"It would be easy enough, for example, for FOSS supporters to offer Microsoft a license to use code developed for Linux free of the GPLv3 restrictions, in exchange for the right to use Windows software."

Huh? A major motivation for the creation of free software is many programmers' belief that Microsoft's products are shoddy software. Linux hackers have zero interest in using Windows software. So why would they be interested in exempting Microsoft from the GPL in exchange for access to software they have no interest in using?

Because Microsoft's technologies are more widely diffused, and adopted by consumers, than FOSS technologies (at least in some technical spaces). To some computer geeks, their opinion matters most, to everyone else, the market matters most.

Everyone wins with collaboration. Nobody wins when religious sects seek to fragment the technology community.

Noel, that doesn't make any sense. Whether Microsoft's software is "widely diffused" or not, the point is that the people developing free software have no interest in using it. So why would they be interested in giving up concessions to Microsoft in exchange for software that's not useful to them?

Tim, so you see no tradeoff in FOSS firms working with Microsoft, and you think FOSS makes better technology. Fine. I'm not here to read FOSS developers' mind, nor judge developers. Even with that in mind, its obvious that FOSS customers would benefit from FOSS firms working with MSFT, society would benefit from the collaboration of entities from divergent development and business models, technical progress would result from the transfer of knowledge.

"It would be easy enough, for example, for FOSS supporters to offer Microsoft a license to use code developed for Linux free of the GPLv3 restrictions, in exchange for the right to use Windows software."

Tim was too kind. I am unable to understand the mental confusion which would be required to lead anyone to make to such an abberant statement.

FOSS software was created by many, many individuals who have licensed the software with the expectation that they would receive any improvements that would ever be made to such software, if those improvements were distributed. Why would they suddenly change their mind? Would MS suddenly start giving their software away?

Additionally, there seems to be nothing that could get you to acknowledge the freedom component of FOSS software. I am not asking to agree with it; just to acknowledge that component exists and is important to many developers. understanding that fact is a precondition to being able to comment intelligently on FOSS.

"1) The structure of the piece is odd. The last 75% is thoughtful and nuanced. But the beginning! It reads as if Fortune got Eben Moglen, the FOSS movements propagandist in chief, to write the lead. It is all Microsoft being mean to the heroic open sourcers, and declaring war on corporate America in the bargain. Basically silly stuff."

Yes, silly stuff in that it is a MS characticure of Free Software advocates.

"4) There is an inconsistency in the FOSS claim that it is somehow unfair when patents are enforced against FOSS software. A claim of the movement is that open source is a superior way of producing software. Were this so, there would be no need to piggyback on other work.'

FOSS does not in fact piggyback on anyone else's work. That is why MS cannot reveal which patents are at issue, because they know their claims could not withstand public scrutiny.

Case in point is Microsoft's fraudulant patent on desktop pager--a feature that was part of CDE and also many linux desktops such as blackbox prior to MS patents.

MS is sounding very much like SCO did--claiming to have oodles of evidence of infringment, and then being unwilling to show their evidence, in public.

This move, though, is really an act of desperation, and may be good for a little uptick of their stock. But in the end, threat to sue your customers is not a way to build your business.

***FOSS software was created by many, many individuals who have licensed the software with the expectation that they would receive any improvements that would ever be made to such software, if those improvements were distributed. Why would they suddenly change their mind?***

Uhh, Enigma, have you heard of dual licensing? FOSS entities do it all the time, depending on when they want to tout freedom, and when they want to make money and eat.

Yes, Noel I have heard of dual icensing, and that can work when one entity ownes the copyright for a particular program.

For example Trolltech dual licenses the QT libraries on which KDE is built.

However, the linux kernel, which is what was under discusion here, was produced by many, and many hold copyright to their respective contribution.

Actually, letting Ballmer destroy Microsoft is a great strategy for everyone else. I was waiting for him to do something really crazy, and this impotent declaration of total patent war against Microsoft's customers & competitors should to do the trick of sending Microsoft to the bottom. :)