Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

ehrichweiss

Fri Aug 01 11:33:20 -0700 2008

manage

Very interesting, and likely hits really close to the target. I don't know why I never noticed that Apache never was GPL'ed but that's something to take note of to be certain.

On that note, I know that Linux is starting to gain popularity among desktop users because my "sifu"(martial arts "master") of all people happened to talk about how he wanted to eventually move to Linux and I suspect that I'll be setting up a Fedora box for them tonight to handle their needs in the office.

It's these little changes that make a big impact in the long run. As a community I think it is definitely time to start paying more attention to developing FOR Microsoft under open source to sort of beat them at their own game since they're a bit more inexperienced at open source than many of us are at their "standards".

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

Skyler Visconti

Fri Aug 01 11:47:38 -0700 2008

manage

Apache doesn't need Microsoft, and last I checked hackers aren't writing code they don't want to write. I certainly don't want to be mistaken as a Microsoft shill (I don't use their products) but I can think of worse offenders... Apple. But of course their products are pretty, so we're not supposed to notice? Yet every OS Con I've been to I end up seeing apple products everywhere, what gives? Microsoft hands Apache money, and Apple puchases copyrights, who's the worst offender?

I know that big evil companies always have an angle, but seriously, who's "angle" is more anticompetitive, Apple's or Microsoft's. I work with MANY "open source advocates", and to my knowedge, all of them own at least one Apple product, with no concern for Apple's anticompetitive behavior.

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

Bruce Perens

Fri Aug 01 12:35:34 -0700 2008

manage

I make a point of carrying a laptop that runs Debian. I am disappointed at the so-called Open Source evangelists who carry Macs, I question their authenticity.

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

stephen

Fri Aug 01 12:57:40 -0700 2008

manage

Do you know that they are running osX and not Linux?

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

OmniGeek

Fri Aug 01 13:07:07 -0700 2008

manage

It's a fairly good bet -- otherwise why pay the added cost penalty for Apple hardware? I'm not dissing Apple's hardware, it's just that there are much better cost/performance options for running Linux, so it's not a high-probability combination.

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

Bruce Perens

Fri Aug 01 13:41:50 -0700 2008

manage

An Open Source evangelist running Linux on Mac hardware would put a penguin over the Apple logo to make that clear, and you'd be able to see what was on the system anyway.

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

Nathan Smith

Fri Aug 01 14:39:16 -0700 2008

manage

Well, as an enthusiastic FOSS on Apple user, I can report there are no Tux stickers on my hardware.  That is probably due to my lack of Tux stickers, though. =P

After b43 (then bcm43xx) made it into the kernel, my iBook G4 has been a dream FOSS laptop.  Running Gentoo, everything works how I need it to.

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

Charles E Hill

Fri Aug 01 14:50:17 -0700 2008

manage

Now we know what to get you for Christmas!

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

Tim S

Sun Aug 03 19:09:07 -0700 2008

manage

All of my systems that run on Linux have been rebadged with these.

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

Skyler Visconti

Wed Aug 06 08:02:35 -0700 2008

manage

As far as the people I work with, they're ALL running OSX on their Macs. Very few (less than 5) people I've seen at OS Cons have been running a GNU/Linux Distro, and most were running a dual boot, or virtualized GNU/Linux distro on OSX.

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

eydelber

Fri Aug 01 12:10:31 -0700 2008

manage

FYI, from Microsoft (Sam Ramji) at OSCON 6 days ago:

http://port25.technet.com/archive/2008/07/25/oscon2008.aspx

"It’s critical to understand two things about our sponsorship of the ASF: what it is, and what it is not.

It is not a move away from IIS as Microsoft’s strategic web server technology.  We have invested significantly in refactoring and adding new, state-of-the-art features to IIS, including support for PHP.  We will continue to invest in IIS for the long term and are currently under way with development of IIS 8.

It is a strong endorsement of The Apache Way, and opens a new chapter in our relationship with the ASF.  We have worked with Apache POI, Apache Axis2, Jakarta, and other projects in the last year, and we will continue our technical support and interoperability testing work for this open source software."

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

eydelber

Fri Aug 01 12:15:06 -0700 2008

manage

Ahhh, sorry, I didn't RTFA, Bruce. You deal with these talking points in your paragraph here:

"But Microsoft is only joining Apache to be interoperable, protest their apologists. Let's look then, at what Microsoft has to do to be interoperable. Microsoft can use Apache project code in their own proprietary software without being a member of the project, and without paying anything, because the Apache license is a gift with no strings attached."

I generally agree; however, they have put some interop work into Axis as far as I know, along with IBM and the powerhouses to do WS-*, no?

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

zotz

Fri Aug 01 13:38:47 -0700 2008

manage

"Now, it's time for legislatures to wake up: national and international law must adapt to make the world safe for both open source and proprietary software development."

It is indeed time for the law to be updated to reflect the advantages of Free Software and other works.

I write of a need for a copyright offensive here:

Some thoughts on a "Copyright Offensive"

Also a simple idea for patent reform here:

Simple Idea For Patent Reform

With respect to the copyright offensive, the basic idea is to have a bold plan for law changes that will seriously advantage the Free side of things such that if we then have to compromise, the compromise will still result in a net gain instead of the compromises that for a long while have resulted in net losses.

Thoughts / input / improvements appreciated.

all the best,

drew

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

Charles E Hill

Fri Aug 01 14:08:32 -0700 2008

manage

Just for convenient reference:

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 8

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

This is the foundation for Copyright and Patent law in the United States.  Everything else derives from here.

Copyrights and patents have one and only one purpose according to this statement:  To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.  We have long strayed from that end by legislating what amounts to be perpetual copyright.

While your ideas are interesting, I think a much simpler method could be used: limit the duration of copyright to 10 or 25 years, non-renewable.  No exceptions, no variations for "works for hire".  After that period the work enters public domain.

While the rights under copyright are granted to the author, there is nothing stopping them from then granting permission equivalent to copyleft without codifying it in law.  That is, if I'm granted copyright on a work I can grant "share alike" or "copyleft" permissions with a simple letter or public statement.  That is already part of the law and is the reason things like the Creative Commons and Copyleft licenses are legal.

Your ideas are interesting, but I think you're over complicating matters.

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

zotz

Fri Aug 01 14:18:33 -0700 2008

manage

Thanks for your response.

" While your ideas are interesting, I think a much simpler method could be used: limit the duration of copyright to 10 or 25 years, non-renewable.  No exceptions, no variations for "works for hire".  After that period the work enters public domain."

I would not argue with that so much except to say that I think it might be harder to get there in one jump. People have been calling for such for a long time with things going in the other direction at every change from what I can see.

" While the rights under copyright are granted to the author, there is nothing stopping them from then granting permission equivalent to copyleft without codifying it in law."

I know but I propose no automatic copyright without a notice, only a copyleft. That would make a huge practical difference right away. I mean, why give you a copyright if you can't even be bothered to put a copyright notice on your work. You could put such in the public domain but I seem to recall that treaties say no to that option. A copyleft might be a workable compromise that would fit the treaties.

Some of these are standalone points. And, as I said, they are meant to be something to push for but to be able to compromise on and still make progress.

Your proposal seems more an all or nothing option and perhaps that is why we are making no progress on that front.

Thoughts?

all the best,

drew

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

Charles E Hill

Fri Aug 01 14:32:07 -0700 2008

manage

I believe the automatic copyright comes from the Berne Convention.  We'd have to withdraw from that treaty to correct that issue.  Which, in turn, would require withdrawal from the World Trade Organization.  Hmmm...

Further digging shows we are neck deep in international treaties regarding copyright and intellectual property.  No wonder it is so difficult to change.

Now that I look at it, neither your way nor mine are compatible with all that.  We'd have to basically withdraw from a half-dozen international treaties, tell the U.N., WIPO and WTO to fuck off, and change decades of law.

Not that I have any problem with all of that.  :-)

Not that I have any problem with all of that. :-)

zogger

Fri Aug 01 16:59:10 -0700 2008

manage

HAHAHAHAHAHA! man, a lot of stuff there is bogus, agenda 21, the international small arms left field gun grab (their goal is to have only the "state" to have means of defense, a "monopoly on force"..hello, the "state" has killed more of their own people than all the criminals in the world since time began), having totally unelected world leaders who are only appointed through some cabal of uberleet folks. I think we need something like the UN, but not the UN as it is now.

And I like the "stealth" UN forces, the global controllers, bilderberg group, CFR, big criminal orgs, etc, even *less*. Bottom line is I just have no use whatsoever for aristocratic megalomaniacs. They have always been the biggest danger to human kind on earth. Because they are batsquat nuts. And powerful.

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

zotz

Fri Aug 01 20:25:09 -0700 2008

manage

"I believe the automatic copyright comes from the Berne Convention.  We'd have to withdraw from that treaty to correct that issue.  Which, in turn, would require withdrawal from the World Trade Organization.  Hmmm..."

Perhaps, but an automatic copyleft would in fact be an automatic copyright but with different terms. I have not gone too deeply into whether those terms would meet the terms of the agreement.

all the best,

drew

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

Michael Smith

Fri Aug 01 17:53:44 -0700 2008

manage

I think a much simpler method could be used: limit the duration of copyright to 10 or 25 years, non-renewable. No exceptions, no variations for "works for hire". After that period the work enters public domain.

If you went that way, much of GNU would soon be entering the public domain. It would put a brake on GPL v3. I am not sure that is a good idea.

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

Charles E Hill

Fri Aug 01 18:32:04 -0700 2008

manage

Software is interesting, as you could argue that each revision is a derivative work and entitle to its own copyright.

The first versions of GNU Emacs and GCC would now be public domain, but is that a bad thing?  We're talking some old stuff, here.

Using the 25-year timeframe, Linux 0.1 was released to the net in 1991.  It wouldn't be until 2016 that it would become PD.  We're talking v0.1 here.

Yes, there would have to be a threshold for changes to warrant a new copyright.  Otherwise people would change one bit and want a new copyright.  There is already precedent for this in determining derivative works.

25 years is a very long time in the computer world.

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

Todd Goyen

Sat Aug 02 15:34:34 -0700 2008

manage

Why not make the GPLv4 have a new clause then where the copyright expires in 25 years....

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

Charles E Hill

Sat Aug 02 15:41:06 -0700 2008

manage

Copyright is enshrined in U.S. law.  A simple clause in the license won't do it, I don't think.  I believe, and I am not a copyright attorney, the copyright holder would have to explicitely release the work into the public domain at that time.

After taking a peak at the Berne Convention Treaty, the U.S. laws enacting it along with both the House and Senata commentary, and the bulk of copyright law so far, I'm depressed.  Only the U.S. Tax Code comes near it for complexity, opaqueness and confusion.

I've decided to just carry on as I always have -- doing what I feel is right with copyright-related items and saying "to hell with the lawyers".  Being mostly a consumer, and not a copyright producer, it is fairly simple to do.

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

zotz

Fri Aug 01 20:23:03 -0700 2008

manage

"If you went that way, much of GNU would soon be entering the public domain. It would put a brake on GPL v3. I am not sure that is a good idea."

I tend to think that way at times too but since the GPL was designed as a way to try and undo the harm caused by copyright, surely the harm caused by copyright could be undone by not allowing copyright on software in the first place.

Now, having a shorter copyright than now might or might not increase the harm caused by copyright as copyright would still exist, but if it were done away with completely, it could not possibly cause harm...

all the best,

drew

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

Uncle Entity

Fri Aug 01 14:40:54 -0700 2008

manage

I don't know about the declared value + 5% part or the tax on declared value on copyright.

The first is basically a price fixing measure on the part of the government and doesn't really take into account the fact that a 'copyright' could be more valuable than the amount of the individual pieces that were sold for various reasons, value being subjective and all that.

The tax part also has failings, how much is each page view worth compared to a published book or the movie rights on the same work?

I could go on but people might get the idea that I'm actually for copyright and patents.

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

zotz

Fri Aug 01 20:18:33 -0700 2008

manage

"I don't know about the declared value + 5% part or the tax on declared value on copyright."

That idea is in there for the people who insist on copyrights being deemed intellectual property. It is a property tax in their intellectual property.

Not to worry, they get to set the value so the government can't set too high a value on their property and over tax them.

They can also avoid the tax by using a copyleft license (Free) on the work.

Problems? Unfair? (As is, not as can be messed up.)

If the tax part has its failings, it could still be a start. How can the idea be improved?

all the best,

drew

Dot Net Nuke

Charles E Hill

Fri Aug 01 13:42:57 -0700 2008

manage

One example of how this can play out is Dot Net Nuke.   This is a BSD-licensed web content management framework, similar to PHPNuke or Zope.  One of the points they have on their main page is:

Open Source – DotNetNuke is provided for free, with full source code, licensed under a standard BSD open source license agreement. It allows individuals to do whatever they wish with the application framework, both commercially and non-commercially, with the simple requirement of giving credit back to the DotNetNuke community.

Joy!  Open Source magic pixie dust!

It requires a database backend.  While it is technically possible to make it work on any database, no one has really done it.  It pretty much requires MS SQL Server, which in turn means a Windows Server license.  Good luck running it on anything other than IIS.  It can be done, but you're asking for trouble.

Also, from their home page:

DotNetNuke is designed for use on the Microsoft ASP.NET 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5 platforms using Visual Studio 2005, Visual Studio 2008, or Visual Web Developer.

This powerful component, because of a "gift" license, is tied inextricably to Microsoft IIS, SQL Server and .NET.

I expect Microsoft to do the same with Apache.  A custom version of Apache that requires a Windows Server license, tied to .NET and a bunch of stuff that only works with SQL Server.

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

disco

Fri Aug 01 15:10:04 -0700 2008

manage

> Microsoft can use Apache project code in their own proprietary software

Is this true if their own code is licensed by something other than the Apache license? Can they copy Apache code into MS-Office and sell it under an MS license?

Microsoft and Apache: What's the Angle?

Uncle Entity

Fri Aug 01 16:57:33 -0700 2008

manage

Yep.

As long as they give credit to where they got the code.

Assuming it's close to the BSD license since I've never looked at the apache one and TFA made that claim.