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."
Apache.NET?
So a week later, and the best sinister motive they can come up with is Microsoft doing something they could've done without contributing to the project..
*breathe a sigh of relief*
Fan boy.
I'm not sure if you're referring to Bruce, Microsoft, Apache, or Slashdot.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Trying to appear relevant?
I got news for you, but Microsoft is extremely relevant. Their relevance is what gives them the power to single-handedly break standards and have it supported by, not some, but the majority of web sites.
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
Life is like a boxset of Movies, We have the good guys, and the bad guys, and the recurring villain, Microsoft.
signature is pants
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.
2. Trying to become the dominant server for Apache Foundtion software is an anti-Linux play.
3. There is a potential for embrace and enhance of Apache Foundation software.
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.
Bruce Perens.
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?
The room you are in is dark.
You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
However, as you are already dead from lack of oxygen, you don't really mind all that much.
God is dead -- Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead -- God
Zombie Nietzsche lives! -- Zombie Nietzsche
Let's take an extreme example. The Java Model Railroad Interface developer used the Artistic license. A toy train throttle manufacturer called KAM used his software in their product, and sent him a bill for about twice his annual income because KAM claims a broad patent on any two computers communicating to control a toy train. The JMRI developer got pretty cruelly used in this case.
It's not anyone who improves it who is a problem. But some folks, like KAM in this example, are really unsavory exploiters of the Open Source developer. Strong licensing (which doesn't mean the Artistic license, as the JMRI guy found out) is a good way to fight them.
Bruce Perens.
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.
It does have its limitations. It's more of a share and share alike license than a path to public domain software.
If I, as an open source author, want to give my code back to the community, with no strings attached, public domain is the only way to go. That way, anyone can use the code for any purpose they see fit. It is truly a gift.
But GPL'ed code is not a gift, it is a license. It seeks to enforce - through copyright law - the notion of free software. That is, you can't take my free program and add in proprietary changes, and add restrictions to the use of the code.
It's a good license. It does bring balance to the big picture.
But it doesn't address one of the fundamental problems of open source: it's difficult to make a living writing open source code. Sure, you can make a living supporting open source code, but it is very difficult for the average programmer to make a living on what open source pays (usually nothing).
Without the proprietary model, I would have to make a living doing something other than writing code. Which would mean, that because I would truly be an amateur programmer, my code would not be as good as it would otherwise. I'm able to make a meaningful contribution to open source code in part because I write code for a living.
The consequence of being employed to write code is that I can't contribute code which would interfere with my employer's business interests. So while I'm able to use my general programming skills to benefit open source, I cannot produce open-source software in my area of expertise. Which, to me, is a real problem. But the GPL doesn't solve the ethical dilemna of an employee undermining his employer's business model. A large portion of us rely on the revenues generated by the pay-per-license proprietary model; without it, our customers would have to pay inordinately large sums of money up front for software, and we couldn't introduce new and innovative features because the budget wouldn't support it.
I am a good programmer, and I do produce something of value when I write code. I have no problem with people sharing the code that I write, but we as a society need to understand that programmers need to be paid for their work. That is, if we are to have any reasonable expectation of software quality. Without the experience that comes from writing code professionally, the quality of software would be absolutely abysmal.
And open source does have the proprietary model to thank for its quality - typically, the code written for open source projects is written the way a programmer knows it should be written, rather than taking shortcuts because of scheduling and marketing issues.
I like open source, but I realize that I, and other programmers, need to be able to make a living writing code if we're going to contribute meaningful software to the world. Unfortunately, the GPL doesn't address this problem in an economically viable way. Even Stallman admits that in a free software world, programmers wouldn't make nothing, they'd simply make less. Problem is, I have a family to feed, and don't have the option of making any less money; if the whole world went open source, I'd have to go into management just to feed my family. I don't think it's very ethical to ask my children to starve so you can have your software free of charge.
The GPL is good, and needed, but there needs to be a balance. I can contribute to free software because my employer's proprietary model allows me to make a living writing code.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
How about a phone number: 510-984-1055. It turns away calls when we'd be asleep.
Bruce Perens.
Stupidly bad software patents are there in the U.S. because of our friend IBM, who brought the lawsuit against the government forcing them to allow software to be patented in the 80's.
Subsequent legislation to increase this trend worldwide has been pushed by Microsoft. I've been there to see this first-hand in discussions with European regulators.
Even without the patent problem, there would be significant problems associated with their monopolistic behavior. Much of their rise was achieved without use of software patent aggression.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
No. A phone call is a closer contact than most trolls can handle emotionally. Most of them can't even sign their name in a textual communication.
Bruce Perens.
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?
Bruce Perens is the Chuck Norris of the geek world. He doesn't age. He recompiles time.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
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