What does Microsofts decision mean for us?

[tlages]

As many of you may know, Microsoft has now embraced open source.
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/132504.asp?from=blog_last3
So what does this mean for us? I came up with a few idea's.
-Easier integration of Windows API's onto linux.
As much as I love wine, it has bugs. It would be better if Microsoft helped with it.
-GAMES!
Actually make your games compatible with linux, instead of "vista only"

[Mr. Picklesworth]

http://www.linux-foundation.org/weblogs/jzemlin/2008/02/22/ballmer-clarifies-microsoft-announcement/

Careful, Microsoft. Your other heads are showing!


As for the promise not to sue, that's good. Finally, the anti-Mono campaign may be silenced!
EDIT: Leaving that so that future quoters don't appear crazy, but let's not turn this into a Mono flame-war.

I find MIcrosoft's distinction of "commercial" and "non-commercial" rather interesting. They often have the non-commercial version of their software (MS Office Home & Student, in this case) available alongside the commercial stuff. It looks to me that they are trying to make this distinction wider, by making non-commercial licenses to their products (patents included) free. Smells dangerous, to me. This may turn into a rather important debate of ideals; free beer versus freely open software. In theory, this could lose us to the beginning computer users who just want to check their email, leaving Linux distros only with the argument (since those beginning users are generally uninterested in the benefits of open source) that the thing can run on cheaper and simpler hardware (http://www.linutop.com).

[hhhhhx]

Lies!

[Dr Small]

I wouldn't trust them as far as I can see.

[fatality_uk]

It means nothing! This was ANOTHER attempt by Microsoft to throw off the EU from MAKING them remove some restrictions they have put in place in the OS market place.

This is why people resent Microsoft. When Steve Ballmer obfuscates week in and week out


STEVE BALLMER: Patents will be, not freely, will be available.

BRAD SMITH: Readily available.

STEVE BALLMER: Readily available for the right fee. The basic economic analysis that you should go through sort of goes like this. We have valuable intellectual property in our patents, we will continue to view that as valuable intellectual property in all forms, and we will monetize from all users of that, not all developers, but for all users of that patented technology, all commercial developers, and all commercial users of that patented technology.

We also have trade secret information, which we will continue to protect, with the exception of some important trade secret information in the interoperability realm, which we will still value, but we will make available free of charge, so that people can do appropriate interoperability. So from an economic perspective you could say, in some senses, we're opening up. Yet, at the same time, we retain valuable intellectual property assets.

The highlighted section shows that the stance with respect to patents hasn't changed in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM

ATTENTION:
all users of that, not all developers, but for all users of that patented technology
You can infer what you like from that comment, however I see it as Microsoft FUD once again. "All users, yikes if I use Linux for my home or small business, will Microsoft sue me?"

Now if Microsoft EVER get round to issuing the patents under which the breaches have taken place, we might have a clearer picture of what threats they would intend to use in future litigation.