If Microsoft so much as moves a finger, metaphorically, of course, someone is always there to claim it is a plot to destroy Linux and/or open-source software, or so it seems. Generally, I try to avoid commenting on these sorts of stories or promoting them at all. There are even some websites, which I will not name, which I now intentionally avoid due to their constant stream of Microsoft conspiracy theories that hold up little better than a piece of straw. Based on this policy of ignoring Microsoft-is-evil theories, I have tried to ignore Microsoft’s donations to the Apache Foundation, and the theories surrounding it. As this issues continue to creep back into the news, I can’t help but notice that two things are different about this issue: the concerns seem well grounded in facts, and many sources whom I respect are commenting on the story. This is all a way of saying that I am convinced that the Apache-Microsoft issues are worth commenting on.

For anyone unfamiliar with the general story, let me back up. All of this started when Microsoft decided to become a platinum sponsor of the Apache Foundation, meaning they will be donating $100,000 per year. A recent Free Software Magazine story covers the details quite well, if you are interested. Although this seems like good news at first, and it is — at least in part– it is not that simple.

Right now, most numbers seem to show that Linux – specifically LAMP – is dominant in the server market. Microsoft would, obviously, like to change that. There are basically two ways that becoming a platinum sponsor to the Apache Foundation helps them get there.

First, by donating to the Apache Foundation, Microsoft is supporting a less-restrictive open-source license. The GPL, possibly the most common open-source license, had restrictions that essentially mean, as I understand it, that any modifications made to GPL-licensed software must be released back under the GPL. The Apache License, however, does not have this protection.

Second, Microsoft presumably gains some influence with the Apache Foundation, which they could use to help get Apache better supported on the Windows side. This might help Microsoft convince customers to switch to Windows.

I believe that the more important of the two is the first one. It is not like Apache does not know about this weakness in their license. It is intentional and, ultimately, if Apache wants to keep it that way, no one can argue. The issue of open-source licenses will continue to be the subject of debate forever, probably, and, in a situation like this one where it is especially important, that debate may become quite aggressive. Ulitmately, however, it is up to the creators of the software to choose the terms of the license. Suggesting that everyone should standardize on one license is pointless as it will almost certainly never happen. All we can do is continue the argument in favor of our preferred license and hope that others will listen.

Related posts:

1. What Really Matters About Samba Getting Microsoft Documentation After the EU required Microsoft to share some of their...
2. An Amusing Diagram That Shows Two Important Realities for Microsoft Recently a diagram that depicts Microsoft’s “empire” competing or fighting...
3. Analyzing The Eee PC Windows Linux Price Issue Note: Everyone that pointed out that it is really only...
4. Microsoft And ODF: Bad For Everyone In shocking news, Microsoft’s support of ODF in Microsoft Office...
5. Microsoft Sucks Up to the EU, EU Gives Microsoft a $1.35 Billion Fine to Suck On Earlier this week Microsoft promised to be friendlier towards open-source...