Microsoft and Apache - What's the Angle? 433
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."
Angle of teh dangle (Score:5, Insightful)
Apache.NET?
Relief (Score:5, Insightful)
*breathe a sigh of relief*
Psst! (Score:1, Insightful)
I know, I know, you don't need the karma, but you never know if you run too low. It's happened to me.
Anti-Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure why this would be said to be an anti-Linux move. I realize that this might be what people sense with regards to the contribution, but like the article said the "Apache license is practically a no-strings gift". With Microsoft's new talk of becoming pro open source, this might become like Apple's contributions to BSD. You don't here anything bad about Apple with their use of BSD, but at every chance possible commenters are willing to frame MS in a bit light.
I just wanted to point out that this type of news should be addressed as unbiased as possible, as Slashdot isn't exactly respected as a home of unbiased views or anything.
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.
Re:Relief (Score:1, Insightful)
you've seen the code Microsoft develops by themselves havn't you? Its not pretty.
All the good stuff that MS has ever done, has been bought - either from buying the company, or the individual who developed it.
I suppose IIS8 might have a new configuration file and a picture of a feather in its logo.....
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.
Re:what? (Score:2, Insightful)
People around here will only be happy if Microsoft donates Windows' source and all of its assets to Stallman, while bitching about how Windows sucks anyway and that GNU should drop it and let it die. Then they'll gloat about it for the next 20 years.
Re:What's the angle? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft will stop being labeled evil when they stop doing evil things.
Since the great majority of what they do is either evil, anti-competitive, illegal, or stifles innovation (or any combination thereof) - the only way I see them not being evil anymore is if they cash in and dissolve.
Fat chance.
Everything Microsoft does is evil... (Score:3, Insightful)
...if something they do appears to not be evil, that's only because we're not looking at it the right way.
Microsoft has lots of money to hire key Apache developers, if they actually plan to use the code and want good service from its developers on a 24/7 basis. So, this $100,000 contribution and the partial patent grant aren't about interoperability.
Who says Microsoft wants to use this code? From the earlier article, it sounded like they wanted to improve the code that other people use, to make it easier to use on Windows. And this way they don't have difficulties with convincing people to become @microsoft.com, or with convincing people to trust and work with people @microsoft.com.
Last year, GPL went through a major revision, with the participation of dozens of attorneys from the world's largest companies, along with academics and individuals. That caught it up with the elaboration of copyright and patent law over the past quarter century. A second version, the AGPL, has evolved to deal with the business model of Google, software as a service instead of on the user's PC. That's fortunate, as GPL is going to be even more important now.
Because writing and using good, unique software is something that has to be "dealt with". Re-implementing parts that could be useful isn't enough, non-shared software is Evil and must never be allowed to be written.
Both kinds of developers may choose the GPL: the commercial ones because they want to keep their competitors from running away with the program without sharing their own work, and the individuals because they'd rather function as equal partners in enforced sharing than as unpaid employees who give all they create as a gift to the big company.
So if you make something available for everyone, you become the "unpaid employee" of anyone who improves it? Regardless of the fact that any further improvements you make will actually create more work for them to do (unless they send their changes back upstream)?
This also has philosophical issues, manufacturers of physical products don't get to forbid aftermarket modifications (and can't even void warranties just because of aftermarket work), why should this be considered a legitimate right for manufactures of knowledge (I know it's a legal right, but that doesn't make it reasonable)?
And most important, GPL is what developers will use if they welcome Microsoft's participation in their projects, but only on the same terms as everybody else.
Because BSD/MIT/X11 have wacky rules that apply differently to different kinds of contributors.
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.
Relief? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's pretty simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anti-Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure why this would be said to be an anti-Linux move. I realize that this might be what people sense with regards to the contribution, but like the article said the "Apache license is practically a no-strings gift".
That's exactly it. GPL has strings, so promoting something with no strings is clearly anti-GPL, which puts you on the "them" side of the "with us or against us" stance promoted by the FSF, which means you are clearly against anything on the "us" side, which includes Linux, which means you are anti-Linux.
"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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:Apache in Windows Server 2010? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not only is IIS not a cash cow, its not a revenue generator at all. Any attempt to use IIS to break standards would be seen for what it was, so any strategic value of IIS is mute.
That leaves Microsoft gulping down development costs on something that earns them zero revenue. Not smart. If they are smart they will incorporate Apache into Windows Server. That isn't evil, its exactly what Apache wants according to its license.
The big question is whether Microsoft will fork Apache. I don't believe they will. The reason is simple; if they fork they will lose the primary benefit - a community of developers doing their own work for them. No doubt they will add some cute GUI front end applications to make it look like IIS, and allow .Net to work seamlessly as it does on IIS, but what they won't do is fork core Apache.
Of course, they may not do much work on core Apache either, leaving that to the Apache team. But that isn't evil either.
Bottom line here is that I've always known Microsoft will have to come to terms with Open Source. Its painful for them, and there is no doubt huge argument about how to deal with it.
Fighting Open Source may work in the short term to slow adoption, but long term it is only delaying the inevitable. A more constructive strategy would be accepting a reduction in market share and finding a place in the market that is stable in the long term.
For example, Microsoft has no real interest in operating system kernels. Any money they spend on new kernels is a waste when there are free alternatives. The value they deliver to the market is a well known API. Applications written for Windows will run on Windows, and users need not consider what Windowing system they use, or what packages are installed.
What might be easier is using Firefox rather than IE. IE earns no cash, and Firefox is getting a better reputation. Why bother to continue development of a browser that competes with free?
Of course, that doesn't mean they will do the same with Office - as this earns them substantial revenue. But even here OpenOffice will no doubt erode their market share in the long term. I don't expect you will see MS supporting OpenOffice!
In summary, don't expect MS to be nice when it comes to their core earners, but they might cooperate when it comes to cost centers.
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.
Re:what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Another way to look at it:
They are Evil, you are Good
1) First they ignore you
2) Then the laugh at you
3) Then they fight you
4) Then they try to join you
We are at this stage now. Whatever they do is a step toward the same goal. It is not a change of heart. So they still are Evil....
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
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: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.
Re:Perens not helpful (Score:1, Insightful)
It is racist because the idiot fails to see the underlying social mechanism
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.
Re:I like the GPL, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anti-Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
With Microsoft's new talk of becoming pro open source, this might become like Apple's contributions to BSD. You don't here anything bad about Apple with their use of BSD, but at every chance possible commenters are willing to frame MS in a bit light.
Oh, yes like I really want to trust a company who has a leader that Wikipedia says
Ballmer is also known as a vocal critic of competing companies and their products. He has referred to the free Linux operating system as a "[...] cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches." Ballmer was trying to articulate his concern that the GNU General Public License (GPL) license employed by such software requires that all derivative software be under the GPL or a compatible free license.
or the leader that says "Fucking Eric Schmidt is a fucking pussy. I'm going to fucking bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to fucking kill Google,".
And it isn't just Ballmer, Gates made it clear back in the early days of MS that they hated OSS in the open letter to hobbyists.
Jobs hasn't said comparable things, neither has he said that he was going to kill a competitor, nor that he hated OSS.
Re:Angle of teh dangle (Score:2, 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.
Apache/.NET interoperability would be a good thing but one can only assume this is one of their goals - nothing has even been confirmed yet! For all we know Microsoft could be genuinely turning over a new leaf Post-Gates and we should be so lucky to have such a major player join the ranks.
They at least deserve the benefit of the doubt right now, and if Microsoft's intentions are legitimate we should be welcoming them to make this agreement work out for all parties involved; don't you dare suggest "their past track record speaks otherwise." Are you from Microsoft? Are you in a position to know what they are trying to acheive? If not, you have one of two choices: Offer helpful contributions to the project in hopes that something goes the way you would like. Or STFU and enjoy the ride.
Re:what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Put down the gun. That means the software patent gun in this case. Completely, and without being forced by anti-trust regulators.
Bruce
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.
Re:WCF and CXF (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ?
Re:Perens not helpful (Score:1, Insightful)
Because correlation != causation ... acknowledging to different to attributing IQ to skin colour. Let's say that IQ was instead to do with economics and that groups of humanity (of all races) have at times failed and at other times flourished... societies can be destroyed and education can fail, whereas other groups of society grouped by location, gender, race or age can grow and prosper. Don't think about it as race, think about it as how people group themselves based on their perceived identity or commonalities. Cultural Isolation has a much larger statistical affect,
If you are trying to say that black IQ is lesser then I'd put it back on you -- where's the genetic cause of this? Where's the genetic flaw that afflicts black people? It's only then that you'll have evidence, other than your pointed statistics with racist implications.
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.
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..
Re:what? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're not against proprietary licenses. You like them - you think MySQL's dual-licensing scheme is cool. When MySQL developers makes US$ 1.1 billion perverting the GPL, it's all right. You just hate when Redmond makes a billion.
What a fucking lopsided logic. You either are against proprietary licenses, or you aren't. That is Stallman's religion and you are on the road to apostasy.
You just don't like business-friendly licenses. Well, Apache just got US$ 100,000, Apple gave FreeBSD patches and a security framework, etc.
Face it: GPL world domination is not gonna happen, Perens. It's better that the Windows people use better quality software - like Apache - it makes the world a better, safer, more interoperable place.
Re:Anti-Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
Backing up Bruce's reasoning with a more selfish point of view.
If you develop and get given money then you have received your payment, irrespective of what license you choose. If you develop and don't get given money then the GPL "pays" you in the form of reciprocal freedom.
If you don't use the GPL you have to be prepared to receive no "payment" for your work, taking comfort in the fact that there is no personal cost to you when others benefit from your work. You have to enjoy developing software for a hobby or you should go and find a more worthy charity to contribute to. It's a personal choice.
There is a worse scenario if your software has a community attached to it and you care about the continuity of your community. If you don't use the GPL you have to be prepared for a third party to co-opt your community, by embracing your software, extending it, luring your community away with the extensions then refusing to share the extensions with the community. In this way you and the community are locked out of further development, even though to technically own most of the software. Maybe your community is loyal enough to stick around, maybe not. I would guess developers would stick around longer than users, though in the case of networked software (most software?) Metcalfe's Law [wikipedia.org] ensures that the developers will follow the user community. In this case you have incurred a personal cost by not using the GPL.
The first reason makes me lean towards copyleft licenses, such as the GPL. The second reason means I will only work (unpaid) inside the GPL, unless there is no other option.
There are all sorts of other altruistic reasons to to use the GPL, but the GPL can be justified without resorting to them.
Re:Angle of teh dangle (Score:2, Insightful)
really, sir, you can't be any more abrasive than to tell the linux community to give microsoft the benefit of the doubt. microsoft is a business, and the relevance here is "what's in it for them?"
that's how we should think and what we should believe. any semblance of benevolence must, by business' nature, cultivate an advantage that will pay.
the only leaf any big business will ever turn while staying in business is to make what is truly productive and helpful serve their own purposes.
microsoft has every reason to embrace open source, linux, and the agenda of the free software foundation (or whatever it's called): linux works and is a profound competition to microsoft. apache and all web-based utilities are the most relevant tools linux threatens microsoft with.
and the more clearly microsoft pursues what people want, the more often they will be appreciated.
please: never ask reasonable people to forget a past that has consistently predicted the future. microsoft is in it for the money, not the goodwill.
regards,
timothy j. holloway
Re:Angle of teh dangle (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I fail to see the "huge step". Microsoft has been using BSD/Apache-licensed software for years.
And, no, Microsoft doesn't "deserve" anything; they still owe the public many billions of dollars that they have misappropriated.
Re:what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what? (Score:3, Insightful)
They can disavow it where we are concerned, because we're not aiming one at them. This doesn't mean they can't keep their options open against other proprietary software.
serious (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux is already being marginalized in the market, and the reasons have nothing to do with Microsoft. Linux vendors are following, not leading. They are so busy forking distros so they can slap their logo on the desktop that they have entirely failed to make Linux usable. Honestly, I wish Linux didn't suck. It does. Religious adherence to GPL, I'm becoming convinced, is one of the reasons why it continues to suck, and will continue to suck, forever, in a niche ghetto.
Re:Microsoft is not the first... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, some of us have been saying for about 15 years that BSD-style licensing can be cruelly used by folks who want to be cruel, and that unfortunately the world has enough cruel folks that we're going to be hurt. So, don't tell me that it's my rules that are the problem.
And I am no fan of how IBM handled Apache either, and we also have IBM to blame for the software patent situation.
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?
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.
Re:Anti-Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, Qt and KDE4, Gtk2/win32, MySQL and PostgreSQL, PHP and Python, all those projects and people who run them - they are all traitors of OSS ideals;, since they all make Win32 versions, and often provide binaries and convenient installers for them?
Re:It's pretty simple (Score:3, Insightful)
If they win on technical merit alone - by, say, contributing good code under OSS license to the projects involved - then I don't see anything wrong with it. Fair's fair - if OSS is by itself as good as it often claims to be, then surely it can stand its ground in that fight? You know, organize a hackathon to improve performance of Apache on Linux even further, come up with a convenient server management GUI and integrate it into enterprise distros such as RHEL, etc.
Whereas looking for "enemies of the people" among the OSS croud is probably the silliest idea in these circumstances, and extremely destructive as well. FSF bitching about ASF, the latter reciprocating, and the rest of the OSS community taking stands on both sides of the issue - why, if you truly think that Ballmer sleeps and dreams of the demise of open source, then surely such a split would make his day!
Re:serious (Score:3, Insightful)
Most users aren't even really affected by the forking going on. They use Ubuntu, Fedora or OpenSUSE and when they start really learning Linux they might wander off to Debian, CentOS or even Gentoo. Most minor distros don't get any media attention and are simply obscure. Distros like STD are very much welcome by the people who actually have to need for them but unknown to those who don't.
And I don't really think that someone who builds his own DSL derivative to make a Linux-based game console would improve the quality of Fedora or Ubuntu if he didn't have the choice of making his own distro. His motivation is completely different and he might not even get to participate.
Also, the GPL has nothing to do with distros whatsoever. After all, what about BSD? There's OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, TrustedBSD, DragonflyBSD, M0n0wall, PicoBSD, DesktopBSD, BSDeviant, FreeSBIE, pfSense... Either they relicensed 386BSD while I wasn't looking or the GPL isn't quite at fault.
The balkanization of distros comes from the fact that you can take the kernel and freely combine it with other software as you see fit. If you really want to stop that you'd have to use Windows-style integration where the Linux kernel automatically includes GNOME and Apache httpd so that people won't be able to build their own distributions without those. Or you simply don't release the source to the kernel and only offer it in one single package with the software you dictate. Which would be a bit counterproductive in an Open Source project.
Re:Apache in Windows Server 2010? (Score:3, Insightful)
.
and to quote from your own link: "While those parked domains were a major factor in Microsoft's gains, Windows also saw solid growth in active sites, hostnames that contain content and likely to represent developed web sites."
Why stop at 2006?
Microsoft's IIS web server grows by 2 million sites, boosting market share by 0.36%, [to 35%] but Apache remains in the lead with a total of 49.1%.
June 2008 Web Server Survey [netcraft.com]
And if you Google around (you do know Google?)
Yes I know Google.
But why should I have to fact-check every post? Without so much as a starting point to begin?
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?