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."
Honestly? (Score:1, Interesting)
What's the angle? (Score:2, Interesting)
What's the angle? How about an aging relic of the 90s trying to appear relevant?
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:Perens not helpful (Score:1, Interesting)
So, if MS forks Apache... (Score:2, Interesting)
So, if MS forks Apache, will they still be able to call it Apache, or will they have to make up a new name for trademark reasons? If so, it'll just be another fork, won't it?
Can somebody explain TFA to me? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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?
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.
It's the DRM Stupid! (Score:2, Interesting)
Vista's customer-hostile emphasis on digital rights management ... caused its downfall. IT managers won't stand for that ...
Thank you Bruce. I've been saying this since a year before Vista even shipped. Folks complain about a lot of different things in Vista (some of it fairly, I think) but I see most of those "features" as mere pains-in-the-ass that I could begrudgingly live with. What really gets me and why I won't be installing Vista on any servers or desktops at work is the DRM. To me it's reminiscent of the campaign slogan from a few years ago - "It's the DRM Stupid!"
As far as the Apache/MS thing is concerned I thought IIS was mostly used on parked domains, so it's like who cares what they do? But what if Microsoft extended this idea to the desktop O/S? Start with the distro of their liking and build their own UI on top of it. Isn't that what so many of us have been hoping for?
Re:what? (Score:2, Interesting)
OK, Bruce. You have outlined the ways MS could be evil in this Apache interaction (or any other, I guess). We get it. There's Bad Stuff they could do.
But I am wondering - could you outline the ways they could be GOOD? Just to show us that the possibility exists in your mind, and that there is some possible way for MS to be anything but evil?
Re:Apache in Windows Server 2010? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Anti-Linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't object to people who are being paid for this making a living. If you aren't being paid, it might be a good idea to think about what you're doing and what its eventual effect might be.
Microsoft is not the first... (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems that Apache license allows you to modify and re-distribute without giving back the source. I bet the Apache foundation people gave a bit of thought about something like that happening before they chose the license and obviously they decided it wasn't that important.
Do people really think Microsoft will suddenly manage to destroy the Apache foundation because they said they wanted to contribute? I would suspect their sponsorship is going to strengthen Apache Foundation's capacity to penetrate more corporate entities. In some places the open source argument does mean anything to the decision makers but vendor support and an IBM/Microsoft backing certainly does.
Others like IBM have been doing just that and no one seemed to care. (http://www-306.ibm.com/software/webservers/httpservers/).
There are two versions of IBM HTTP Server, based in turn on 1.3 and 2.0 versions of open source Apache, but with small alterations to allow IBM to attach extra features. The code bases are maintained inside IBM, where IBM keeps them up to date by selectively picking up and applying bug fixes from the open source Apache CVS repository.
Go get your IBM httpd trial and see if you get any source with it. (I didn't check because I don't really care).
I'm also pretty sure that amongst all the project of the Apache Foundation, the Apache httpd server is probably not the most interesting for them.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Re:Angle of teh dangle (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect it's just the opposite -- better Java interop with Microsoft technologies.
irrelevant analysis (Score:2, Interesting)
My Karma is gonna get a major dent from this, I know it. But there it is, folks. Apache isn't in danger from Microsoft because Apache is still free. Like totally free. Like not encumbered by any strings, free. Like get over yourself copyleft freaks, free.
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.
Re:irrelevant analysis (Score:3, Interesting)
I am having a little trouble figuring out if you are sarcastic or serious.
I have great respect for the BSD kernel projects, they do some things a lot better than Linux. But if you compare the pace of kernel development, by source-code line count, Linux tremendously outpaces BSD kernel development.
What you're left with after that is a lot of Java projects. Which are great for enterprise, right now. But building a stack of new Java code is definitely building today's code for today, not tomorrow's code. Java is the conservative choice of enterprise at the moment.
And then there are community issues, like the Spring bug that showed us that this enterprise-critical code wasn't getting the eyes that an Open Source project with more non-company programmers does.
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.
Re:what? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Okay, Let's Assume the Apache License was GPL (Score:3, Interesting)
Given a standard interface, we can code it. It's the secret ones that are a problem.
Re:community issues (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, actually. It works if you have a real community. Go read about what happened with the Firebird DB. It worked for Debian's SSL snafu, although it took longer than I'd like. It didn't work for Spring, because it was a single-company-dominated project.
Re:Apache in Windows Server 2010? (Score:2, Interesting)
.
I find a link more persuasive than a bald assertion of fact. Particularly when I see a mod up to +4.
Re:Apache in Windows Server 2010? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, geez, we're talking about Netcraft, and it is right there in the Netcraft announcements:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2006/06/04/june_2006_web_server_survey.html [netcraft.com]
And if you Google around (you do know Google?), you'll see that places like GoDaddy are refusing to deny that Microsoft paid them for this.
Re:Relief (Score:3, Interesting)
Err no. MS doesn't usually make their code publicly available. I wonder where you saw it..
Probably on Codeplex [codeplex.com]
the code Microsoft develops by themselves haven't you? Its not pretty.
Microsoft is a big company. The code standards, and sometimes the language, will vary from department to department. At least.
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.
Re:irrelevant analysis (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it takes actual writing to write brand new stuff - but that still doesn't mean that someone who writes 1000 lines of code to implement $feature is more productive than someone else who writes 500 lines to implement the same feature. It just means they wrote more code; for all you know, it may have been too much code. That's not productive.
The point is that measuring raw kloc is like measuring raw GHz for processors - it only tells you a small part of the picture, and is often meaningless.
Re:Angle of teh dangle (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft can share, without using the GPL or the Apache license or any other "open source" license. They have, in the past, started many initiatives centered around source code. All of those were found inadequate, mostly because they all left Microsoft too much power, the developer of the code too little, and the end-user was IMHO an hostage. Now we see them picking one open source license(well two, they've been pro-BSD for some time), the least restrictive of them by their standards. They publicly try to smear the GPL, because the provisions of the GPL make such sharing mandatory. I liken this to in the real world, someone who gets told not to pee in the pool, and ingests a colouring, so his pee will not be blue, so he can say "well my pee ain't yellow, stop the other guy first". Microsoft, get with the program, what we want you is to stop treating software like it can be owned, so far, you seem unable to even think of not owning your software, so either just say you won't do it, or get sharing, but don't pretend, it'll only hurt in the long run.
What they are trying to do is to mount an offensive against Linux, through the GPL. The strategic idea behind this is the same as the Novell/Microsoft agreement: the only good software is per-seat licensed(paraphrase mine). My definition of good software is "I pay for software that helps me or my company, on my terms." The two are just not compatible, but I will hold to mine, because the alternative just lets Microsoft own my computer more than I do, through their size and agressive legalist practices.