In light of very recent news, consider just how Microsoft is already abducting "open source" and changing the rules

"Two Slashdot posts and a long meeting with Microsoft really got me to thinking about whether Microsoft really likes, or doesn’t like, the new GPL version and how its strategy, with regard to open source in general, has been changing over the past few years."

t seems we’ve arrived upon Microsoft open source. In the last couple of years, whenever there was discussion of Microsoft’s open source projects and efforts such as CodePlex or Port25, there was typically the standard open source response: it’s not OSI-approved; it’s not real open source.

Much of the reaction from FOSS folks to news that Microsoft is joining the Open Source Census centers on concern that Microsoft is out to find open source users and what open source software they’re using. I think that may be exactly right.

Will Microsoft become more open to open source with the departure of Bill Gates? It’s a tough call. Observers from both the open and closed source worlds say the exit of Microsoft’s longtime leader won’t usher in a GPL era at the company but it will likely accelerate what is already a changing attitude in Redmond.

At OSBC, a company exec noted that Microsoft relies upon a diverse ecosystem that includes open source to satisfy customers

For those who have fret about Microsoft fighting against open source, I have news for you: Microsoft's impact on open source may be worse as a friend than as an enemy.

One minute ago Microsoft made one of its first "open source" moves under the new Microsoft Reference License: the team in Redmond announced they'll make some .NET libraries available. I say "open source" because to me, open source means you can easily access a .tar or .zip of the code. Microsoft's effort is a bit more cumbersome.

The rumors are true. Microsoft (news, site) has an official open source license that was approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) — the Ms-PL, or Microsoft Public License. Since they have licensed their latest offering ASP.NET MVC 1.0 under the Ms-PL, we thought we would take a look at the license terms. Is there an evil catch somewhere in the terms and conditions?