What Microsoft's Open Source Gestures Really MeanWhat Microsoft's Open Source Gestures Really Mean

I've already commented on the meaning of Microsoft's contributions to the Linux kernel and releasing extensions for Moodle, but after going over what I wrote I thought some more analysis of the present and future of Microsoft's open source strategies are worth talking about. And no, pigs are still not flying, although they're getting mighty light-footed.

First: Microsoft is doing this for itself, and that's no big deal. Nobody on the corporate level who contributes to an open source project is doing so out of the goodness of their heart. That's not cynicism, that's realism. Microsoft's contributions to the kernel allow for a better use of Linux in conjunction with Windows, for reasons that benefit them about as equally as others.

But most any corporate kernel contributors are doing something similar and for similar reasons. Hardware vendors release kernel drivers for Linux as a way of bumping up sales, so why shouldn't Microsoft release a kernel module to bump up their own software sales? The typical counterargument here is that every Windows Server license sold is one less Linux support contract sold, or something to that effect, but that's often from the mouths of the same people who've spent a lot of time trying to prove Windows and Linux aren't equivalent properties anyway.

Second: There is little chance this means any of Microsoft's existing closed-source projects will go open source. Microsoft just doesn't work that way. Every now and then I hear some silly call amongst the tech punditry to open source some older version of Windows and I just shake my head in dismay. One, they probably couldn't do it even if they wanted to, and two, nobody on either side is served by such a gesture; it's better to move forward. If Microsoft ever offers open core products, they will be entirely new items built from the ground up in public -- not open source versions of legacy things.

Third: #2 aside, there will be more open source from Microsoft, but for now it will consist of components and add-ons, not core products. Also, so far everything they've released personally or worked on has been server-level material, not really what people use on their desktops -- and that may be due to open source having made its biggest strides in that sphere. Their future open source contributions and releases are not going to be core products either for the server or desktop, but auxiliaries. I've noted before that this is sort of the inverse of the "open core" strategy: here, they sell you the platform and products, but the bonus bits and connectivity extras would be open.

Fourth: Expect Microsoft to either tread all the more lightly when it comes to patent issues from now on. The last time I spoke to Sam Ramji, Microsoft's open source point man, he made it clear that he'd done his best to send signals back up the chain of command that saber-rattling was not productive. Since then there was the TomTom lawsuit -- which some people interpreted as an attack on Linux, but in my opinion was an attack on, well, TomTom. Now that they have both feet in the pool, so to speak, they'll need to work twice as hard to avoid making waves. This isn't to say they shouldn't protect their IP when it's warranted, but that they should expend the extra effort to not make such things look like attacks on Linux or open source per se. Maybe this wouldn't amount to anything more than a carefully-worded court filing when the next bit of legal action comes along, but it's now doubly imperative they do it that way.

information Analytics has published an independent analysis of the next-generation Web applications. Download the report here (registration required).

Follow me and the rest of information on Twitter.