Microsoft could not have bought what is not for sale.

"Microsoft bought a seat at OSCON." should read "OSCON sold a seat to Microsoft" because the latter properly frames the debate to highlight that OSCON is also not your friend.

This is really yet another instance where one can plainly see the substantive difference between "free software" and "open source". I don't see free software activists doing business with software proprietors or inviting software proprietors to their conventions. Free software activists work on replacements for proprietary software so nobody need be tempted to give up their software freedom to do whatever job that proprietary software does. But open source thinks proprietors are okay because catering to business interests (even to the point of working as an unpaid employee of a software proprietor) was the design of that movement—water down the pursuit of freedom until it no longer exists and then try to make it look like that behavior is right and proper.