phone to me a few months ago).

I'm really going to be impressed with myself if I get a Troll mod for talking about free software licenses on compilers. It might go to my head.