Microsoft's motives in seeking open-source blessing
Glyn Moody has written a probing article in LinuxJournal asking a tough question: "Why is Microsoft seeking official blessing of its shared-source licenses?" It's not as if the company is hard-up for money, and getting Open Source Initiative approval for a few licenses is unlikely to further shareholder interests.
So, what gives?
In Glyn's view, the answer lies in what the move could help Microsoft do to open source: fracture it. While I'm not one for discrimination, I do believe that it's worth taking a closer look at Glyn's theory and keeping it in mind as the OSI reviews Microsoft's licenses.
Glyn suggests that Microsoft is looking for ways to embrace open source without appearing like a hypocrite. But its motives go deeper, as Glyn writes:
This, I think, goes to the heart of Microsoft's open source strategy. As well as adopting those aspects of an alternative development model that it finds useful, Microsoft is aiming to blunt the undeniable power of openness by hollowing it out. If OOXML is an open standard, and some of its own software licenses become OSI-approved, Microsoft will be able to claim that it, too, is an open standard, open source company. For many busy managers, subject to all kinds of demands - including increasing pressure to "go open source" - the difference between Microsoft's open source and real open source won't matter, in the same way that the difference between Microsoft's open file formats and those of the OpenDocument Format won't really matter. In terms of keeping people happy, what matters for many is the label - the appearance of going open - and Microsoft's moves aim to provide just that.
This seems like a reasonable theory to me. It's in Microsoft's interest to hold off any real change in its business or licensing models for as long as possible, and this strategy gives it cover. In addition, Glyn is surely right about how blase people can be about the open-source label - we spent nearly two years wading through various companies that called themselves open source, but were not. We still run into this.
My question, though, is what this means for the OSI, since I'm an OSI board member. I don't feel comfortable discriminating against Microsoft, whatever its intentions. It strikes me that given the emotions and stakes involved, any decision should meet a "strict scrutiny" standard of review.
What do you think? How can the OSI give Microsoft the chance without making open source a sham?
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
This is a great debating article...
On a personal note I am a Microsoft loather - most of their products are inferior, poorly implemented and unreliable. And they play very unfairly in the competitive marketplace. I am an Open Source advocate.
However, I tend to lean toward your view on this: For the Open Source community to be seen to be biased or anti-M$ for no good reason would play straight into their hands I believe. Their proposed licenses should be scrutinised with utmost care and, if found to be compliant with the OSI's standpoint, should be approved as Open Source licenses.
There are literally hundreds of other avenues with which to [fairly] criticise M$ (OOXML, Anti-trust, Licensing scams, bully-boy tactics and - oh yes, crap products too). We just need to get more vocal. M$ is clearly getting rattled by the momentum and rapid growth of OSS. Most of their early competitors are now either wholly or significantly adopting OSS so they are becoming more and more isolated. Unless they can really change their spots (which I doubt) they will ultimately fail by going down the evolutionary equivalent of a dead-end street; rather than by the actions of any particular competitor or single attack.
There are two commentators who I would strongly recommend reading to understand just how BAD M$ really is
John Scholes: http://doyoulovems.com/ and
Sam Hiser: http://fussnotes.typepad.com/plexnex/
And for a view on what M$ are doing to try and force OOXML through - just read some of the news items on the noooxml.org site. It is just plain scary how they can get away with this sort of thing in today's age. Where are governments and law enforcement agencies when you need them?
Sorry for rambling but this is a big bug bear for me. I'd love to see M$ crash and burn - but within the rules of the game. Find their bad practices and wrongdoings and flaws and SHOUT about them....