I have been following Microsoft open source strategy from 3 years or so now, and they are not an exception: adaptation is a gradual process at Microsoft too.
Hank Janssen, Director of Program Management at the Microsoft Open Source Technology Center, over these days is traveling around Europe, and yesterday we had an interesting conversation about how open source things are going at Microsoft these days.
A suggestion for some future questions about Microsoft’s open source strategy might include specific questions around its strategy of selling Linux-related patents to patent trolls.
Only trouble for Microsoft was that it got caught out in its latest attempt.
Microsoft’s hall of shame detailed for example in these two links >
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090908164954318
http://press.redhat.com/2009/09/09/microsoft-and-patent-trolls/
So please explain to me again how Microsoft is now a reformed anti-competitive bully, because its double-dealing clandestine actions sure look like anti-competitive behavior to me.
Microsoft actions as you have outlined them are all simply self-serving attempts to lock in open source PHP projects to run on top of Microsoft IIS, SQL Server, and Azure platforms, that are more expensive than open source alternatives. This benefits nobody but Microsoft, and is therefore hardly something that justifies bouquets of flowers.
This strategy is definitely not “choice beyond marketing” as the writer’s banner suggests. Having ownership of the name Open Source Foundation is a marketing step. Googling “open source” will now discover Microsoft’s foundation at or near the top of the list. Using the word “Foundation” suggests to the public that the organization is the founder of open source, another marketing step.
Adding code to Linux and PHP so they work better with Microsoft products is a marketing step for their own programs.
When the reverse is true, where Microsoft engineers its products to work better with open source programs from other contributers, that can be called “beyond marketing”.
It amazes me that people want to be so forgiving of Microsoft given their history and the fact that they can’t speak without telling half truths and outright lies.
Microsoft has been saying on the one hand that they want to promote interoperability, but except when forced to do so, that interoperability is all one way, and that way is a way that leads to lock in to the Microsoft platform and file formats.
In addition, Microsoft’s behaviour with regard to standards is appalling. Their gaming of the ISO standards system to ram through the OOXML standard is disgraceful and if there were any justice, they would be sanctioned and have their unimplementable standard revoked.
I would love to see Microsoft actually turn over a new leaf and be a good citizen that the open source community could trust and work with, but as long as they continue to say how they want to play nice with the open source community, but then turn around and actively work to undermine it, as most recently demonstrated by their attempted sale of patents to patent trolls for the purpose of attacking Linux and open source, then I would not only not trust them, but would actively discourage others from doing so either.
I lay the blame for Microsoft’s bad behaviour with regard to open source squarely at the feet of the current leadership of the company, specifically Ballmer. He is a plague on the software industry and the sooner he retires the better.
You people think you have to own everything. I’m sick of being compelled to use your lowest common denominator crap software. Don’t crap in Linux’s punchbowl, parasite. Don’t infect Linux with your mediocrity. Don’t act like you’re the friend of anyone. Linux has come as far as it has in spite of your best efforts to kill it. This “un-American cancer” is only toxic to you, and it is going to bury you. Welcome to the dustbin of technology. Its too late for you to posture as if you care about your customers any more than a heroin dealer does. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
@techdog I think we are not our past, we just got to learn from it. Look at ODF Plugfests. They are a reality by now, and I am helping to organize the next one, and Microsoft will be actively taking part to be interoperable with other ODF implementors.
@Frank Daley I have been mentioning the IP issue in past blog posts is a sensitive matter, but it is not easy to get general answers from opensourcers at Microsoft on this, being a transversal issue.
Talking about Microsoft’s adaptation to the open source world, I believe that enabling also Microsoft customers to get advantage of some open source platforms is a win-win. All in all more people will learn about open source software, perception is always the first step towards knowledge.
@Stomfi @333242 I believe that there are other reasons behind the idea to create a foundation than suggesting to the public that the organization is the founder of open source. I don’t know yet if Sam Ramji and his team will be doing something interesting or not, I will probably cover this issue at a later stage, though.
Adding code to Linux and PHP is not a marketing choice, but actually offering Microsoft customers the opportunity to work with both worlds, as they want to. Adaptation in this case came out of necessity, I would say.
@Roberto, I hope your motive is not to sanitize Microsoft. They are beyond redemption, their record say’s that well and truly. They wish to have the FLOSS community working with and for them. I hope you’re not Astroturfing for them. I say I hope because neither I nor anyone else can read what’s inside your head. I just hope it’s not a Richard.
Anyway, good luck with trying to clean up their image among real Programmers.
As I wrote almost one year ago, adaptation is a gradual process. Rereading this blog entry almost one year after is easy to figure out how many things are changed (e.g. initiatives like interoperability bridge, or the CodePlex foundation are out there).
Roberto Galoppini, 
Crabby, 
This strategy is definitely not “choice beyond marketing” as the writer’s banner suggests. Having ownership of the name Open Source Foundation is a marketing step. Googling “open source” will now discover Microsoft’s foundation at or near the top of the list. Using the word “Foundation” suggests to the public that the organization is the founder of open source, another marketing step.
Adding code to Linux and PHP so they work better with Microsoft products is a marketing step for their own programs.
When the reverse is true where Microsoft engineers its products to work better with open source programs from other contributers, that can be called “beyond marketing”.