What they [Microsoft] are not telling you is the why behind all of this. Why are they establishing an open source policy in the first place? Why not start a misleading marketing plan and discredit Linux and its fellow open source applications right out of business?
Well, for one thing, they have. And, for the most part, it did not work. People in IT looked at the Get the Facts campaign and decided that facts were something the campaign seriously lacked. In the end, all it seemed to do was bring more attention to Linux than before, leading many IT organizations to come to the conclusion that Linux is indeed a viable alternative.
[...]
I will admit that this may be a reach. But I also think, with Microsoft's ongoing legal woes and the threat of the LAMP space forever closed to them using their traditional business practices, this whole notion of competing with open source on open source terms does not sound so far fetched.
If this is the plan, the OSS community should be ready to respond.
“The platform is still a common carrier to other products.”At the end of the day, Microsoft wants the "L" squeezed out of LAMP. Sun Microsystems, by the way, wants an "S" (or "OS", for OpenSolaris) to replace that "L". The platform is still a common carrier to other products. Just consider the number of applications a GNU/Linux distribution comes with.
With the Novell deal (and its succession), Microsoft sought to subvert the GPLv2. The FOSS 'taxation' Microsoft hopes to introduce is its best chance of keeping Windows relevant. If there is a significant problem at the moment, this is it. Licences often make the software and defend its success. ⬆