Why Microsoft Is Being Nicer To Open Source

itwbennett writes "Is open source's growth in emerging markets what is driving Microsoft to say 'we love open source' with an attempt at a straight face? 'The emerging markets (like the BRIC nations) are a huge potential market for Microsoft,' says Brian Proffitt. 'And I believe Redmond is wisely not taking the FUD route on open source software in those markets. Why? Because open source already has some strong roots in the BRIC nations (heck, in Brazil, open source is the whole darn tree), and any attack on open source would be seen as a foreign company attacking local software projects. If Microsoft attacked open source publicly in this environment, a lot of potential customers and developers in those countries could react in a protectionist manner and start giving Microsoft the stink-eye.'"

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The article didn't say or even imply that Microsoft hasn't slammed open source, the whole point was that they're not doing it any more.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

This isnt about Microsofts past attitude, buts its present one, which is a hell of alot nicer then it was before. Microsoft have made several contributions to the Linux kernel, and helped out other projects in other ways.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Hyper-V kernel extensions

Re:Wrong

[bloodhawk]

an article with a somehwat anti MS slant but here is one example for ya. http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/columns/yes_linus_microsoft_hating_disease_and_its_pandemic [freesoftwaremagazine.com]

Re:Wrong

[Robert Zenz]

As far as I know, they were *forced* to because they used GPL-Licensed code.

Re:Wrong

[poetmatt]

ah yes, and hyper v was contributed why again? let's not act like it was out of the goodness of their hearts. It was contributed because it violated the GPL license. [networkworld.com]

It should be noted on this actually, that this speaks volumes about the politeness of open source developers, because they absolutely could have pushed for a lot more to resolve the violation.

Re:Wrong

[HermMunster]

You are living proof that embrace, extend, extinguish works.

Open source was defined many years ago in an effort to ensure that it would not be subjugated and perverted, and that has done it's job for the past 17 years. Microsoft's posted open source license directly conflicts with that definition. Hence, it isn't the real thing.