...the licences were certified, making Microsoft's hundreds of "shared-source" projects open source.
"If this is suddenly certified as true open-source software, it will be a lot harder to draw a bright line between Microsoft and the open-source community," he wrote. "Open source has survived Microsoft's process of 'software Darwinism' and is becoming an ever-more important part of its thinking."
Microsoft's traditional approach to competition has been summarised as "embrace, extend, extinguish", and many industry observers see a similar strategy at play in the company's reaction to open source, with its decentralised development model and commoditising influence.
Patent strategy
Even as it makes moves towards using certified open-source licences for some projects, the company has accelerated its effort to make open-source software projects and users liable to pay licensing fees to Microsoft via a wide-ranging patent strategy, according to Microsoft executives.
Microsoft argues that Linux and other open-source software violates hundreds of Microsoft patents, although it hasn't disclosed what those patents might be.
It has struck deals not to sue over those patents with open-source software companies such as Novell, Xandros and Linspire, and argues that developers and customers not covered by these deals are vulnerable to legal assault.
Read this
Leader: Microsoft's extended error
Most companies are delighted when users find new uses for their software. Microsoft is not most companies…
In mid-November 2006, shortly after the Novell pact was announced, Microsoft chief Steve Ballmer said companies that sell or run Linux, but aren't covered under the Novell deal, were illegally using Microsoft's IP. "We believe every Linux customer basically has an undisclosed balance-sheet liability," he said.
The open-source companies on the receiving end of the deals have said the agreements are mainly about interoperability and don't imply any legal liability.
Earlier in July, Microsoft released documents related to the Linspire agreement specifying that software using the GPLv3 open-source licence isn't covered by the agreement, implying that users of upcoming versions of Samba and other software are violating Microsoft's intellectual property even if they buy their software from Linspire.
Talkback
Nothing new here then!
The article does not mention that users of Linspire are required to pay Microsoft, a charge, which Linspire are initially absorbing. Presumably this is for the unspecified patent infringements.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't American law specifiy that if anyone has a complaint about patent infringement, they are obliged to give details of the infringememt or loose their rights to persue the complaint, rather than demand Mafia style 'Protection'.
Furthermore, to take a leaf out of the judge's ruling in the Facebook/ConnectU case, show the evidence (for the open source patent transgressions in this case).
I fear that Microsoft, and their lawyers, are still on the course to embrace, etc., and ultimately to acquire Open Source IP for themselves.
Don't hold your breath on M$ doing the right thing on this. Their record speaks for itself, and they will continue to pursue open source as an enemy to destroy all competition. This is normal for a company that has an inferior product.