When worlds collide: Microsoft funds Apache

Microsoft, one of the biggest rivals to open-source programming, has begun funding the Apache Software Foundation, one of open-source software's biggest supporters.

"Microsoft is becoming a sponsor of the Apache Software Foundation. This sponsorship will enable the ASF to pay administrators and other support staff so that ASF developers can focus on writing great software," said Sam Ramji, a senior director of platform strategy at Microsoft. He announced the move Friday in a speech at the Open Source Convention, and noted Microsoft's support of Apache on the software company's Port 25 blog as well.

Apache still leads Microsoft for Web server software market share. But the Apache Software Foundation has many more projects than just that early leader.

(Credit: NetCraft)

Obviously you might think this an opportune moment to cue up the soundtracks of record needles screeching and cars crashing into each other. But hold your horses.

For one thing, some within Microsoft have for years been making various encouraging words about open-source software, even though others have engaged in serious trash-talking. The company has no apparent desire to let the programming world have its way with Windows, as is possible with Linux, but Microsoft has been trying to make nice in some circles.

Playing nice with open source
For example, Microsoft has released its own open-source licenses and has put some technology under its Open Specification Promise, which lets open-source programmers use it. Also on Friday, Ramji said that policy makes it clear the promise applies to commercial uses of the technology, too.

Another example: Microsoft has been working closely with Zend for Windows support of PHP, an open-source project that lets servers create Web pages on the fly.

PHP is often used in conjunction with other open-source components: Linux, the Apache Web server software that's used to dish up Web pages, and the MySQL database that's used to store the data used to build Web pages elements such as online catalog pages or online forum postings. In fact, the four are used often enough that there's an acronym for it: LAMP.

But there's also the idea of WISP, which substitutes many of Microsoft's own components: Windows, Internet Information Services for a Web server, and SQL Server for the database. On Friday, Microsoft released a patch to ADOdb, a package PHP uses to access databases. The patch lets PHP use SQL Server.

In other words, some parts of Microsoft are learning how to play nice with some parts of the open-source world.

Apache's liberal license
Second is the Apache License that governs the foundation's projects. Many of Microsoft's attacks on open-source software were aimed at the General Public License, which has a reciprocity provision: If you make a change to a GPL project, then distribute software employing that change, you must share the change under the GPL.

The Apache License, though, lets programmers take software and combine it with proprietary software in any way, with no obligation to share. That's how IBM, for example, uses the Apache Web server software in its proprietary WebSphere product.

For Microsoft, that means Apache's projects can be used within Microsoft. And there are some that could be of interest.

Apache: Useful projects
Third is what the Apache Software Foundation is up to.

When it began, Apache didn't have too many projects under its umbrella besides the HTTP Web server that has surpassed Microsoft's competing products in market share since at least 1995, according to Netcraft's Web server survey.

Now Apache has dozens of projects.

Here's one that Microsoft, given its so-far fruitless efforts to catch up to Google in search, might enjoy: Hadoop, an open-source version of Google's MapReduce algorithm that's instrumental to processing huge data sets. Yahoo contributes to Hadoop and uses it in its own operations.

There's nothing stopping Microsoft from using Hadoop or any other Apache project without funding Apache, but sponsorship makes some sense for political and practical reasons.

[anythingbutmicrosoft]

It is insignificant what MS does or does not do re: internet servers. Despite MS's attempts at using its usual illegal monopolistic tactics, "the world has spoken" and put MS products in it's place. I would guess that if it wasn't for all the admins here in the states, Briton and Ausie swayed by corporate policies influenced by MS's illegal tactics and policies MS servers wouldn't even show up on the charts.

[The_Decider]

Of course MS would work with PHP. In terms of performance, reliability and security, PHP has as bad a track record as MS does.

Beware the gift to the Apache Foundation. Apache has been kicking the crap out of the lame MS server offerings for over 13 years. The fact that Apache is better than what MS can do, even on their OS's must tick Ballmer off to no end. Lets wait until the hook is visible or it is obvious there is no hook before applauding them.

Their prior history demands suspicion.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Your comments just go to prove how hypocritical you really are. Here is exactly what you've been lamenting Microsoft for ages to do- support open source and even get behind some good projects and products like Apache and now you condemn them for it.

Dude- get your story straight. Please pick one story and stick to it. Now you're complaining that they are HELPING them. That's just sad.

[The_Decider]

Dan,

There is no proof that they really are supporting OSS. Not one shred. Your comments prove how ignorant you are but we already knew it, so why keep posting?

I will admit that giving money to the Apache Foundation is much better than MS contributing code since MS couldn't write a hello world program that isn't unstable and riddled with security holes.

[Penguinisto]

Your explanation of the Apache Software License is too simplistic... Now the BSD license allows one to take open code and lock it down, but the ASF doesn't exactly work like that... you may want to read the Redistribution section a bit more closely. ;)

[rapier1]

Actually you can lock it down in the ASF license as well. No where in the redistribution section does it say that you are required to distribute source code. You must maintain attribution in the source code but you don't have to share the source code. You do have to maintain and redistribute any NOTICE files but this isn't source. More importantly, the redistribution clause allows for the imposition of new copyrights and license restrictions as long as they don't conflict with the ASF license. So I would have to argue that the author is fundamentally correct in their description of the ASFL.

[Penguinisto]

You can only lock down any modifcations. As for changing the license restrictions or copyright, you can only do so with your modifications, and not to the original. The BSD license OTOH allows you to lock-down all of it with only a bit of credit given in a file somewhere (like, say, a TCP/IP .dll file...)

[jinx101a]

Some people are quick to jump on Microsoft regardless of the context. Perhaps Microsoft simply wants to invest in Apache for a few reasons, 1.) Good PR, 2.) Maybe it sees uses for Apache in it's own company. Windows Server is extremly robust but is just too expensive for most users. Apache is time tested, proven, cheap and has a good support community (as opposed to other open source projects). Whatever Microsoft's motive's are, I don't see this as something to be wary of, the upside being that Apache can use the funds to expand their projects.

[The_Decider]

Even if the motives are to damage Apache?

What you and vegetable head don't realize is that motive is everything. That is why people are suspicious of this, why they were with the novell deal(time told us we were right to be), and why Gates gets mocked for his "philanthropy".

Because motives are everything.

[sughyosha]

The famous Linux LAMP stack = Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP.

What is the equivalent MS Stack? = Windows + IIS + MS-SQL + ASP/.NET/C#

Now read the strategy left to right -

Windows - vs - Linux? no way Win can ever become open source. SO there will be no changes on that score except some dubious announcements about "opening up Windows".

Apache vs IIS - Apache is way ahead of IIS, so MS needs to learn more about Apache - This is a very old strategy - be very close to your enemies - so contributing real money to Apache is a good strategy.

MS-SQL vs MySQL - MS recently released a "Free" version of MS-SQL - since they think that "money is the only thing" - it stands to reason that they think that a "Free MS-SQL = MySQL" - This is a very bad conclusion on their part and I am sure they will soon come to understand the error of their ways.

PHP vs ASP/.NET/C# - too many people use PHP (and swear by PHP) for MS to ignore. Cosying up with PHP will give the MS language designers a chance to work with "Real Language Designers" - imagine getting that for FREE!!

[dragonwithaheadache]

Why is it that everytime I see people bashing MS I get a major headache? Lets get some fact straight. First neither OS or Server program has everything for everyone. Second Linux and Windows are to very good Operating systems, unfortunately the support is still not where it needs to be for Linux. Three both OS's have issues that need to be resolved that is part of being in an ever evolving industry. If any one set back on past accomplishments then the IT industry as a hole would be come stagnant and stale. In simple terms that everyone will understand. Instead of complaining about this company or that OS let see what ideas you can come up with to help the industry.

[chillenious]

I think MS opening up for open source software is good news for everyone, including themselves. And I'm sure Apache welcomes diverse sponsorship.