Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Sat 9th Aug 2008 23:00 UTC, submitted by fsmag
GNU, GPL, Open Source When the story about Microsoft shelling out $100,000 to Apache for ASF sponsorship broke across my radar it rather tickled my funny bone and my curiosity. When ASF Chairman Jim Jagielski declared that "Microsoft's sponsorship makes it clear that Microsoft 'gets it' regarding the ASF" I had a fit of the giggles and then, like many others, I started to ponder on the reasons why and what it actually meant. Gary Richmond explores Microsoft's motives. You can read the full article at Freesoftware Magazine
Thread beginning with comment 326378
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Thoughts...
by Almindor on Sun 10th Aug 2008 09:44 UTC in reply to "Thoughts..."
Almindor
Member since:
2006-01-16

I'd rather be paranoid than naive to the point of stupidity. Microsoft has openly waged war against open source for ages now, they think it's evil and anti-competitive blah blah blah (in other words they fail at competition).

Now.. if someone who's shooting bombs down your town came in with "sponsorship" during a time of war, something tells me you just wouldn't accept it.

The analogy might be a bit too far fetched but it holds, they are up to something which will only benefit them in the end and possibly damage Apache (which btw. is the same thing, by damaging Apache they benefit).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Thoughts...
by StephenBeDoper on Mon 11th Aug 2008 19:37 in reply to "RE: Thoughts..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I'd rather be paranoid than naive to the point of stupidity.


Excessive paranoia is just as naive as excessive credulity. Both are absolutist positions, both put authority/reputation above actual evidence.

There's a difference between informed wariness and a knee-jerk reaction of "OMG, it's Microsoft so it must be evil - sharpen the pitchforks and get those torches lit!"

Now.. if someone who's shooting bombs down your town came in with "sponsorship" during a time of war, something tells me you just wouldn't accept it.


Are you kidding? For one, that sounds like a "take the money and run" situation if ever there was one. For another, things are rarely that simple in the real world - if they were, then (for example) Microsoft would have immediately canned Office X the minute Apple's "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" campaign began airing.

they are up to something


Specifically?

which will only benefit them in the end and possibly damage Apache (which btw. is the same thing, by damaging Apache they benefit).


And *how* is Microsoft going to damage Apache? The only specific detail mentioned in the linked article is to draw a flimsy parallel with IE "killing" Mosiac (perhaps he meant Netscape?).

According to the page on Apache's site describing their sponsorship levels, a platinum-level sponorship gets Microsoft: a logo image on Apache's "thank you" page, a sponsorship logo image that Microsoft can put on their site, and a joint press release. It doesn't buy them any input into / control over Apache's development process - and even if it *did*, how long do you think it would take before someone started a fork?

If that's a strategy to "kill Apache," it's a pretty ill-conceived one.

Reply Parent Score: 2