| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Microsoft to subborn subversion of the Apache Software Foundation (ars technica)Microsoft to subborn subversion of the Apache Software Foundation (ars technica)Posted Jul 25, 2008 20:41 UTC (Fri) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256)Parent article: Microsoft to sponsor the Apache Software Foundation (ars technica)
I call bull! ... "likely to be driven by consumer demand for interoperability" ... What interoperability problem is there for Windows users of Apache? What would prevent Microsoft from making any changes needed (to their OS or to the Apache sources) to achieve this interoperation? As it stands, I don't know of anything preventing MS users from running Apache on their Windows systems. They *might* need to install Cygwin ... but that's just as free as Apache. I think Apache can be compiled to run under Win32 APIs directly .. without any need to install Cygwin. There *might* be some performance issues (comparing Apache under Linux to the same version of Apache under MS Windows). If we stretch the meaning of "interoperability" to include performance issues then we can still say that Microsoft already has all the resources and licenses necessary to make any improvements they like to their OS and to the Apache sources. So it is absurd, on the face of it, to claim that Microsoft's motivation for spending this money has anything to do with technical interoperability. It is, at best, PR fluff. It's far more likely that Microsoft hopes to eventually buy enough influence through their "contributions" so that they can later gain some advantage thereby. Given their history any leverage they gain is likely to be used in a way which i hostile to Microsoft's "competition" (which fundamentally is any operating system that isn't owned by their brand). To Microsoft "fostering its own community" means: tie your applications to our OS so that your users must be our customers. They realize that they can't start with this ... but they can lure people in with "contributions" ... choose some key applications and spray enough money towards them in the short term that the organizations behind them (ASF, for example) become dependent on MS for most of their funding. At which point the mere risk of losing that funding will provide tremendous influence on the decisions made by those organizations (even if no overt threats are made). My recommendations to ASF: accept the money, but only under the most ironclad guarantees of non-interference and only so long as measures can be undertaken to avoid dependence on future recurring funds from that source. Take extra care to assure the public (and various open source and free software communities) about your organization's continued independence ... and be prepared with full disclosure of the terms. Make absolutely certain that there is nothing in these terms that even hints at any sort of "patent covenant." Have the meanest, most devious detractors scrutinize the proposal prior to acceptance with an eye toward devising the slimiest, sneakiest most duplicitous way that those terms might be used in hostile PR. Forbid Microsoft from speaking on behalf of Apache foundation and require that all references to Apache by Microsoft representatives and publications shall refer readers to the ASF web site. In short: beware!
(Log in to post comments)
Microsoft to subborn subversion of the Apache Software Foundation (ars technica) Posted Jul 25, 2008 21:09 UTC (Fri) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] See the groklaw article on the issue (also somewhat cautious). The important bit is that GPL software is suddenly indemnified from patent lawsuits if the implement MS's "open" protocols. That's new?
Microsoft to subborn subversion of the Apache Software Foundation (ars technica) Posted Jul 25, 2008 21:24 UTC (Fri) by AlexHudson (guest, #41828) [Link] As far as I can tell, the OSP itself hasn't changed - just MS's FAQ on it. So either you have to believe that it was always ok in the first place (and, I guess, go along with OpenOffice.org et al), or you believe that MS are lying and it still doesn't offer the necessary rights. Groklaw I would trust about as far as I can sneeze their website on this issue, but I don't understand why PJ has suddenly u-turned. Trying to make an FAQ update look like a license change to back-pedal quietly, perhaps?
Microsoft to subborn subversion of the Apache Software Foundation (ars technica) Posted Jul 25, 2008 21:54 UTC (Fri) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link] That FAQ itself becomes legal protection. By affirming that GPL is protected in the FAQ they create legitimate defense against action by Microsoft because they now say that the language of the agreement says as much. As this isn't a contract the Judge isn't limited to the plain language of the "promise" and can consider other sources of information such as Microsoft's own FAQ where they try to explain the agreement in plain language. This promise and FAQ on the promise creates a legal expectation that MS won't sue, if they do sue they could probably terminate rights at the cost of reimbursing anyone that spent money or took reasonable actions based on this promise.
Microsoft to subborn subversion of the Apache Software Foundation (ars technica) Posted Jul 25, 2008 22:15 UTC (Fri) by AlexHudson (guest, #41828) [Link] It creates a potential defense, but it doesn't change the language of the OSP, or override it - the FAQ isn't legal advice. I think the problem was that without that statement, there was sufficient gap between people's interpretation of the OSP and what it actually said to argue that it wasn't good enough. I think that gap has narrowed a lot.
OSP GPL compatible now? Posted Jul 25, 2008 23:46 UTC (Fri) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link] It would be interesting to know if that FAQ entry covers all the issues discovered by the SFLC: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/osp-gpl.html
Microsoft to subborn subversion of the Apache Software Foundation (ars technica) Posted Jul 28, 2008 3:37 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] On the contrary, an FAQ officially published by Microsoft constitutes a promise. If the original license didn't permit something, but an official document permits it, it provides a legal defense.
Microsoft to subborn subversion of the Apache Software Foundation (ars technica) Posted Jul 28, 2008 11:03 UTC (Mon) by AlexHudson (guest, #41828) [Link] "On the contrary"? I agree it provided a defence. I guess maybe I'm less certain that a paragraph in a FAQ trumps the actual legal text than you are...
Microsoft to subborn subversion of the Apache Software Foundation (ars technica) Posted Jul 28, 2008 7:08 UTC (Mon) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] The defense would be "promissory estoppel". If MS tries to sue, they are "estopped" (legalese for stopped, more or less) by the promise they made in the FAQ. The basic principle is that it's unfair, unjust (and impolite) to tell somebody it's okay to do something and then turn around and sue them for doing it. IA,however,NAL
Microsoft to subborn subversion of the Apache Software Foundation (ars technica) Posted Jul 31, 2008 2:40 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] As I understand it, it's a little more subtle than that (at least under UK law, which I have studied formally but am not qualified in). If you have the right to enforce a particular contract, or part thereof, and you promise not to pursue that right for a particular length of time, and people rely on that promise, you are estopped from then going back later and saying "actually no, I did want to enforce that clause after all". You can change it in the future - you can say "I will be enforcing this clause from now on"; you aren't bound by your promise then to forever forswear from enforcement - but you cannot pursue action retroactively when you said you wouldn't, even though you legally had the right to do so at the time. But basically, yes - the law frowns on setting contractual bear traps for people, and the doctrine of promisory estoppel is what will prevent your bear trap from catching anyone.
Microsoft to subborn subversion of the Apache Software Foundation (ars technica) Posted Jul 25, 2008 23:49 UTC (Fri) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] >The important bit is that GPL software is suddenly indemnified from patent lawsuits if the implement MS's "open" protocols. I might be missing something, but isn't the Apache license, in spirit, much closer to BSD than GPL? Or are you making a deeper point about somehow making it harder to run GPL'd software atop Apache?
Microsoft to subborn subversion of the Apache Software Foundation (ars technica) Posted Jul 25, 2008 21:48 UTC (Fri) by Sutoka (guest, #43890) [Link] It's be /several/ years since I tried Apache on Windows (assuming this is about the web server and not just in general), and it run and work, but 'work' isn't all there is to interoperability. The web server integrating nicely with Windows' other tools, like the service manager (iirc, this didn't work well when I tried it) and anything else like that can also help. 'Interoperability' could also be a GUI configuration system that integrates with the Administrative Tools on Windows, or using some of Vista's security features. If you put aside Microsoft's long history of hidden-agendas and duplicity, that statement could be perfectly reasonable. Microsoft could make the changes themselves, but spending 100k on having on of their developers do the work might scare some of Microsoft's lawyers/PR people, but just dropping 100k on the ASF would alleviate some of their fears while still helping to achieve their (hopefully positive) goals. Of course since this is Microsoft you have keep a close eye on anything they do, but simply being Microsoft doesn't *require* everything they do to be evil for all time.
remember when IBM was also called Itty Bitty Monopoly? Posted Jul 26, 2008 0:40 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] companies can turn around. keeping my fingers crossed, but examining things closely.
remember when IBM was also called Itty Bitty Monopoly? Posted Jul 27, 2008 4:59 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] """ companies can turn around. """ And once they do, they can turn back around faster. I'd say that now we have the snake by the tail.
Accepting the money without interference Posted Jul 26, 2008 9:27 UTC (Sat) by bdelacretaz (guest, #34675) [Link] > ...My recommendations to ASF: accept the money, but only under > the most ironclad guarantees of non-interference and only so > long as measures can be undertaken to avoid dependence on > future recurring funds from that source.... This is exactly what the ASF does: we do not accept directed donations, and as the list of sponsors at http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html shows, we are not dependent on any of them individually. As a public charity, our financial reports and board minutes are available at http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/ . The ASF is all about people, not companies, and our structure and rules have been designed so as to avoid any company interference. This is not always easy to execute, as many companies want to be associated with the ASF brand today, but as this is one of our core principles we spend a lot of energy in making sure we stay true to that. That's valid with respect to any company, be it a sponsor or not. -- Bertrand Delacretaz (expressing my own opinions, not an official ASF statement)
|
|
||||||||||||