I think the acceptance that Microsoft has changed combined with the persisting, healthy suspicion the company is actually trying to hurt open source in the end shows a couple of things. First, Microsoft is indeed a very large company itself, and this means not only mixed messages, but mixed strategies as well. Second, I think the real change is that Microsoft is now contributing to the legitimacy of open source software by forging long-term deals and projects (Novell AND Red Hat and many others). At the same time, it is true that Microsoft is continuing an aggressive patent and IP-licensing business that does at times involve Linux and open source. However, I think Microsoft’s licensing strategy is more about leveraging its IP wherever it can. If it can do so while avoiding attacks on open source software projects and vendors, I believe it will.

JL

(I’ve posted this same response at your blog, as well).

“Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.” Walt Whitman, Song of Myself

Walt Whitman aside, I see two additional areas of tangible open source traction at Microsoft:

1. The use of Open Pegasus (http://www.openpegasus.org/) within Microsoft System Center.

2. The upcoming greatly expanded Cross Platform (X-Plat) extensions to Microsoft SCOM to allow native OS monitoring for a small, but critical, set of Linuxes, namely RHEL and SLES.

David

You can read my full take on Microsoft’s open source strategy here – http://jamesdixon.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/microsofts-open-source-strategy-i-think

Microsoft and the Linux Foundation are aligned against a common enemy in the ALI, it does not change anything between Microsoft and Linux or open source.

Microsoft learned 10 years ago that it is counter-productive to market against open source. You are correct that Microsoft is not targeting open source, instead they are targeting the users of open source (like TomTom). They can’t scare open source (code) into paying Microsoft, but they can scare users into doing that.

Microsoft’s ideal situation if for us to either pay to use their software, or pay to use a licensed open source product that pays royalties to Microsoft. The Novell deal is a good example of the latter, and now TomTom.

You say that Microsoft has not made any IP accusations for ‘quite some time’. The TomTom suit only started 4 months ago and ended in March. That is a very short time in legal circles. I think it is very premature to say that Microsoft has abandoned a strategy they spent 10 years building up.

As far as I am aware Codeplex does not contain any Microsoft code – ‘CodePlex is hosted by Microsoft. Microsoft does not control, review, revise, endorse or distribute the third party projects on this site.’

What’s worse Microsoft’s ‘shared source’ is for reference only. If you happen to copy any code fragments from it you could be facing a legal battle – ‘You are warned that when you build a run-time image based on an OS design that contains shared source code, your run-time image might contain private code that cannot be released in a product under the terms of the Microsoft EULA’

Microsoft is certainly changing. A few years ago they did not have a discernible open source strategy (but I think they were working on it for years). Since then they have made their strategy known and they started to execute on it (Novell, TomTom). I see no evidence lately that they have given up that strategy.

James