Slashdot Log In
Microsoft and Apache - What's the Angle?
Posted by
Soulskill
on Fri Aug 01, 2008 05:57 PM
from the answer-in-radians-please dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
News: Microsoft Blesses LGPL, Joins Apache Foundation 425 comments
Penguinisto writes "According to a somewhat jaw-dropping story in The Register, it appears that Microsoft has performed a trifecta of geek-scaring feats: They have joined the Apache Software Foundation as a Platinum member(at $100K USD a year), submitted LGPL-licensed patches for ADOdb, and have pledged to expand their Open Specifications Promise by adding to the list more than 100 protocols for interoperability between its Windows Server and the Windows client. While I sincerely doubt they'll release Vista under a GPL license anytime soon, this is certainly an unexpected series of moves on their part, and could possibly lead to more OSS (as opposed to 'Shared Source') interactivity between what is arguably Linux' greatest adversary and the Open Source community." (We mentioned the announced support for the Apache Foundation earlier today, as well.)
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Angle of teh dangle (Score:5, Insightful)
Apache.NET?
Re:Angle of teh dangle (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly.
The fact that you're developing .NET matters; the fact that you're using it on IIS doesn't.
With Apache interoperability, you'd be able to run .NET internet applications and web services internet wide.
Parent
Re:Angle of teh dangle (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Parent
Re:Angle of teh dangle (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Angle of teh dangle (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 ?
Parent
Re:Angle of teh dangle (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think he's going to print that :-)
Parent
Re:Angle of teh dangle (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft did not loses their father in a car accident, so your analogy goes totally wrong here.
They did not got a terrible setback, so your try to paint Microsoft as a poor sorry victim is totally beyond reality.
Reality and long time experience leaned only one thing. Microsoft is capable of is crushing anything and everyone that has the nerves to pick more than 0,000005% of their market share. They will not rest before any initiative to break away from their stranglehold is stamped out and has resulted in a crater 5 miles wide. And when you decide not to resist to avoid above scenario, they wont fight you but embrace you so tightly your live will squeezed out of your poor body.
You just cannot trust Microsoft. Any company or organization that did this one time does not longer exist or is seriously marginalized. Microsoft is a predator that feeds on anything they get their claws in. Their long list of victims proves it.
Now suddenly we have to trust them? Seriously? Wow man - you are really out of touch with the real world hm?
Parent
Re:Angle of teh dangle (Score:4, Interesting)
No, next question.
Bruce is wrong on the Mosaic license which was never remotely close to open. It was a non-commercial use license and NCSA sold the commercial rights to Spyglass. IE is actually descended from the Spyglass rewrite of Mosaic and parts of the CERN libwww which was public domain.
These constant Microsoft-scare stories get to be as tiring as the communist-scare stories. Nothing is easier than warning people that some big powerful entity is a potential threat. And the timid then nod their heads and give thanks for those who so nobly look after their interests.
Parent
Re:Angle of teh dangle (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [openmalaysiablog.com] 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.
Parent
Re:irrelevant analysis (Score:4, Insightful)
What? Are you dressed up as old king troll? People and especially companies take if they can get away with it. BSD lets Microsoft (and who ever else) get away with taking code, the GPL does not. You have to catch up before you can overtake and finally the Open Source community is positioned to overtake. You wanna play then you have to pay by code, that's not socialist that's leveling the playing field. It's those provisions that make companies like IBM take the GPL seriously and construct legal guidelines and codes of conduct to inter-operate properly.
People don't talk about FreeBSD they talk about Linux, it's called brand awareness. Tell a windows zealot they use a BSD license and they'd go "a what?", they don't think of BSD as Open Source. But they know what Linux is and respect it, even if they don't like it, because they perceive the GPL as a threat to the Microsoft hegemony.
That's not a criticism of BSD projects, there are great projects under BSD licenses and people put things under those licenses for their own reasons. The difference is the GPL promotes a new type of business model to function. Who cares if there is a forked project, that's a strength that allows business adaptations to flourish or die without ramifications.
Even if I partially agree with you about the purist GPL approach I can't get over the "free, as in you work for free" part of the BSD license, why would Microsoft write compression libraries if they can get them for free [eweek.com] or fix the flaws and return them to the community. I don't know about the Apache license, but I do know for certain that Microsoft has *never* done anything unless it is to *their* advantage, they don't give a fork about OSS except how they can use it to benefit themselves.
Parent
Re:irrelevant analysis (Score:4, Interesting)
But if you compare the pace of kernel development, by source-code line count, Linux tremendously outpaces BSD kernel development.
Bruce, I generally respect what you say (even when I don't necessarily agree with it), but measuring productivity by counting kloc? I thought that was soundly discredited a couple of decades ago...
Implying that the BSD licence is used only for the BSD kernels and Java-based projects seems to be somewhat disingenuous - unless I'm misreading you there, of course.
Parent
Re:community issues (Score:4, Insightful)
If proprietary software was made extremely secure, how would anyone without the source be able to tell? Just trust someone?
Parent
Relief (Score:5, Insightful)
*breathe a sigh of relief*
Re:Relief? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
Re:Relief (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..
Parent
Apache in Windows Server 2010? (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Re:Apache in Windows Server 2010? (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 [netcraft.com]
Parent
Re:Apache in Windows Server 2010? (Score:4, Informative)
Usage of IIS has been increasing dramatically since March 2006. Usage of the Apache HTTP Server has declined significantly beginning in that same month
Nice try, troll.
According to the page you linked, Apaches usage has actually increased, as has IIS. Admittedly, Apaches market share has gone down, but that's not what you said. There are still 8.5 million more Apache servers (serving 24 million more sites according to Netcraft) than IIS.
Totals for Active Servers Across All Domains [netcraft.com]
June 2000 - June 2008
Not to mention that as the largest single OS vendor, Microsofts market share is bound to grow, as their users start discovering the internet. Apache users are largely self selecting in this respect.
Parent
what? (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.
It's pretty simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
It's Cool (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.
Microsoft + Apache = Big Business? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
I like the GPL, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I like the GPL, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I like the GPL, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to have missed the idea of dual licensing. The limitations of the GPL make other licenses valuable and thus the original author can sell these other licenses. Meanwhile the GPL release allows the author's solution to become popular, standardized, and expected by users, making the sale of it more valuable. You can be certain Qt would sell nothing if they did not also have the GPL version. In addition it appears GPL code is very useful for advertising your abilities as a programmer for getting jobs.
GPL is actually *better* for professionals to get paid than public domain, totally opposite of your argument. Of course the reason is not something Stallman wants, but it is true.
For small companies and people, the GPL is the only way they can advertise and get their ideas and standards used by others. It flattens the playing field so that it the design of computers is not 100% controlled by whoever has the brand name recognition and advertising budget. This is why Microsoft fears it, not because it thinks it will be forced to open-source their own stuff or that software will all become zero-cost.
Parent
Apache is very Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
Apache, in a way, is Microsoft's kind of software. It has lots of cruft, features that have been added over time and don't interact well. So it's hard to clone or replace. Lots of things plug into it using its API, so it has slave projects. That's the kind of lock-in Microsoft likes.
(Technically, all an Apache-type web server really needs to do is support serving of plain pages, and FCGI. With that, you can do anything, because there's an efficient way to pass off work to other programs. Interprocess communication is a good thing. But that's not the way Apache grew.)
Okay, Let's Assume the Apache License was GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
In that case, what, exactly, would change with this scenario?
The contribution to the Apache Foundation would have the same PR effect, so that wouldn't have been affected at all.
The ability to embrace-and-extend would be slightly differentiated, but not all that much. Microsoft would integrate some new System Libraries into Windows Server, and any Microsoft-only extensions of Apache would be made dependent on them. The calls to the Windows System Libraries would be GPL, but the code in the libraries would remain closed, and adding their features to the GPL version of Apache would require a WINE- or Mono-like project.
And, um. What else is there? Well, Microsoft would logically be contradicting its GPL statements, but Interix/Services for Windows/SUA/whatever it is this week already did so.
Re:Okay, Let's Assume the Apache License was GPL (Score:4, Informative)
System Libraries (I use the capitals to specifically indicate a reference to the capitalized term in the GPL 3) don't have to implement a Standard Interface. They can instead serve as the interface to allow the use of the work with a Major Component. Which simply means Microsoft would have to make the non-Free extension code part of or highly dependent on code in a Major Component, called via a System Library.
As long as the GPL allows covered software to be run on non-Free platforms, the owners of the non-Free platforms will be able to embrace and extend the GPL software with non-Free code. You can set up some hoops, if you like, but they can always tilt the platform to serve as a ramp through the hoops.
Parent
Re:Honestly? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:What's the angle? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Yeowza (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:What's the angle? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:The time has come... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:This is why I love Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Can somebody explain TFA to me? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Can somebody explain TFA to me? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Can somebody explain TFA to me? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, last time I saw this happening they are using Novell to do just what you said.
You should be considering what the software is supposed to do to you besides what it's doing for you. For example, there's some high-quality software out there that has been designed to lock you in, such that you will find it difficult to port your applications to something else, and you'll never do so because of the expense.
Undocumented things in the protocols is the modus opperandi of Embrace and Enhance. I agree that they've had to let go of a lot, mostly because of anti-trust prosecution. I don't trust them to give up the habit once the prosecutors are looking elsewhere. I see the Open Source involvement as a tool to get the prosecutors to look elsewhere.
Microsoft playing with strict rules would mean something. Microsoft playing with no rules means nothing.
Parent
Re:Everything Microsoft does is evil... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Everything Microsoft does is evil... (Score:4, Insightful)
So if you make something available for everyone, you become the "unpaid employee" of anyone who improves it?
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.
It sounds to me like the real issue there has nothing to do with the license or with doing other people's work for them, and everything to do with stupidly bad patents.
Parent
Re:Everything Microsoft does is evil... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Parent
Re:Anti-Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
it goes like this, MS doesn't give anything to Windows-based open source [reddevnews.com] 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.
Parent
Re:Anti-Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Anti-Linux? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, we're in a really bad position here. Anyone who helps to make our own Open Source software run better on the Microsoft platform is helping that platform take share from the Open Source platform.
Pretty good play by Microsoft, huh?
I am not saying that Apache is selling out. But I am saying that Apache licensing is being used here to reduce the share of our own platform. Which I think indicates that Apache licensing isn't the best strategy.
Parent
Re:Anti-Linux? (Score:4, Informative)
Should Apache 'take one for the "team"'? No.
Parent
Re:Anti-Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Bruce Perens link (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Bruce Perens link (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Angle? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, you'll hire that teacher caught molesting their students because they say they want to help children? Microsoft has a long and sordid history of setealing intellectual property, claiming the success of open source projects they invest in and yet violating the published API's to lock out the software of the open source authors or public API publishers. This happened with Java, Kerberos, SPF, etc.
There is no reason to think they've changed policy.
Parent
Re:So... (Score:4, Informative)
that's a BSDaemon, thank you very much...
Parent