Apache has told Microsoft to stick its Sender ID proposal where the sun don't shine.
Microsoft's plan to force its license paperwork on Internet servers through the standards-setting process was thus dealt a real blow.
Apache (the name has nothing to do with the native American tribe -- it means "a patch-ee") on Linux is the leading Web server, and their refusal to play ball here is important. (But I happen to be a Burt Lancaster fan -- hence the illustration, a DVD release of his 1954 film "Apache.")
At issue, as I mentioned earlier, is a really sneaky attempt by Microsoft to get its concept of "intellectual property" (controlled by the creator even after you get it) made universal by pushing its technology into the evolving anti-spam standard. Microsoft grafted its own plan onto Meng Wong's SPF, then pulled out license paperwork that was incompatible with the General Public License (you don't just own it, you can see it and change it) and expected the community to roll over in order to get rid of spam.
All it's done, apparently, is piss people off.
Apache doesn't use the GPL or anything like it. Open source is not the same as GPL. Put another way, equating open source with the GPL is like equating John Kerry with decisiveness. There are many open source licenses which are borderline incompatible with the GPL, and the communities that continue to use those licenses pride themselves in not giving into the GPL nuts. The Apache Foundation is actually claiming that Microsoft's license is unfriendly to BSD-license derivatives, which is actually a much stronger condemnation.
Permalink to Comment