As regular readers of this blog will know, I’m quite suspicious of anything Microsoft does. I’m also a huge fan of all things open source.
One of the darlings of the FOSS movement is Apache. As I understand it between 6% and 70% of all web servers run on Apache. They are fast, stable and reliable, far more so than any Microsoft web server. I know I wouldn’t use anything else and that this site and everything the Australian Centre for Democracy and Justice does online is brought to you by an Apache web server.
The other thing about Apache is that it’s licensing is quite relaxed. While everything under a GNU/GPL license has the “share alike” condition, requiring you to license any derivatives of the original in the same way, Apache’s licensing agreement does not. In other words, it’s quite possible to take the software, modify it, and make it closed source.
So, when Microsoft decided to give the Apache Foundation $100,000 a year, I get very worried. Unfortunately, anything else I could write her is speculation. And Bruce Perens has already done a lot of that work for me:
If they [Microsoft] 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.
IE is derived from Mosaic, the original Web browser, open source with a license similar to Apache’s. So, this isn’t a new strategy. The plan, then, could be to have Microsoft servers vie for dominance with their own – Microsoft specialized – versions of Apache applications. Or it could be that Microsoft sees itself replacing Linux in the market as a hosting platform for open source. Microsoft would run open source and .NET, while Linux would just run open source, and Mono, which is always going to trail behind .NET as Wine has trailed behind Windows.
(the rest of the article is well worth a read)